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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.

The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.

The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

just wait, around will come 11th and those options will suddenly matter again, sucks to be someone who now has an "illegal" loadout...

and no I'm in no way bitter I built a single Zoenthrope & pair of Venomthropes from one box and not can't use either

nooooo not bitter at all

 Arschbombe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.

The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

the kits dictating the rules is a big fething meme honestly.

Havocs
Crisis/Commander suits

also don't have all their options in the kit, right now the meta build for crisis isnt even doable with what comes in the kit and everyone has to print cyclic ion blasters

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.

The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

the kits dictating the rules is a big fething meme honestly.

Havocs
Crisis/Commander suits

also don't have all their options in the kit, right now the meta build for crisis isnt even doable with what comes in the kit and everyone has to print cyclic ion blasters

Weirdly crisis suits you would think would be perfect for a trimming down of options for this reason, give them 1 weapon that can be taken in multiples with 2-3 firing modes ala oblits and model as you please.

Dudeface wrote:


Weirdly crisis suits you would think would be perfect for a trimming down of options for this reason, give them 1 weapon that can be taken in multiples with 2-3 firing modes ala oblits and model as you please.

Yeah, they've always been a mess tbh, too many different weapon options and GW had to forcefully force people to not spam a single one in the past, so you were forced by the rules to run squads that fired 3+ different profiles often (which is a pain in the ass IMO)

given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty

 Arschbombe wrote:
The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

Nice try, but we've already established GW's inconsistencies.

Moreover, 10th has seen an expansion of no model/no rules into kit-based unit size restrictions.

leopard wrote:
given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty

even with the penalty not in the calculations, running monoloadout is still the best choice

leopard wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.

The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

just wait, around will come 11th and those options will suddenly matter again, sucks to be someone who now has an "illegal" loadout...

and no I'm in no way bitter I built a single Zoenthrope & pair of Venomthropes from one box and not can't use either

nooooo not bitter at all

Happened to me in 10th edition already. Apparently deathwatch aren't allowed to take a non-bolter ranged weapon and a melee weapon anymore. It's Non-bolter weapon, Bolter+shield, Bolter+Melee Weapon, melee weapon+shield and that's it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

leopard wrote:
given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty

even with the penalty not in the calculations, running monoloadout is still the best choice

certainly the best for player sanity, now we have "reduced lethality" even to take down big stuff you need a good volume of shots, which by pure coincidence will usually also do a decent number of weaker stuff as well

only have one unit of three so far, six CIB and three flamers, they do ok

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.

Nice try, but we've already established GW's inconsistencies.

Moreover, 10th has seen an expansion of no model/no rules into kit-based unit size restrictions.

Base off the latest legions imperialis leaks, even it strangely has a much more accurate/detailed weapons list in terms of wysiwyg than 10th ed.

Because it is an army level game, and everyone knows the more models there are on the table the more detailed the rules need to be

 kodos wrote:
Because it is an army level game, and everyone knows the more models there are on the table the more detailed the rules need to be

At a quarter the scale as well, so what's 40k's excuse?

GW doesn't want to work on rules too much, while at the same time wants people to own huge armies, preferably multiple armies, for all their games?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because it is an army level game, and everyone knows the more models there are on the table the more detailed the rules need to be

At a quarter the scale as well, so what's 40k's excuse?

Different author?

Dudeface wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because it is an army level game, and everyone knows the more models there are on the table the more detailed the rules need to be

At a quarter the scale as well, so what's 40k's excuse?

Different author?

aimed at different players, the new Epic is aiming at nostalgia players who remember the game as it was, not the "perfected" but incredibly bland final version

at least with the new rules leak epic isn't a total free for all on weapon options, and with luck with say a Russ the hull heavy bolter will be situationally as useful as the hull lascannon.. maybe

 Overread wrote:
Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.

Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.

That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.

Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.

That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.

What would iterating on 9th look like to you?

 vict0988 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.

Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.

That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.

What would iterating on 9th look like to you?

An iteration would be keeping the majority of rules functioning the same way they did in 9th edition. Changes would be small/marginal. For example removing point costs for wargear and removing the psychic phase are BIG changes to the games core structure from 9th edition. So chances are you wouldn't do either of them. This would also mean most of the 9th codex would function with 10th edition more or less.

The idea would be more that a 10th edition would re-release the core rules material with all the FAQ/Errata documents baked into them (that's 3 years of updates alone); coupled with a few slightly bigger changes, but still small.

It would be all about making corrections and adjustments instead of straight up changing how the game is played and how it functions.

at this point 10th from 9th should be very small changes, basically rolling in what limited errata the 9th had over the 8th (which would itself have been evolution not revolution). plus any clarifications, perhaps revising diagrams to remove ambiguity and clarify edge cases identified

then any new mechanics required, e.g. rules from supplements related to new unit types or abilities being rolled into the core rules

the bulk of previous codexes, campaign books etc being largely compatible with a few sections replaced by the new book

finally evolved scenarios, any new methods to play (e.g. the combat patrol level game) added

the result would be a better set of rules, explained better, perhaps flowing better and taking on board lessons about how easy they are to learn for new players as well as how easy they are to reference for existing players - a commentary for existing players highlighting changes to previous rules and rule by rule noting the designers intent and intended functionality

I think in reality there isn't that much of a change overall though between 9th and 10th?

The USR's are just gathering and codifying rules that units largely had dotted around anyway. The free wargear isn't technically a core rules game mechanic and was also a thing in 9th. The unrestricted force organisation was again more or less a thing by the end of 9th.

The only parts that I think facilitates it not being an iterative change is the removal of the psychic phase. Battleshock is just supplanting the remove-more morale and OC/T scales are stat changes that facilitated the indexes, but not a core rules issue specifically.

Dudeface wrote:
I think in reality there isn't that much of a change overall though between 9th and 10th?

The USR's are just gathering and codifying rules that units largely had dotted around anyway. The free wargear isn't technically a core rules game mechanic and was also a thing in 9th. The unrestricted force organisation was again more or less a thing by the end of 9th.

The only parts that I think facilitates it not being an iterative change is the removal of the psychic phase. Battleshock is just supplanting the remove-more morale and OC/T scales are stat changes that facilitated the indexes, but not a core rules issue specifically.

Yeah. Maybe this is special pleading - but the 9th->10th evolution seems reasonably clear. In terms of scoring there are some differences, but a lot of follow through.

Sure the codexes got revised - but by 9th we were at the point where basically every unit killed every other unit with their 30+ S10 AP-5 ignore invuls 3 damage weapons. (It was however balanced because everything was like this, unlike 10th where about 2/3rds of units got the memo and a third did not). GW had to have a reset so they could bring in the inevitable creep again. But in terms of the game it feels fairly iterative. 8th to 9th was arguably a bigger shift in terms of "how you played" - even if the codexes carried over.

The basic issue you have with the idea GW should be approaching a final edition is that codex creep sells. Churn sells. New systems and supplements sell. But eventually the bloat makes it impractical to play - and impossible to start. This has always been a problem for miniatures games - and those which can't produce this system of resets tend to just die despite the fact they were at one point in a healthy position. (See for example Warmahordes and X-Wing).

In a few word, you say that churn makes hype, sort of?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
In a few word, you say that churn makes hype, sort of?

It's a mechanic to drive marketing and interest primarily yes. You change what's "good" or how things work and it keeps people interested in seeing how their existing collections change, inevitably gives them a reason to re-invest or try a new army. New editions also give them an excuse to handily charge for dead trees that are connected and used as a reasonable excuse to add new kits and options. People get excited and look forward to the point that their rules get a bit of love, which the churn ensures happens every couple of years at the least. Add in kill team units and other random side-game models they can use or campaign material and the idea is people are always fishing for that new interesting information.

Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset
even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop

the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it

yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)

saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it
while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl

I'm not really upset by producing new "specialists" or side games to be fair, or actual fleshed out supplements.

While I do agree that the churn may totally be a marketing strategy as discussed way earlier in this thread, to me it was not necessarly as a hype engine. Rather as a heavy handed attempts at forcing people hands, considering the kind of changes we get, and then people getting more or less enthusiasts when they look at what happened to their army.

I was not under the impression that their was that much hype, but I probably ovrlooked this in fact.

 kodos wrote:
Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset
even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop

the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it

yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)

saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it
while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl

Flames of War going from V3 to V4 didn't exactly go down all that well with the players

to the point Battlefront took down their own forums over it

How does one come to the conclusion that 10th isn't an iteration of 8th and 9th?

The one thing that was reset were the codices, and pretty much everyone agreed that they were by far the biggest cause of problems in 9th and beyond salvation.

All official narrative resources as well as game modes work fine in 10th with minor or no changes, boarding action even got updated for 10th.

If you really wanted, you could just play a 9th edition codex in 10th, it wouldn't be much different from someone playing a 3rd edition codex in 5th or a 4th edition codex in 6th - which was a rather normal thing to do.

leopard wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset
even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop

the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it

yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)

saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it
while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl

Flames of War going from V3 to V4 didn't exactly go down all that well with the players
to the point Battlefront took down their own forums over it

locally people changed from FoW to Battlegroup with V3 as the changes to the unit rules release so did not know that there was another drop with V4

 Jidmah wrote:

So you are saying that codices were fine and could have been salvaged?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/800928.page#11221211
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/804551.page#11345111
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/804591.page#11347335

Seems like 9th edition vipoid didn't think so.

I don't believe Vipoid means that codex in 9th were fine; he's meaning that you are incorrect in your assessment that the only thing which changed were the codex.

Removing the a whole phase from the structure of the game is a pretty big change to the core rules. Adjusting the game to run without modular model designs (ergo upgrades free/no upgrades) is also a big fundamental change to the game structure.

Again this isn't GW making small adjustments to refine the game, but big ones that change the nature of play of whole segments of the game. Sure you can kind of make an old codex work; but its going to have issues that will make it not work as intended.