Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Codex model is perfectly sustainable. It’s served them well for decades and fans reward them with record profits pretty much without fail.

It’s subscription gaming without the conspicuous fee showing up on your bank account.

drbored wrote:
Well, ironically, if they wouldn't push a new edition every 3 years, then they'd have plenty of time to update all the codexes within the first 2 and still have 2+ years to enjoy them, give us campaign books and supplements, and try to actually balance the game...

But that doesn't sell books. They don't get money when people play games, they get money when people buy the books to play the games.

Nothing is going to change in that regard unless people stop buying the codexes.

It wouldn't matter even if codex were free. Point is to change rules so people(especially tournament try hards) by new models and armies to chase new hotness.

Gt wants you to buy models.

I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

8th didn't start that well, remember. The indexes were still an unbalanced mess of conscript and razorback spam, terrain rules were virtually non-existent, and assault weapons never worked as written...

It was still in a state that was playable without having to dig through geological layers of rules, unlike what it became around the mid point.

Someone new to the hobby, could be given the rule pamphlet, and an index book for their force and they'd be OK to play. At rhe mid point that would not happen.

 stonehorse wrote:
It was still in a state that was playable without having to dig through geological layers of rules, unlike what it became around the mid point.

Given that this is the 8th iteration of a game that charges about £50 for its core rulebook alone, we don't seem to be setting the bar especially high.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
8th didn't start that well, remember.

I don't, I remember the opposite as there was a huge push to the game with people coming back and it big start compared to what was left at the end of 7th
that 8th was not balanced well, but it was much better than the game before and therefore it was good enough for most people

same will be with 10th, it will be good enough for most people to come back as it does not need to be good, just better than before
(and this is also what GW is aiming for, make the game worse over time so you can be easily be better with a new Edition and get money back without investing anything)

Not sure that's true. I don't believe GW deliberately bloats and over complicates it's games. GW I think is constantly wrestling with how to improve and/or maintain its revenue. Selling models is one way and arguably the best way but ultimately designing new sculpts and then writing new rules in the volumes needed across even the top X most popular factions is probably beyond GWs resources.

New rules and game modes are likely much quicker and easier to turn around and sell via supplements. However these inevitably lead to bloat, complexity and player dissatisfaction. This then is usually the driver for new editions and resets.

I'm excited for tenth and I've liked everything they have announced so far. I also think they could (emphasis on could) solve the issue I mentioned above with the 'one in one out' approach to army/faction rules. Ultimately, if all you need to bring to play is those two pages of rules then it doesn't matter if you've got 10 sets of two page rules to choose from or 5. You only need the two pages that apply to your army.

Plus, in the competitive scene, you could just share the two pages of rules for the army you're using with your opponent before the game.

 stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

Yep. I am still flabbergasted people falling for this scam in 2023.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

Yep. I am still flabbergasted people falling for this scam in 2023.

that's the worst part. Any other company would be laughed at and forced to change by people not falling for it. But GW is actually rewarded for it time and time again with zealotry and record profits

I don't think GW will ever be able to reduce bloat willingly or unwillingly unless they start sunsetting units.

At this point half of the Space Marines Codex could easily be sunset in regards to the game balance. Space Marines is perhaps the most bloated corpse of all(I'd say Stormcast is second as they get a new chamber every edition).

The worst part is that this eternal bloat means that these two factions are perhaps the most annoying to collect and paint because they are always getting new stuff. Hell, I've given up on Marines and Stormcast as I can't be bothered at this point.

After the IG Faux Pas, I don't know...

10th has the same issue as every other new "Edition"... They are great on selling you a lemon off the lot with a shiny new paint job. It's only until a couple of months past the next New Guy writer trying to cut their teeth that you get these ham fisted codex's that in turn try to impose the ridiculous units like the Nerf-gun Brigade, or the "Improved" Orks who aren't orks anymore.

As long as I've been playing, I almost have an army per faction, so when you see something that you once played a fairly balanced game with, devolve into a Peen measuring contest, it doesn't really matter at that point.

GW's going to GW. You learn to live with it after you go through it time after time, or you tap out.

My genuine biggest beef with the codex system has always been the way in which they arbitrarily nullify models just out of spite, or because of the inability fore the writer to actually do their job. A 6 pack of beer over a post game discussion wealds a lot more credibility to me then some of these writers have. It becomes glaringly clear that there are some over in GW who are nowhere near the quality that their past game designers have been, and at the time- It seems like we took talent for granted, as the end users.

I might have to take a step back for a year on this one, until I see if the 10th edition "Improvements" are worth my time.

It'll give me time to catch up on buying my Space Hulk 4X8 multi-level board.

 stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.

The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.

GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.

drbored wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.

The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.

GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.

There are always new people who age up into the core demo they're aiming for that start to get excited about 40k as well. It's a balancing act and as long as they keep those monthly releases coming then (at least recently since 7th edition) the odds/numbers seem to be in their favor.

As long as GW keeps getting rewarded with record profits and selling out of releases immediately they'll continue to learn nothing except their smoke and mirrors scamming works.

Just a little heads-up, i went over the OP and tallied the rumours that we now know to be mostly true, false, ambiguous and the ones that are still pending - in annoying colours, no less! I also removed the thematic summaries for 10th edition and the starter box because maintaining them further makes no sense, and removed the obviously fake stuff from the summaries for SM and Tyranids to improve readability.

The next steps will be a detailled tally of especially Valrak's predictions, and a detailled re-analysis of the 50 page pdf in light of stuff we know for sure now, but i can't promise when i'll get to it.

That's all, for now, carry on carrying on.

New puff piece on Warhammer Community.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/27/what-does-simplified-not-simple-mean-for-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Yes it’s a puff piece, but hopefully some interesting nuggets.

Nothing new there.

It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.

Makes me feel they take out all the stratagems that where effectively useless, but left in all the powerful ones.
Solves only half the issues with them so meh.

I can't help but cynically gloat at that interview. Oh my, at one point you realized, that having to look for 6+ rules in 3 books, 2 Erratas/FAQs and countless stratagems, just to realize if your hit roll actually hit and then have to do it again for every roll afterwards might be bloated? Oh my, who would have thought. Have you seen the latest AoS Battle reports? It's basically a special rule poping up with a ding every 3 seconds now, almost as bad as a person with notification and tapping sounds for their instant messenger on a train. That didn't stop you from delivering broken Codex after Codex now, didn't it?

And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.

10th promises to be as rubbish as 9th all over again.

The wording about rules selection makes it sound like any allies rules are being taken out the back and shot in the head again.

Dudeface wrote:
The wording about rules selection makes it sound like any allies rules are being taken out the back and shot in the head again.

For about five minutes probably, until they release specific detachments or whatever which represent allied forces or have allies built-in.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Nothing new there.

Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.

Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The wording about rules selection makes it sound like any allies rules are being taken out the back and shot in the head again.

For about five minutes probably, until they release specific detachments or whatever which represent allied forces or have allies built-in.

Quite likely but it's that back and forth uncertainty that leads to people having fractured armies, being unwilling to invest in some allies etc.

 GiToRaZor wrote:


And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover.

There's literally nothing wrong with this, relax LOL

Voss wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Nothing new there.

Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.

Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.

I was waiting for the "Why did we move this from the Datasheet to a Stratagem?" moment, to be frank.

 GiToRaZor wrote:
I can't help but cynically gloat at that interview. Oh my, at one point you realized, that having to look for 6+ rules in 3 books, 2 Erratas/FAQs and countless stratagems, just to realize if your hit roll actually hit and then have to do it again for every roll afterwards might be bloated? Oh my, who would have thought. Have you seen the latest AoS Battle reports? It's basically a special rule poping up with a ding every 3 seconds now, almost as bad as a person with notification and tapping sounds for their instant messenger on a train. That didn't stop you from delivering broken Codex after Codex now, didn't it?

And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.

10th promises to be as rubbish as 9th all over again.

You realize in those aos reports they keep repeating same rule constantly?

You get lots of rule popups if you show same rule every time it pops up.

In 40k terms take that termagaunt move reaction. Pop up rule on video every time enemy finishes move near termagaunt unit and termagaunt moves. How many pop ups that happen?

Or pop up every time command reroll is used showing reroll rule

(rather irritating way to do report though. No i don't need to see same rule nth time tyvm)

Billicus wrote:
It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.

Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GiToRaZor wrote:
And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.