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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 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.

Part of the churn discussion is what part of churn is core rules change and what part is index/codex changes. It helps to be able to differentiate the two from each other. Codex Space Marines 8.5 was not a core rules change, yet it created massive churn due to the updates to Astartes. The codex design philosophy that started there played out all the way through 9th edition which could be argued were more important than the core rules changes of 9th Edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

What are you going to call the 10 different sub editions of 8th and 9th with the pts updates that made the game into Yhatzee, then Battleships and then Dungeons and Dragons? I've never worked in product or software development and iterated on a product, but coudln't any change mess up the product even if it is seemingly minor supposedly strict improvement like switching the type of battery used in a phone? How about a software update to save battery life? 40k is very clearly trying to do the same thing in 9th and 10th edition, changes were made to make the product more fit for purpose, that's textbook iteration as far as I see it. They did not start from the ground up saying "we need a flagship game using 30-150 40k miniatures with mass appeal", they said "we have these problems with 9th edition and we think these changes will fix these problems". No amount of changing the wording to be more clear on how the new melee rules are to be used will unfeth them, it's a bad rule, it needs to be reverted, we need points costs for sponsons, not splitting datasheets into 6 to fit all the different weapon options. These things should be changed with errata.

 vict0988 wrote:
What are you going to call the 10 different sub editions of 8th and 9th with the pts updates that made the game into Yhatzee, then Battleships and then Dungeons and Dragons?

Red herrings? False equivalencies?

Take your pic.

 vict0988 wrote:
40k is very clearly trying to do the same thing in 9th and 10th edition, changes were made to make the product more fit for purpose, that's textbook iteration as far as I see it.

Except it's very clearly not. They threw out everything and started from scratch. Again.

4th was an iteration of 3rd, and that carried through to 7th. 8th they threw everything out and started again - sure we still had "Weapon Skill" and "Toughness" and "Range", but it was a completely new base ruleset, incompatible with the previous one. 10th has done so again.

As has been mentioned, an iterative ruleset would be a slow progression that slowly polishes/improves/refines the game over time. There might be the odd dramatic shift or addition, but if you're building upon what came before, this wouldn't be strictly necessary unless something in a previous iteration was functionally broken.

10th doesn't do that. It doesn't try to improve the abysmal morale rules from 9th, it just wholesale removes them and replaces them with a completely different mechanic. I happen to think it's a far better mechanic, but improving an old system with a new one doesn't make the process of getting their iterative.

If 40k was truly iterative then everything would still work between edition changes. You wouldn't need a complete day one re-write of everything with Indices. Development would be more about refinement and adding new things, not complete and total changes to how basic elements of the core game function.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

4th was an iteration of 3rd, and that carried through to 7th. 8th they threw everything out and started again - sure we still had "Weapon Skill" and "Toughness" and "Range", but it was a completely new base ruleset, incompatible with the previous one. 10th has done so again.

As has been mentioned, an iterative ruleset would be a slow progression that slowly polishes/improves/refines the game over time. There might be the odd dramatic shift or addition, but if you're building upon what came before, this wouldn't be strictly necessary unless something in a previous iteration was functionally broken.

10th doesn't do that. It doesn't try to improve the abysmal morale rules from 9th, it just wholesale removes them and replaces them with a completely different mechanic. I happen to think it's a far better mechanic, but improving an old system with a new one doesn't make the process of getting their iterative.

If 40k was truly iterative then everything would still work between edition changes. You wouldn't need a complete day one re-write of everything with Indices. Development would be more about refinement and adding new things, not complete and total changes to how basic elements of the core game function.

So in the window of 3rd-7th we had:
Fixed charges > random charges
wholesale changes to how some weapons function or move (heavy changing from move or fire to snapshots, defensive weapons coming into existence then not etc)
Introduction of D weapons
Introduction of superheavies
Introduction of fliers
Introduction of allies rules
More force organisation options added
Formations & super detachments
Reintroduction of the psychic phase in 7th, as a reminder it didn't exist 3rd-6th
Wound allocation changes repeatedly
Definition of cover changing wildly across editions (see some editions using size based area terrain, others not)

I'm sure there are others but that's off the top of my head and a very generalist wording of the changes. I think sometimes people forget that 40k, especially between 5th-7th, had as many if not more changes than 8th-10th.

As mentioned earlier, you could probably play 10th with a 9th codex and a small FAQ. The reason they sacked off the codex looks to be they wanted to alter the army rules and stratagems so heavily that they didn't want a half and half, alongside wanting to change the stats for vehicles/monsters so heavily. The one big caveat is the removal of psyker stuff, which is the only thing that really stands out to me as not being iterative but is still clearly based off community complaints to some degree.

Edit: overwatch as a charge reaction came back as well!

Small commentary on core rules and churn:

In core rules, as in, the frame of the game, dictating stats, mechanics, USR if there are some, terrain rules etc...

I'd say it has got a negative inpact as churn because when they decide to change gale tables, you have to change yours, that costed you money. Also because if you want to be up to date you'll have to buy a new book every 3 years rather than every 5 or 6.

But I don't think it's the worst as far as our wallets are concerned. Other mandatory books are however: codices mostly.

In 3rd to 7th era it was easy to use an outdated codex to play because the core game was more or lesse the same, primarily unit stats were in the same format. In the battle report section of this forum you have many examples of "4th ed 40k 6th guard Vs 3rd necrons".

Now, say core rules change every 3 years, then that means everythree year, you'll have to buy your codex again to actually be able to play anyway. And that hits the wallet harder.

Whereas supplements at list are not mandatory so you're free not to buy them. But codices...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

4th was an iteration of 3rd, and that carried through to 7th.

Although even within that, for each of those edition changes, while the overall shape of the game stayed more or less the same, assorted individual parts of it changed so much that the end result in at least some of those was still effectively a restart rather than merely an iteration. Particularly the change from 5th to 6th... while there was enough there for someone familiar with 5th to pick up the 6th ed rules fairly quickly, it was a very different game once you actually got minis on the table.

 vict0988 wrote:
I've never worked in product or software development and iterated on a product, but coudln't any change mess up the product even if it is seemingly minor supposedly strict improvement like switching the type of battery used in a phone? How about a software update to save battery life?

I work on a product that consists of both hard- and software that iterates on both of its components and am a licensed expert for creating versioning strategies for software. In general you differentiate between minor and major increments.
Minor iterations aim to remain compatible to all existing product, so for example a minor increase of a hardware part would be a new design, a new endpoints (for example bluetooth/physical slot for extension).
In software a minor increase in almost all cases means adding new features or changing how existing features behave. It must not invalidate any hardware or content a customer has bought for that major iteration.

Major increment are when a new hardware component is released that is no longer compatible to the old stuff for one reason or the other. For example, if you are creating a new iteration of a vacuum robot and you want to increase the amount of dust it collects, there is no way to create a solution that would fit into the old iteration. This is then called a breaking change. Of course, there often are business(=greed)-fueled breaking changes, like when you buy the next iteration of your camera and suddenly none of your old lenses, filters or tripod fit into the new one anymore, despite the functionality of those things not changing at all.
In software, major increment are usually major overhauls of certain parts of the software or complete rewrites. The difference between a major and a minor iteration is a lot smaller than it is for hardware, and is usually just used to indicate old features or interface are no longer compatible to previous iterations. Note that in software major increment also have become a marketing tool, and many things that are sold as if they were major increment really do not match the definition. My favorite example here would be Windows 11, which technically is exactly the same as the annual feature updates Microsoft has been doing for some years now and really is just a facelifted Windows 10.
Major iterations are not done often since they are extremely expensive and thus a big risk. That is why they are usually surrounded by a great deal of advertisement and marketing to make sure the investment pays off.
At least for my company, major iteration are a necessity to stay on top of technology and competitors, eventually hardware and software is outdated and can't keep up with the state of the art anymore. And sometimes you have just engineered/written yourself into a corner and the only way out of that corner is introducing breaking changes.
And of course, we also have churn, despite that making limited sense for physical product. However, it's a well know fact that a good number of people tend to buy a newer thing over an older thing, no matter whether the newer thing is better. For example, roborock has much better sales on their newer robots despite them having less features and being worse at cleaning than older models. Therefore you simply have to throw out a new thing every few years to keep your spot in the market.

In general, iteration is about the size of a change, not about the impact of such change. A minor increment can easily have a much larger impact than a major one. In fact, many companies even strive for a low impact for major iterations.

Most of that should sound familiar. If you translate this to GW and 40k, new editions are major iterations, while the releases of data slates, codices and new units are minor iterations. New game modes and narrative books would be similar to the appliances of your camera, vacuum or gaming console, as they might or might not work with the next major iteration.

The reason why everyone is fighting in this thread is that 10th is a hybrid of multiple parts which have iterated to different degrees. The other reason is that people don't understand that a size of an increment is not connected to the impact
10th currentlyconsists of:
The core rules - which most people define as the literal document called literally called "core rules" and the commentary that goes with it. You can't really argue this unless you are trying to be deliberately obtuse.
Datacards and Detachment rules - either provided as free downloads or in overpriced hardbacks
Points - freely available through the munitorium field manual

Core rules had some impactful, but IMHO none of them really completely changed how you play the game unless you play one of the psychic armies. You might argue that it was not a "true" major increment but a minor increment merely marketed as major, but there are a few actual breaking changes. For example, any rule which interacted with attrition would be defunct in 10th, as there is no such thing anymore.
For Datacards and Detachments the indices absolutely were a major increment. It was a complete rewrite of what was found in 9th edition's codices, tons of things disappeared. Any codex that is released afterwards is a minor increment on the index increment.
Points, no matter how much you cry about the sky falling because of free lascannon sponsons, merely received a minor increment. We had free guns and updates in 9th and we now just have more of them, even if that doesn't make any sense whatsoever for certain options. You could easily use the current munitorium and play 8th and 9th with it (probably even older editions), disproving that it is a major increment. It is also worth noting that points for upgrade might come back at any time if GW decides to do so, further cementing that this is, in fact, not a breaking change.
The balance dataslate would be a minor increment on both core rules and the Datasheets/Detachments.

Kind reminder to the veterans of dakka: If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, just don't respond, because then I don't care about your opinion either. Let's save each other's time.

TL;DR:
small changes can have big impacts on the game and arguing that there are only small changes does not mean that the game is still the same

PS: some here would argue that Windows 11 is still the very same as Windows XP because the icons still have the same colour and there are only minor changes what software is installed by default

 kodos wrote:
PS: some here would argue that Windows 11 is still the very same as Windows XP because the icons still have the same colour and there are only minor changes what software is installed by default

If read worse opinions than that by self-proclaimed game design experts in this very thread.

You also completely missed the point of my post, which isn't exactly a surprise. I suggest you go and try to understand it. You might learn something.

 Jidmah wrote:
You also completely missed the point of my post, which isn't exactly a surprise. I suggest you go and try to understand it. You might learn something.

"My writing is clear and lucid and you're dumb for not seeing it," is not the crushing debate-ending argument some people think.

I think you made some good points, but I also think kodos did as well.

Changes that could be regarded is small and peripheral can in fact have major impacts, beyond the intended scope, and people who do dig deep into the system can sincerely believe that the changes are minor because of superficial factors like appearance.

For 40k to be truly interative in its design, one would expect a high degree of continuity over the years. Again, we have examples of this, such as Battle Tech. Were GW to have pursued a similar approach, we would expect very little change in play styles, army composition, terrain density, etc.

What we would instead see is greater clarity in rules, flawless balance and stability in how units do what they do.

Monopoly is almost a century old and I don't think there is a single question or controversy about its rules. Yes, it's simple, but it is also old, and while people have come up with variants, it's core mechanics are rock solid.

Should Space Marines hug cover or stand out in the open to gain better fields of fire. How does one best deal with onrushing assault combatants? Is overwatch an option? Can units snap fire?

These mechanics move around - core rules, special rules, army rules, strategems, etc. That's the churn.

On a different thread, someone posted a link to a youtube battle report. It was 40k, the figures were somewhat familiar, but the game mechanic was utterly strange to me. It was a different game using some of the same models. That's not building on continuity, it's a full-on reboot, and GW has done it multiple times.

In boardgaming terms, it's like whether rivers block retreats. In some games they do, in some they don't. With GW, it would flip back and forth.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
On a different thread, someone posted a link to a youtube battle report. It was 40k, the figures were somewhat familiar, but the game mechanic was utterly strange to me. It was a different game using some of the same models. That's not building on continuity, it's a full-on reboot, and GW has done it multiple times.

Without wanting to pick on you specifically, isn't this a you thing? Given you've said elsewhere that you are getting back into the hobby after being away for 15 years?

If you had played a lot of 8th and 9th, I think 10th is overwhelmingly familiar. Even the loss of the psychic phase for "Psykers just have certain abilities now" isn't so hard to grasp.
If by contrast your only experience of 40k was 4th edition, then I feel 10th is going to be incomprehensible. Essentially nothing works how you'd expect.

2nd, 3rd and 8th were new games. 10th really isn't. GW could have essentially stuck to late 9th's core rules and released the indexes (because they'd screwed up buffing damage output too much through 8th and 9th) and we'd be in a very similar place.

 kodos wrote:
TL;DR:
small changes can have big impacts on the game and arguing that there are only small changes does not mean that the game is still the same

PS: some here would argue that Windows 11 is still the very same as Windows XP because the icons still have the same colour and there are only minor changes what software is installed by default

The problems is changes for changes sake and removing stuff while not giving anything in return. Miracle dice for eldar were already done and fixed in 9th. It was still a strong rule, yet GW decided to change that again. WE and Votan had a rule set that worked. It only had to be translated to 10th, only GW did it their usual way. Their whole rules writing for factions smells of pet projects, things that have to be done because they have to be done, but no one really wanting to do them, no idea what to do with some faction and puting away that "problem" till their codex release. All well and good when someone is A paid for "playing" the game B gets a cross over view of rules from multiple sources in the future C the cost of getting an army is practicaly non existant. To a GW designer there is little problem(would have to affect world wide sell of a GW game) with a faction being unfun or unfinished, because to them the natural way of dealing with it is just wait for the codex and play something else till it happens. It looks way different from the perspective of someone lets say playing just IG and waiting 3 years for their book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel 811321 11589818 wrote:

If you had played a lot of 8th and 9th, I think 10th is overwhelmingly familiar. Even the loss of the psychic phase for "Psykers just have certain abilities now" isn't so hard to grasp.
If by contrast your only experience of 40k was 4th edition, then I feel 10th is going to be incomprehensible. Essentially nothing works how you'd expect.

I have seen a returning player try to finish a game vs 1ksons pre changes and then quit his return in the middle of game with eldar. A person used to regular games, even ones 8th ed style, was mind blown when a out of sight LoS eldar artilery blew up his single votan character, which then procted the Avatar to teleport in his midfield, and when he tried to engage him he ate a wrightlords overwatch and the Avatar phantomed outside of his berzerkers range. Dude quit the game, and he had a fresh bought and fresh painted army. And not some kid either, a 42year old veteran player.

Karol wrote:


I have seen a returning player try to finish a game vs 1ksons pre changes and then quit his return in the middle of game with eldar. A person used to regular games, even ones 8th ed style, was mind blown when a out of sight LoS eldar artilery blew up his single votan character, which then procted the Avatar to teleport in his midfield, and when he tried to engage him he ate a wrightlords overwatch and the Avatar phantomed outside of his berzerkers range. Dude quit the game, and he had a fresh bought and fresh painted army. And not some kid either, a 42year old veteran player.

Thats because

A: you shouldn't come with a top tier hyper toxic army list when you're playing against a new player thats unfamiliar with the edition

B: the new guy was pretty thin skinned if half a game is all it took to get him off the game.

Even with the scuffed balance of the editions, i've had plenty of fun playing against multiple armies, including the top tier ones, because my opponents and i weren't just playing to win, we were playing to have fun too.

Had I been playing the guy, I would have explained the Overwatch before he moved.

PenitentJake wrote:
Had I been playing the guy, I would have explained the Overwatch before he moved.

for sure yeah, this is an issue on the eldar player more than the returning player.

AND the fact that Karol plays in the most toxic cesspool of tryhard WAAC player ever. Seriously, who brings THE meta list for the 70% winrate army agaisnt someone getting back in the hobby?

Karol wrote:

I have seen a returning player try to finish a game vs 1ksons pre changes and then quit his return in the middle of game with eldar. A person used to regular games, even ones 8th ed style, was mind blown when a out of sight LoS eldar artilery blew up his single votan character, which then procted the Avatar to teleport in his midfield, and when he tried to engage him he ate a wrightlords overwatch and the Avatar phantomed outside of his berzerkers range. Dude quit the game, and he had a fresh bought and fresh painted army. And not some kid either, a 42year old veteran player.

That's a bit drastic. All he had to do was cross Eldar (or maybe just that particular Eldar player) off the list he's willing to play against.

Honestly playing a new game or a returned game I'd expect to lose multiple times before starting to win. You have to re-learn the game not just at the mechanical level but at the tactical level. Learning what units are good/bad what tactics can be employed and also learn the ins and outs of your own army.


Of course if your only opponents are WAAC nasties who are more in it for winning not teaching/helping or just having a good time then yeah that atmosphere/attitude can make a person give up; though honestly I'd hope they'd at least try more than one opponent




Of course sometimes the way a game plays just turns you off very quickly even if you accept all of the above. Still kinda drastic to buy into a whole army and then just chuck it.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly playing a new game or a returned game I'd expect to lose multiple times before starting to win. You have to re-learn the game not just at the mechanical level but at the tactical level. Learning what units are good/bad what tactics can be employed and also learn the ins and outs of your own army.


Of course if your only opponents are WAAC nasties who are more in it for winning not teaching/helping or just having a good time then yeah that atmosphere/attitude can make a person give up; though honestly I'd hope they'd at least try more than one opponent




Of course sometimes the way a game plays just turns you off very quickly even if you accept all of the above. Still kinda drastic to buy into a whole army and then just chuck it.

How easy did GW make the accusation of being WAAC though, now that any new player could simply stumble across the best loadout for any given unit by sheer accident given the no long have to do the accounting, nor have the individual point cost to indicate which weapon is better. The race to the bottom of forcing everyone into power levels makes the WAAC accusation ever more easy to throw around.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly playing a new game or a returned game I'd expect to lose multiple times before starting to win. You have to re-learn the game not just at the mechanical level but at the tactical level. Learning what units are good/bad what tactics can be employed and also learn the ins and outs of your own army.


Of course if your only opponents are WAAC nasties who are more in it for winning not teaching/helping or just having a good time then yeah that atmosphere/attitude can make a person give up; though honestly I'd hope they'd at least try more than one opponent




Of course sometimes the way a game plays just turns you off very quickly even if you accept all of the above. Still kinda drastic to buy into a whole army and then just chuck it.

How easy did GW make the accusation of being WAAC though, now that any new player could simply stumble across the best loadout for any given unit by sheer accident given the no long have to do the accounting, nor have the individual point cost to indicate which weapon is better.

It's always been that way. And anyone with internet access doesn't even need to do it for themselves.

 Crablezworth wrote:
How easy did GW make the accusation of being WAAC though, now that any new player could simply stumble across the best loadout for any given unit by sheer accident given the no long have to do the accounting, nor have the individual point cost to indicate which weapon is better. The race to the bottom of forcing everyone into power levels makes the WAAC accusation ever more easy to throw around.

I don't think GW gets any blame here. People who misuse the term WAAC out of the scrub mindset of "my opponent beat me they must be the worst ever" would find something to complain about no matter what GW does. And people who use it correctly, referring to people who resort to cheating, seal clubbing, etc, in pursuit of victory at all costs would still engage in all that unethical behavior even in a perfectly balanced game.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
I don't think GW gets any blame here.

GW deserves every ounce of blame for deciding not to include a balancing mechanism for wargear and expecting players to just work it out amongst themselves. It's rife for WAAC vs CAAC disputes, well-meaning players accidentally coming across as tournament tryhards, and resentment between players who don't see eye-to-eye on their heuristic assessments of relative power.

'They'll always find something to complain about' is a poor excuse.

 catbarf wrote:
GW deserves every ounce of blame for deciding not to include a balancing mechanism for wargear and expecting players to just work it out amongst themselves. It's rife for WAAC vs CAAC disputes, well-meaning players accidentally coming across as tournament tryhards, and resentment between players who don't see eye-to-eye on their heuristic assessments of relative power.

'They'll always find something to complain about' is a poor excuse.

That has nothing to do with WAAC or CAAC. Those terms refer to attitudes that exist no matter how well balanced the game is and the issue is people misusing them to mean "anyone who doesn't play the game exactly the way I do".

Tyel wrote:
Without wanting to pick on you specifically, isn't this a you thing? Given you've said elsewhere that you are getting back into the hobby after being away for 15 years?

Yeah, but I'm totally able to follow Battle Tech after an even longer absence.

It's like one game has maintained design consistency and the other hasn't.

Weird.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Without wanting to pick on you specifically, isn't this a you thing? Given you've said elsewhere that you are getting back into the hobby after being away for 15 years?

Yeah, but I'm totally able to follow Battle Tech after an even longer absence.

It's like one game has maintained design consistency and the other hasn't.

Weird.

Exactly. After 15 years GW should have refined 40k into its final form, the best version of the game Commissar von Toussaint was playing 15 years ago. Make some minor iterative changes, clean up the last bits, all with a goal of achieving the vision of what 40k was supposed to be back then. But instead we have edition after edition of change for the sake of change, no convergence on anything resembling a coherent finished product, and no end in sight to all the change. The name of the product remains the same and that's about it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly playing a new game or a returned game I'd expect to lose multiple times before starting to win. You have to re-learn the game not just at the mechanical level but at the tactical level. Learning what units are good/bad what tactics can be employed and also learn the ins and outs of your own army.


Of course if your only opponents are WAAC nasties who are more in it for winning not teaching/helping or just having a good time then yeah that atmosphere/attitude can make a person give up; though honestly I'd hope they'd at least try more than one opponent




Of course sometimes the way a game plays just turns you off very quickly even if you accept all of the above. Still kinda drastic to buy into a whole army and then just chuck it.

How easy did GW make the accusation of being WAAC though, now that any new player could simply stumble across the best loadout for any given unit by sheer accident given the no long have to do the accounting, nor have the individual point cost to indicate which weapon is better. The race to the bottom of forcing everyone into power levels makes the WAAC accusation ever more easy to throw around.

Option A, B and C cost 100 pts. They are worth 80, 100 and 120 pts.

Option X, Y and C cost 80, 100 and 120 pts. They are worth 60, 100 and 140 pts.

What makes it more likely to stumple upon the strongest option in the A, B, C situation?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How easy did GW make the accusation of being WAAC though, now that any new player could simply stumble across the best loadout for any given unit by sheer accident given the no long have to do the accounting, nor have the individual point cost to indicate which weapon is better. The race to the bottom of forcing everyone into power levels makes the WAAC accusation ever more easy to throw around.

I don't think GW gets any blame here. People who misuse the term WAAC out of the scrub mindset of "my opponent beat me they must be the worst ever" would find something to complain about no matter what GW does. And people who use it correctly, referring to people who resort to cheating, seal clubbing, etc, in pursuit of victory at all costs would still engage in all that unethical behavior even in a perfectly balanced game.

Not warning your opponent who just got back into the hobby that you've brought THE list is seal clubbing. There are new and returning players who are up for the challenge, but in my experience they are rare. Maybe if my preference was to always play my strongest list I'd have more experience with it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Without wanting to pick on you specifically, isn't this a you thing? Given you've said elsewhere that you are getting back into the hobby after being away for 15 years?

Yeah, but I'm totally able to follow Battle Tech after an even longer absence.

It's like one game has maintained design consistency and the other hasn't.

Weird.

Exactly. After 15 years GW should have refined 40k into its final form, the best version of the game Commissar von Toussaint was playing 15 years ago. Make some minor iterative changes, clean up the last bits, all with a goal of achieving the vision of what 40k was supposed to be back then. But instead we have edition after edition of change for the sake of change, no convergence on anything resembling a coherent finished product, and no end in sight to all the change. The name of the product remains the same and that's about it.

Polishing a turd for 15 years would be the definition of a waste of time. I've never seen anybody try to design such a project either, there are always larger changes implemented when people rewrite the core rules or a codex. How would you have iterated on the 9th edition morale rules? The problems were that it barely did anything and the things it did just caused more damage.

 vict0988 wrote:
Not warning your opponent who just got back into the hobby that you've brought THE list is seal clubbing. There are new and returning players who are up for the challenge, but in my experience they are rare. Maybe if my preference was to always play my strongest list I'd have more experience with it.

No it isn't. Seal clubbing is specifically seeking out newer or weaker players because they're easier to beat, not just playing your standard list against someone who happens to have not played in a while. That's why it's win at ALL costs behavior, because you deliberately seek and prefer games that are not really fun in any other way because they give you the best odds of winning, you're willing to sacrifice everything else about the game as long as it makes you more likely to win.

Polishing a turd for 15 years would be the definition of a waste of time.

Then you avoid that 13 years ago with a single major reboot of the game to learn from your mistakes. The fact that GW is still at the stage of needing to make major changes to avoid sinking further development time into a dead-end concept is proof of their spectacular incompetence at game design. And the fact that, after all these changes, they still haven't figured out that IGOUGO is an obsolete mechanic and cause of a lot of their problems only makes it more hilarious.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

I have seen a returning player try to finish a game vs 1ksons pre changes and then quit his return in the middle of game with eldar. A person used to regular games, even ones 8th ed style, was mind blown when a out of sight LoS eldar artilery blew up his single votan character, which then procted the Avatar to teleport in his midfield, and when he tried to engage him he ate a wrightlords overwatch and the Avatar phantomed outside of his berzerkers range. Dude quit the game, and he had a fresh bought and fresh painted army. And not some kid either, a 42year old veteran player.

That's a bit drastic. All he had to do was cross Eldar (or maybe just that particular Eldar player) off the list he's willing to play against.

You think that if he saw a congo line of respawning GSC or knights blowing him up from behind cover he would feel much better? Even some of mid armies like orks or tyranids, would be a problem. I see people go second vs necron and realise turn 2 that their army doesn't have the fire and melee power to shift them from objectives. And yes one can say that then they could go full GK mode, not engage the opponent , play secondaries and just try to draw or have a minor lose, because of primaris. But it is a horrible way to expiriance the game, it is mind numbing and boring. Especialy when other armies don't have to suffer through it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Thats because

A: you shouldn't come with a top tier hyper toxic army list when you're playing against a new player thats unfamiliar with the edition

B: the new guy was pretty thin skinned if half a game is all it took to get him off the game.

Even with the scuffed balance of the editions, i've had plenty of fun playing against multiple armies, including the top tier ones, because my opponents and i weren't just playing to win, we were playing to have fun too.

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic. Especialy when the lower win rate armie can not play anything else. Try playing a bad army and not play their "toxic compatitive" list, then stuff like turn 1 lost game happen. Also it is not a question of thin skin. He did the math vs his opponent lists, decided he didn't like the way w40k is played . He wasn't hidding it during a game, which is not the norm here as people don't talk much during games here.
Plus it it is not like the only match ups he would have, practicaly every mid to high tier army lists would do the same thing to him.

The win vs fun thing is something I will never understand. It goes beyond me how it could be true. I have never seen someone dominate a ranking or cathegory and be sad about it, or the fact that they are winning and everyone else is losing. And it can't just be sponsorships, scholarships or contracts in the future. Becuase people feel the same when they were not doing ranked matches or even during training. Even comparing to other table top games, w40k is the only one where fun is somehow split from playing and winning the game. Everything is fun in w40k. Painting, having friends, lore, but winning is bad. Or you have to do the condesending with "I beat him and his tournament list with my lore accurate friendly eldar list, which didn't have a WK (but spamed the living hell out of WSetc) ". Even in AoS there is no as much focus put on winning being anti fun, and it is a GW game. I mean what is next put the requierment that in order to play, both the people write both the lists? Have the "starting kit" for w40k be a car, five to six 5-6k armies and a flat or house to play the games in? And better yet what is next, forced painting session pre game to socilise the players ?

Karol wrote:

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic.

its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

Karol wrote:

The win vs fun thing is something I will never understand.

theyre not two separate concepts. I don't play to lose, and i'm not sad if i win. It's just not my main attraction to the game, at least not to the point where i'd only play the strongest possible lists. I have much more fun bringing a list that has models that i like and figuring out the optimal way to play that list rather than do the same with an objectively strong list.

I see 40k a bit like i see a game of Commander in MTG, i'm there to create weird boardstates and interactions and have a fun conversation with a friend

Karol wrote:

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic.

It depends on what they are matched against.

Remember, just because something is 'legal', it doesn't make it morally or ethically correct on an absolute scale. Plenty awful things in life are 'legal'.

Karol wrote:

I Especialy when the lower win rate armie can not play anything else. Try playing a bad army and not play their "toxic compatitive" list, then stuff like turn 1 lost game happen.

Depends on what you play it into, surely. Not an exact comparison, but we've found games of 'low-power necromunda' are a blast to play, with just las/auto pistols and a handful of las/autguns and shotguns. 'The most powerful lists' isn't the ultimate expression of any wargame.

Karol wrote:

The win vs fun thing is something I will never understand. It goes beyond me how it could be true.

There's winning by whatever means; and there's winning 'honourably'. How you win matters.

Enjoyment and 'fun' doesnt stem solely from winning, it stems in large part from the participation and engagement. You don't have to win to have fun. And its entirely possible to lose a game/sporting activity and still have an enjoyable time.

But you can also win at the expense of fun, both yours and your opponent. Imo that empties the win of a lot of its value.

Karol wrote:

I have never seen someone dominate a ranking or cathegory and be sad about it, or the fact that they are winning and everyone else is losing. And it can't just be sponsorships, scholarships or contracts in the future. Becuase people feel the same when they were not doing ranked matches or even during training. Even comparing to other table top games, w40k is the only one where fun is somehow split from playing and winning the game. Everything is fun in w40k. Painting, having friends, lore, but winning is bad. Or you have to do the condesending with "I beat him and his tournament list with my lore accurate friendly eldar list, which didn't have a WK (but spamed the living hell out of WSetc) ".

Not everything is about rankings. Plenty folks really do not care about any of that - it's just bluster at the end of the day. Winning is not 'the point' for a lot of people all of the time, 'taking part' is.

Rwmember, there's winning at everyone else's expense or in ways that are less than 'fair', - thats whats frowned on, not necessarily 'winning' as a concept. You can have fun/enjoyment in playing, and fyi every game I've played has had a strong consensus in the community to focus on fun than ruthless competition.

Karol wrote:

I mean what is next put the requierment that in order to play, both the people write both the lists? Have the "starting kit" for w40k be a car, five to six 5-6k armies and a flat or house to play the games in? And better yet what is next, forced painting session pre game to socilise the players ?

I wouldn't list them as 'requirements' but all of those things (car, house) are things that you will need to consider in life anyway especially if yoy stay in the hobby (multiple games/armies). And group painting sessions can be enormously fun and a very practical way of getting through the lead mountain (looks at 200 lotr figures done in this manner). They're definitely things that help facilitate a better experience.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic.

its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

Remember, kids, not only do you need to need to buy enough models so that you can make a good army when GW inevitably flips the table; you also need to have enough models to ensure that you can build a sufficiently bad army when GW makes some of your stuff OP.

Bear in mind that you are not obliged to like any of the models bought for this purpose. So long as it achieves balance, you should expect to use plenty of models that you don't like and have no interest in, rather than the ones you want to be use but that are currently not sufficiently balanced.

Under no circumstances should GW be blamed for this. The failure lies always and only with you, the player. Buy more or feel rightly ashamed.