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.

The core rules were the entire reason that we ended up with borked codices. It's like blaming bad bricks because you demanded that your house be built on quicksand.

If you want a good game then you need to start with a solid foundation - not the shallow puddle of piss that was the 9th edition core rulebook.

The problem is that the rules were shallow to the point of being almost nonexistent. Units can move, shoot, hit things, and maybe do some magic (of which there is 1 core spell). There is no nuance to any of these mechanics (e.g. units can't dig in, go to ground, set up overwatches in lieu of shooting etc.). Nor are any USRs, special rules or other core mechanics that armies can build on.

Thus, one of the main reasons the 9th edition codices were so bloated was that they were basically having to work almost from scratch. For example, older editions had USRs that could be used to add thematic and functional mechanics to units, weapons or the like. But in 9th there were no USRs, so writers for each book were left to try and invent their own rules for each unit and weapon, probably with little communication between them.

Similarly, you've got a vague idea at each faction having a core mechanic and also a purity mechanic (the latter being lost if they ally). Honestly, the latter probably shouldn't have existed at all but GW was too busy overcorrecting for a problem it had already solved. Anyway, the lack of any depth to the core rules meant that all of these again were left entirely up to the designers to figure out because the core rules left absolutely nothing to build on. Thus, some armies got mechanics revolving around manipulating Fate Dice, Miracle Dice or the like, whilst others got 'AP-1 on a 6 to wound in melee.'.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that the core rules were about as flavourful as a bucket of wallpaper paste. Thus, once again, any rules to represent the fluff of a model, subfaction or such had to be invented from scratch, because the core rules offered absolutely nothing to work with.

Put simply, if you don't want codices to be bloated then you have to actually put some effort into the core rules, so that the codices are merely building on top of already solid foundation, rather than each one having to try and make its own core rules.

I should perhaps make it clear that I am in no way praising 9th's codices. What I am saying is that to claim they were the sole issue as though they somehow corrupted the poor, innocent core rules is to miss the wood for the trees. The core rules were the entire reason we ended up with bloated codices overstuffed with bespoke rules.

Well, 10th is clearly closer to 8th/9th than 8th was to 7th. It's also further away from 9th than 9th was from 8th (9th basically was: incorporated FaQ, new mission styles, small changes in morale rules, more detailed terrain rules, and worse points costs).
If you knew the basics of 8th you won't have many problems in dealing with 10th.
Many rules you already knew became a USR.
Engagement range was shortened.
Psychic powers and morale got a big change.
Points were thrown out the window in favor of rebranded Power level.
But overall it follows the same design philosophy: Pretty straight forward core rules, detailed datasheets. IGOUGO structure with added decision making in the form of stratagems. Units all behave the same basically and you don't need additional game aids aside from dice and a range ruler. The missions saw smaller changes between 9th and 10th than between 8th and 9th I'd say.

So, looking in the future I wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years or so, people view 8th - 10th as one era of the game, just like we throw 3rd and 7th together now, which actually are quite different from each other, probably moreso than 8th and 10th.

 vipoid wrote:

The core rules were the entire reason that we ended up with borked codices. It's like blaming bad bricks because you demanded that your house be built on quicksand.

If you want a good game then you need to start with a solid foundation - not the shallow puddle of piss that was the 9th edition core rulebook.

The problem is that the rules were shallow to the point of being almost nonexistent. Units can move, shoot, hit things, and maybe do some magic (of which there is 1 core spell). There is no nuance to any of these mechanics (e.g. units can't dig in, go to ground, set up overwatches in lieu of shooting etc.). Nor are any USRs, special rules or other core mechanics that armies can build on.

Thus, one of the main reasons the 9th edition codices were so bloated was that they were basically having to work almost from scratch. For example, older editions had USRs that could be used to add thematic and functional mechanics to units, weapons or the like. But in 9th there were no USRs, so writers for each book were left to try and invent their own rules for each unit and weapon, probably with little communication between them.

Similarly, you've got a vague idea at each faction having a core mechanic and also a purity mechanic (the latter being lost if they ally). Honestly, the latter probably shouldn't have existed at all but GW was too busy overcorrecting for a problem it had already solved. Anyway, the lack of any depth to the core rules meant that all of these again were left entirely up to the designers to figure out because the core rules left absolutely nothing to build on. Thus, some armies got mechanics revolving around manipulating Fate Dice, Miracle Dice or the like, whilst others got 'AP-1 on a 6 to wound in melee.'.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that the core rules were about as flavourful as a bucket of wallpaper paste. Thus, once again, any rules to represent the fluff of a model, subfaction or such had to be invented from scratch, because the core rules offered absolutely nothing to work with.

Put simply, if you don't want codices to be bloated then you have to actually put some effort into the core rules, so that the codices are merely building on top of already solid foundation, rather than each one having to try and make its own core rules.

I should perhaps make it clear that I am in no way praising 9th's codices. What I am saying is that to claim they were the sole issue as though they somehow corrupted the poor, innocent core rules is to miss the wood for the trees. The core rules were the entire reason we ended up with bloated codices overstuffed with bespoke rules.

Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th. There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.

The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.

Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did). Most of what you say is needed for depth also hasn't existed for decades in places, it's not a problem unique to 9th by any stretch.





I'd also argue that nothing in the core rules of the game actually care if your weapons are a consolidated profile, free or not. Those are simply design choices for unit construction and balance rather than a shift in the core rules of the game. Remember, many units had 0 points upgrades in 9th and the entire marine faction did by the end, so it clearly was compatible with 9th (if that's what you liked at least).

 Jidmah wrote:
So you are actually saying that 10th edition core rules are a full reset of the rules?
Because that would be a highly irrational stance to take.

well, it is easier to say what stayed the same than what was changed and even minor changes can have a big impact on how the game plays/works
just because some stuff is still similar does not mean it is a new game and yes 10th Edition is a new game and not a refined version of 9th

same as just because if you play 40k the rules of HH are similar enough for an easy transition still makes it is own game

 kodos wrote:
well, it is easier to say what stayed the same than what was changed

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, 10th is clearly closer to 8th/9th than 8th was to 7th. It's also further away from 9th than 9th was from 8th (9th basically was: incorporated FaQ, new mission styles, small changes in morale rules, more detailed terrain rules, and worse points costs).
If you knew the basics of 8th you won't have many problems in dealing with 10th.
Many rules you already knew became a USR.
Engagement range was shortened.
Psychic powers and morale got a big change.
Points were thrown out the window in favor of rebranded Power level.
But overall it follows the same design philosophy: Pretty straight forward core rules, detailed datasheets. IGOUGO structure with added decision making in the form of stratagems. Units all behave the same basically and you don't need additional game aids aside from dice and a range ruler. The missions saw smaller changes between 9th and 10th than between 8th and 9th I'd say.

So, looking in the future I wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years or so, people view 8th - 10th as one era of the game, just like we throw 3rd and 7th together now, which actually are quite different from each other, probably moreso than 8th and 10th.

kodos, I guess you were proven wrong before even you posted

really?
how does this post proves "a lot of small changes can make for a very different gameplay"

but ok, if you go that way, 10th 40k is basically the very same as 2nd Edition was.
still follows the same design philosophy and structures

maybe you should just play 10th index and directly after it a game of 8th index and tell me if you think those 2 are the very same game

 kodos wrote:
really?
how does this post proves "a lot of small changes can make for a very different gameplay"

but ok, if you go that way, 10th 40k is basically the very same as 2nd Edition was.
still follows the same design philosophy and structures

maybe you should just play 10th index and directly after it a game of 8th index and tell me if you think those 2 are the very same game

You're missing the point entirely, the index are a set of profiles, points and rules for individual units, Jidmah is saying that the core rules haven't changed much. It's very obvious that army level rules and design space has changed a lot which is why the codex were taken out back and shot.

no, I am not missing the point

but 10th only has 1 Codex yet, so you cannot really compare them on the same level by playing Codex VS Codex in one game and Codex VS Index in another as those will be sure very different, simply because of the difference between Codex and Index

a fair comparison would be Index VS Index, which we had 3 times, 3rd, 8th and 10th
so for now this can be directly compared to see of the game plays the same for the core or not (or one need to wait for the Codex SM to be released until you could actually say that the game is the same as 9th or not)

 kodos wrote:
no, I am not missing the point

but 10th only has 1 Codex yet, so you cannot really compare them on the same level by playing Codex VS Codex in one game and Codex VS Index in another as those will be sure very different, simply because of the difference between Codex and Index

a fair comparison would be Index VS Index, which we had 3 times, 3rd, 8th and 10th
so for now this can be directly compared to see of the game plays the same for the core or not

You almost certainly are missing the point.

What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook.

The list is short as shown above.

Dudeface wrote:
Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th.

This is only partially true.

There certainly existed some bespoke rules in pre-8th. However, many of the faction abilities were made partially or wholly from USRs. e.g. ATSKNF, Fleet, Poison etc.

Dudeface wrote:
There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.

They don't need to exist, sure, but if they're going to exist (which they clearly were as it was a constant throughout all the codices) then they absolutely should be supported by the core rules.

Dudeface wrote:

The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.

Except that many of them were inconsistent - either intentionally or simply because of the lack of any consistent vocabulary. For example, some Rending effects would add -2 AP, others might add -3 or -4 AP. Some would only add the aforementioned AP whilst others would also up the damage. The mortal wound versions were similarly inconsistent - some would add a mortal wound, some would replace the normal damage with a single mortal wound, whilst still others would inflict the damage as mortal wounds.

Dudeface wrote:

Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did).

"

Ah yes, thank goodness psychic powers were stripped back to be replaced by the... nothing in the core rules.
Thank goodness we now have a wopping three USRs that have been thoughtlessly copy-pasted onto every single unit and character so that they all feel exactly the same.
Thank goodness characters are now locked into units. I don't know what problem that solved but I'm sure it solved it very well.
Thank goodness wargear options was deleted wholesale from codices. Weapons that have existed for 6+ prior editions were definitely the cause of 9th edition's bloat.
Thank goodness, too, that the subfaction rules you claimed to be unnecessary will still exist. This was a bad thing in 9th but now we're into 10th so it's come full circle and become a good thing again. Woohoo!
Thank goodness points are gone! Truly 10th has ended 9th's reign of tyranny.
Thank goodness every book is now exactly the sort of bland, soulless tripe you would expect from the dismal core rules. Obviously everyone playing 40k really wanted their armies to be as thematic and flavourful as the sides in a game of checkers.

I think the issue is that some changes are significant, while others are less so.

For example, in 3rd-7th, the rules governing how a unit can move are I think fundamentally different to 8th-10th. There however clearly differences in the details of movement in 8th, 9th and 10th. But this feels more like a FAQ ruling. By contrast the 3rd-7th and 8th-10th systems feel incomprehensible if you'd only known the other system.

Flyers can do this or flyers can do that compared with "right so that unit is a fast skimmer, which means..."

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th.

This is only partially true.

There certainly existed some bespoke rules in pre-8th. However, many of the faction abilities were made partially or wholly from USRs. e.g. ATSKNF, Fleet, Poison etc.

So you could say they weren't very creative before because they were limited to that game-wide framework (if they existed)?

Dudeface wrote:
There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.

They don't need to exist, sure, but if they're going to exist (which they clearly were as it was a constant throughout all the codices) then they absolutely should be supported by the core rules.

This I simply disagree with, but I think it's safe to agree to disagree here. I don't see the value in blood angles just having lethal hits, space wolves having sustained hits etc. that feels both dull and just asking to be gamed. If you want a universal rule for generating extra dice, that's a different conversation because it won't always fit for all the factions that can do it within the flavour of that mechanic, in my opinion.

Dudeface wrote:

The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.

Except that many of them were inconsistent - either intentionally or simply because of the lack of any consistent vocabulary. For example, some Rending effects would add -2 AP, others might add -3 or -4 AP. Some would only add the aforementioned AP whilst others would also up the damage. The mortal wound versions were similarly inconsistent - some would add a mortal wound, some would replace the normal damage with a single mortal wound, whilst still others would inflict the damage as mortal wounds.

The entire reason they tried to not make USR's was to allow them to tweak every possible interaction or have them apply differently for flavour, which isn't a bad or unfair goal, but they were largely unified across multiple places and safe to say, they failed on that goal imo hence we got USR's.

Dudeface wrote:

Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did).

"

Ah yes, thank goodness psychic powers were stripped back to be replaced by the... nothing in the core rules.
Thank goodness we now have a wopping three USRs that have been thoughtlessly copy-pasted onto every single unit and character so that they all feel exactly the same.
Thank goodness characters are now locked into units. I don't know what problem that solved but I'm sure it solved it very well.
Thank goodness wargear options was deleted wholesale from codices. Weapons that have existed for 6+ prior editions were definitely the cause of 9th edition's bloat.
Thank goodness, too, that the subfaction rules you claimed to be unnecessary will still exist. This was a bad thing in 9th but now we're into 10th so it's come full circle and become a good thing again. Woohoo!
Thank goodness points are gone! Truly 10th has ended 9th's reign of tyranny.
Thank goodness every book is now exactly the sort of bland, soulless tripe you would expect from the dismal core rules. Obviously everyone playing 40k really wanted their armies to be as thematic and flavourful as the sides in a game of checkers.

Dudeface wrote:

What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook

so for you, devastating hits are a refinement of the "to hit" rules from 9th and devastating wounds a refinement of to wound rules from 10th?

if this is the case, why is that one refinement a "broken" rule that needed to be changed?
how can a refinement of a core rule from a previous edition have unpredictable influences on the game that it needed to be changed before the first codex is released

if 10th is a refinement of 9th, the latest "hotfix" should have never been needed as there are 3 years of knowledge and data on how those rules work and what to expect when using them

but I guess I am wrong and refinement means "broken rules that turn the game around" and not "make things better", but I am also not a native speaker and happy to learn new things

 kodos wrote:

so for you, devastating hits are a refinement of the "to hit" rules from 9th and devastating wounds a refinement of to wound rules from 10th?

unironically yes, there was plenty of these kind of abilities in the game, they just codified them into USRs

Tesla, Haywire, Shuriken, etc.

Devastating Wounds is not an USR

and I see how all Tesla, Haywire, Shuriken etc were broken on 9th and patched out as soon as they were released

and still, at least for me, something that is that bad that it needs to patched out before a Codex is released is not a refinement of an existing rule

 kodos wrote:
Devastating Wounds is not an USR

except it litterally IS ...... i don't think its worth arguing with you

Than it cannot be a refinement of a 9th edition core rule

You know core, without any index or codex rules as it was required by others above

So either the game changed in its core and got new rules added that change how the game works
Or these are refinements of the previous core rules

If it is an USR that was previously a codex rule added to the core, it can hardly be a refinement of previous core mechanics

Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that

 kodos wrote:
Than it cannot be a refinement of a 9th edition core rule

You know core, without any index or codex rules as it was required by others above

So either the game changed in its core and got new rules added that change how the game works
Or these are refinements of the previous core rules

If it is an USR that was previously a codex rule added to the core, it can hardly be a refinement of previous core mechanics

Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that

So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.

They have refined the various instances of "Ignores damage on a roll of X" into a central rule. This is not difficult as a concept.

You can pretty much play a game of 10th with the 9th ed necron/tau/dark eldar/sisters/world eaters codex with the most minimal of confusion and adaptation.

You'd have to treat all units as OC1, obsec as OC2, and just accept your aura characters can be targeted. It might suck, but it works functionally.

Oh and a minor reword of the leadership stat to invert it maybe.

 kodos wrote:

Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that

Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.

that was the challenge given and there is also the problem, because previously most of those rules were not in the core but with the codices, and now we are only allowed to compare the "core" to say what is fundamentally different
yet comparing the core only does not give us a good impression of the game in general, as the core rules were never broken beyond fixing by themselves, it was always the Codizes that were

And yet Devastating Wounds are such a thing that might have been in the game before, but not as part of the core if someone comes up with that:

Dudeface wrote:
What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook..

Devastating Wounds are a fundamental change to the core that was not just a minor refinement of 9th as it was not there in 9th

so either we compare the whole Edition or just the Core, Dudeface wants to do the later so that:

Dudeface wrote:
So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.

is wrong because you yourself came up with "just the core and nothing else"

and not "just the core but also any other rule from any other book it as long is it supports Dudeface arguments"

Having USRs change nothing. If applied and costed appropriately there is no problem. It created a couple of foreseeable problems that GW ignored, that's bad index writing. The indexes are more fleshed out than ever before, 8th indexes were poorly done considering how long some factions were forced to continue using them. While the pure index experience was sometimes, the idea for the new indexes are better.

Dudeface wrote:
- Wargear choices aren't core rules
- Points costs aren't core rules

Weaksauce.

You're arguments are getting flimsier by the second.

 kodos wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.

that was the challenge given and there is also the problem, because previously most of those rules were not in the core but with the codices, and now we are only allowed to compare the "core" to say what is fundamentally different
yet comparing the core only does not give us a good impression of the game in general, as the core rules were never broken beyond fixing by themselves, it was always the Codizes that were

And yet Devastating Wounds are such a thing that might have been in the game before, but not as part of the core if someone comes up with that:

Dudeface wrote:
What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook..

Devastating Wounds are a fundamental change to the core that was not just a minor refinement of 9th as it was not there in 9th

so either we compare the whole Edition or just the Core, Dudeface wants to do the later so that:

Dudeface wrote:
So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.

is wrong because you yourself came up with "just the core and nothing else"

and not "just the core but also any other rule from any other book it as long is it supports Dudeface arguments"

So are you saying the entire game is incompatible between 9th and 10th edition because they created the USR devastating wounds? That one rule is utterly game changing and is the biggest change to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
- Wargear choices aren't core rules
- Points costs aren't core rules

Weaksauce.

You're arguments are getting flimsier by the second.

What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?

Has there been a huge design change in how the armies are being priced or what options they have? Absolutely.

If they invented 200 new bolter variants with wargear costs for them, would that suddenly require a change to the rules in any way? No. Because they're not core to the rules of the game, but they are core to it's identity arguably.

Dudeface wrote:
What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?

That's asking the wrong question. An edition of a game is more than the written text of its core rules, it also includes the design philosophy the rest of the material is written under. And 10th includes some massive shifts there.

 Jidmah wrote:
So you are actually saying that 10th edition core rules are a full reset of the rules?

Because that would be a highly irrational stance to take.

To anyone but the minority of psychic armies, killing off psychic phase was a small change.

HUGE Core Rule changes include:

Changes to terrain and LOS (via towering)
Removal of Psychic Phase
Decoupling WS/ BS from model statline to weapon statline
Limitations on Strats (not only in number, but also the way they are picked in batches of 6 based on detachments)
Single detachment systems/ elimination of 500 point games/ and other scaling mechanisms
Elimination of subfactions for everyone but Marines and bespoke God CSM
Massive Weapon consolidation
Morale changes
Elimination of Mission Pack concept
Significant Crusade alterations (the Blooded xp cap for non-characters and the changes to Battle Scars are big)


It's true that in isolation SOME of these changes aren't as big as others... But that's like saying 5 inches of rain falling during a storm isn't a big deal, because it's just an eighth of an inch, and then another eighth of an inch, and then another eighth of an inch...

Or like not needing a parachute when jump out of a plane because once you're 3 feet from the ground, it's safe to jump the rest of the way...

"Points costs aren't core rules"

Uhhhhhhhh what?

"numbers aren't part of the core rules" is more or less what you're saying at that point. Bit of a hard sell for a game that requires a ruler with numbers on it and dice, with numbers on them, to play, that's just a thought now.

Dudeface wrote:
What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?

Has there been a huge design change in how the armies are being priced or what options they have? Absolutely.

If they invented 200 new bolter variants with wargear costs for them, would that suddenly require a change to the rules in any way? No. Because they're not core to the rules of the game, but they are core to it's identity arguably.

So, a distinction without a difference?

I mean, if Space Marines across the board see a 50% points cost reduction between edition, but all other units retain comparable point costs, that's not a change to a "core" rule, but it would radically change gameplay, no?

This isn't rocket science people. The core rules of Warhammer 40K consist of two documents: The Core Rules and the Rules Commentary. That's it. They cover the rules of the game outside of the various models and armies (Indexes & Codices) and the specific mission rules (Mission Packs).

They can completely overhaul an Index when make in the transition to a Codex and not tough the core rules. They can completely break the core rules with bad rules in the Indexes and Codices (let's give Aeldari high damage Devastating Wound weapons AND a rule that allows them to manufacture Critical Wounds). The change to Devastating Wounds was required because they created monster units with d6, 2d6, 12 damage and didn't seem to realize the effect of what they did.

 alextroy wrote:
This isn't rocket science people. The core rules of Warhammer 40K consist of two documents: The Core Rules and the Rules Commentary. That's it. They cover the rules of the game outside of the various models and armies (Indexes & Codices) and the specific mission rules (Mission Packs).

But what does that have to do with the topic of edition churn? As I said, an edition of a game includes things like supplements and design philosophy. The core rules text is only a part of the total picture and there's no point in limiting the discussion to just the core rules text.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
But what does that have to do with the topic of edition churn? As I said, an edition of a game includes things like supplements and design philosophy. The core rules text is only a part of the total picture and there's no point in limiting the discussion to just the core rules text.

They're just moving goalposts. Again. Nothing more.