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.
2023/11/22 01:28:25
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why I hate it when product specifications or limitations impact gameplay.
1. Tons of options being removed from characters. This wasn't done for balance reasons. It was done because the models have one weapon combo, so that becomes the only weapon combo (at which point it ceases to be a 'combo' and simply becomes what the unit is armed with).
2. No multiples of special weapons in squads. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because that's what's on the sprue.
3. Squad sizes being fixed. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because of how they're boxed.
4. GW's "recommended" table sizes. This wasn't done because of any in-game reason (certainly none of that "average kitchen table size" nonsense people have tried to peddle). It was done because their standard box size couldn't fit 1'x1' (or 1'x2' etc.) tiles, so they just made something smaller and called that "standard" (and everyone fething bought it like GW were doing them a favour).
None of these are game-based. None of them have any place influencing the damned rules of the game.
See I'm a bit torn
On the one hand I like the idea that what you get in the box WORKS and doens't require anything else. It's very newbie friendly and a far cry from the days when GW was even adding whole new unique models to armies and not actually adding models for years (Tyranids had 2 editions and codex and never saw any of the special character models that got added and heck we still don't have several of them even now!)
On the other I do agree that some of the limits are daft. Taking out twin devourers as an option on a hive tyrant for example. A very popular staple for probably over a decade. A very unfriendly choice for established players and honestly whilst it does mean that its an option that isn't "in the box" its not exactly hard to get a spare set if you are collecting the army itself. It's also something GW could have address with an updated model.
Now some of this I feel might be because GW is steadily moving most armies from toolbox to specialist models. Simply because armies are BIG now and many of the old toolbox models that could "do everything" are suddenly getting smothered by specialist models. I still hold out hope that the decimation of close combat options for Tyranid Warriors is because we'll see some models in that same class/segment (perhaps shrieks or winged warriors) which will fill those removed niches. Or maybe GW updated the Warrior sprue for later release and removed all the close combat weapons barring one set so that there was room for wings without adding another sprue .
But I do agree this wasn't really a balance or game choice it was something else. It's also something that in 3 years could flip head over heels and change back. 11th edition could suddenly go the other way and GW could swam and smother us with custom options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 01:29:25
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why I hate it when product specifications or limitations impact gameplay.
1. Tons of options being removed from characters. This wasn't done for balance reasons. It was done because the models have one weapon combo, so that becomes the only weapon combo (at which point it ceases to be a 'combo' and simply becomes what the unit is armed with).
2. No multiples of special weapons in squads. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because that's what's on the sprue.
3. Squad sizes being fixed. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because of how they're boxed.
4. GW's "recommended" table sizes. This wasn't done because of any in-game reason (certainly none of that "average kitchen table size" nonsense people have tried to peddle). It was done because their standard box size couldn't fit 1'x1' (or 1'x2' etc.) tiles, so they just made something smaller and called that "standard" (and everyone fething bought it like GW were doing them a favour).
None of these are game-based. None of them have any place influencing the damned rules of the game.
This does bug me a lot. Partly because of its transparency, and partly because it makes rolling for the unit slower. Last edition, my kabalites generally only had to roll for 3 weapon groups: splinter rifles, blasters, and a dark lance. Now, they have to roll 5 because of the "optional" shredder and splinter cannon. Wracks are even weirder with their 4(?) different guns per 5-man squad. Not that that one impacts me given that my wrack models are all oldschool grotesques and thus aren't modeled with the guns they're paying for.
But yeah. Now when I get my kabalite models together, it's like, I don't have to field the shredder and splinter cannon and spend the time rolling separately for them, but I'm passing on free firepower if I do so.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/11/22 03:28:04
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why I hate it when product specifications or limitations impact gameplay.
1. Tons of options being removed from characters. This wasn't done for balance reasons. It was done because the models have one weapon combo, so that becomes the only weapon combo (at which point it ceases to be a 'combo' and simply becomes what the unit is armed with).
2. No multiples of special weapons in squads. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because that's what's on the sprue.
3. Squad sizes being fixed. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because of how they're boxed.
4. GW's "recommended" table sizes. This wasn't done because of any in-game reason (certainly none of that "average kitchen table size" nonsense people have tried to peddle). It was done because their standard box size couldn't fit 1'x1' (or 1'x2' etc.) tiles, so they just made something smaller and called that "standard" (and everyone fething bought it like GW were doing them a favour).
None of these are game-based. None of them have any place influencing the damned rules of the game.
I really feel this about the table size; I still laugh at the derps who cut their mats up. See all of this is slimy and is not narrative building. Unless the narrative you're building is going to your FLGS and buying plastic every week.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
1000pt Skitari Legion
2023/11/22 03:51:51
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why I hate it when product specifications or limitations impact gameplay.
1. Tons of options being removed from characters. This wasn't done for balance reasons. It was done because the models have one weapon combo, so that becomes the only weapon combo (at which point it ceases to be a 'combo' and simply becomes what the unit is armed with).
2. No multiples of special weapons in squads. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because that's what's on the sprue.
3. Squad sizes being fixed. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because of how they're boxed.
4. GW's "recommended" table sizes. This wasn't done because of any in-game reason (certainly none of that "average kitchen table size" nonsense people have tried to peddle). It was done because their standard box size couldn't fit 1'x1' (or 1'x2' etc.) tiles, so they just made something smaller and called that "standard" (and everyone fething bought it like GW were doing them a favour).
None of these are game-based. None of them have any place influencing the damned rules of the game.
I really feel this about the table size; I still laugh at the derps who cut their mats up. See all of this is slimy and is not narrative building. Unless the narrative you're building is going to your FLGS and buying plastic every week.
I seriously think this is true. There are a few people @ FLGS whom embody this 1000%.
2023/11/22 05:10:27
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is why I hate it when product specifications or limitations impact gameplay.
1. Tons of options being removed from characters. This wasn't done for balance reasons. It was done because the models have one weapon combo, so that becomes the only weapon combo (at which point it ceases to be a 'combo' and simply becomes what the unit is armed with).
2. No multiples of special weapons in squads. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because that's what's on the sprue.
3. Squad sizes being fixed. This wasn't done because of balance reasons. It was done because of how they're boxed.
4. GW's "recommended" table sizes. This wasn't done because of any in-game reason (certainly none of that "average kitchen table size" nonsense people have tried to peddle). It was done because their standard box size couldn't fit 1'x1' (or 1'x2' etc.) tiles, so they just made something smaller and called that "standard" (and everyone fething bought it like GW were doing them a favour).
None of these are game-based. None of them have any place influencing the damned rules of the game.
I agree with all of this, but I see a bit of nuance with number four.
You're right, it absolutely was done because of the box size. This is undeniable.
However, that does not mean that:
a) breaking the market for 4x6 mats
b) crowding more players into massive tournament that require less terrain per table
c) being able to easily play on a kitchen table
d) having an easy and inexpensive tool for supporting escalation play
e) justifying price hikes/ claiming value-add on box sets for the inclusion of extra cardboard
didn't also happen as secondary effects of GW making a decision based on the size of their boxes.
A and B kinda go together; C was VERY well timed given Covid and many new players who might be intimidated by the need for a large, dedicated table; D is a thing I really enjoyed about 9th, but I'd have been just as happy with 500- 1000 on 4x4, 2000 on 4x6 and 3000 on 4x8. Having a smaller table size does make it easier for casual players to play at home with friends and family members, and it encourages people to use smaller armies.
didn't ALSO happen as sec
2023/11/22 06:27:51
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
c) is wrong as neither the old nor the new size fit a standard kitchen table
standard size is 90-100cm wide with 110cm being the "special" ones so only combat patrol fits a kitchen table, and that did not change over time as also the old 36x36 or 36x48 did fit
Maybe. GW seems to be increasingly coming around to the idea of player retention, and not just recruitment which has been there modus operandi in the past. Their business model was previously built on the idea that they would draw x many new players in, and y of them would quit the hobby within z months or whatever, so they were all about trying to maximize that churn and get as many kids with mommy and daddy's money in through the door for whatever they could get, and then move on to the next. The shift to the short edition cycles and rapid fire release pace is an effort to keep players more engaged and interested and prevent them from falling out, as GW has evidently recognized that there is a way to keep customers long term and maximize their lifetime value to the company and get them spending more, etc. I think to some extent though they have pushed it too far to the point that I think they are alienating a growing number of customers because the pace of their release schedule and edition churn is unsustainable.
my impression here is that the 3 year cycle and burning down the edition every 6 years is what they think is Z
like 3-6 years is what to expect from people to stay and spend a lot of money while starting over fresh again without need to care about what once was is easier and cheaper while at the same time they can keep the people engaged by "we get the problems and this time we solve them" as the majority does not even know that it is the same all over again
in addition the majority of the internet community does not play at all are collectors with the goal to have an army on the shelf were most of the problems the gamers have do not exist (the same 5 dynamic models all over again and each unit costing 50€ do not matter if you buy each unit only once and 2 units per year to slowly grow and paint an army)
so the long term customers are kept by ever releasing new models for the armies that sell to keep them collecting, hence re-stock of old models do not matter because the collectors just buy the new stuff
while the players won't stay for more than 2 editions in a row and might come back 1-2 editions later to a brand new game were all the problems they remember are gone
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/22 06:32:31
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/11/22 14:59:52
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
On the one hand I like the idea that what you get in the box WORKS and doens't require anything else. It's very newbie friendly and a far cry from the days when GW was even adding whole new unique models to armies and not actually adding models for years (Tyranids had 2 editions and codex and never saw any of the special character models that got added and heck we still don't have several of them even now!)
On the other I do agree that some of the limits are daft. Taking out twin devourers as an option on a hive tyrant for example. A very popular staple for probably over a decade. A very unfriendly choice for established players and honestly whilst it does mean that its an option that isn't "in the box" its not exactly hard to get a spare set if you are collecting the army itself. It's also something GW could have address with an updated model.
This is my take on things. The Deathwatch Vet kit has always been a standout to me. When they dropped you had to somehow scrounge up 30 plus Storm bolters out of kits that provided zero, which was.... a problem. Here's a kit with dozens of options as is and none of them should be taken. I think where I stand is that kit limits on units makes sense, but characters are worth being more open than they currently are. It's pretty clear though that GW aren't really invested in easily swappable parts in general though and until we start seeing gear packs like HH has, I think kitbashing runs afoul of the dynamic posing that has locked a lot of figures into a static look since they shifted to the AoS style design.
2023/11/22 15:15:35
Subject: Re:Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's just a different kind of "optimisation" now. Before, you were soft-encouraged not to bother with many upgrades. Now, you're encouraged to take them. And sure, there's a "best" option - but there was beforehand anyways. And people would spam that option if they wanted to.
This is technically correct but completely missing the point.
If a laspistol is 0pts, a bolt pistol is 1pt, and a plasma pistol is 2pts, that's not good pricing and the optimization is straightforward. You'll probably see plasma pistols on most characters expected to shoot things, laspistols on characters that won't be fighting, and only WYSIWYG players will have bolt pistols.
And yet it's still better than when the laspistol, bolt pistol, and plasma pistol are all 0pts, and there is objectively no reason whatsoever not to take the plasma pistol on every model. The incentive for optimization is stronger, the actual diversity of unit compositions is reduced, and players who aren't seeking to optimize their lists are at a greater disadvantage.
You're making it sound like if points costs aren't perfect and can be optimized, then it's functionally equivalent if points just don't exist and everything is valued equally. That's a false dichotomy, and a pretty extreme one at that. Setting all costs to 0 isn't fixing the problem of points costs not accurately reflecting value, it's magnifying it.
Besides, letting your sergeants take fun toys was always possible under a points-based system if the costs were set appropriately. The problem highlighted with the Devastator plasma pistol example reflects GW's decision to give wargear items universal costs regardless of what utility they actually provide to the unit in question, but it didn't always work that way. A plasma pistol on a Dev sergeant has less utility than one on an Assault sergeant, so ought to cost less, and I'm sure you could find a non-zero cost where it's worth considering.
And you can certainly make the free-wargear system work through adjusting stats and introducing new rules to establish sidegrades, but it's an awful lot more difficult than adjusting points, and GW didn't even try. They threw the baby right out with the bathwater. For casual players who don't seek to optimize their lists it may not make a massive difference on the whole, but I've seen a tangible difference on the tabletop between armies assembled pre-10th and post-10th, and I now find listbuilding to be a frustrating and railroaded experience.
I know I've tooted this horn many times, but this is precisely why I hated the transition from 8th to 9th.
Whatever it's other faults, 8th worked hard to give weapons and upgrades appropriate costs. While it probably didn't succeed with every single one (meltas remained something of an outlier) it made huge strides in terms of making a lot of different weapons and upgrades desirable. For example, Plasmaguns were 7pts on BS4+ guardsmen and 14pts on BS3+ guardsmen. Meanwhile, Grenade Launchers were just 3pts. While relatively weak, the marked difference in cost compared with the superior Plasmagun made them quite attractive - especially on BS3+ models. Similarly, Power Swords and Power Fists at (iIRC) 3pts and 6pts, respectively meant that you could justify them on Officers, Commissars etc. without feeling like you were being short-changed.
And then 9th came and threw all of that progress in the bin without a second thought. We were right back to weapons costing the exact same but one being objectively better. We were back to 40pt IG officers paying exactly as much for a Power Sword/Fist as a SM Captain with far better stats and combat abilities.
It just seemed such a complete waste. It's one thing to not bother trying to balance things but it's entirely another when you've already done the work and have the data, only to throw it all away and start from scratch regardless.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2023/11/22 16:08:03
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Sadly that's GW rules writing. I suspect even skilled writers of rules are likely depressed with the fact that, certainly for the main core games; no matter how much hard work they pour into the rules - they will get thrown out the window in 3 years time.
And not even with logical things but just different things and agendas and likely with a manger or two forcing a few things in (I could very well see the forced use of power level for 10th being a manager drive choice).
Honestly not only do I feel that some writers of rules at GW are too casual in their approach to the game to make good rules for a strong format; but GW itself at the management level doesn't setup their rules system for success. I suspect if editions were say 5 years apart and if edition changes were more refinements and cleaning up changes and printing updated content reflecting 5 years of updates and addendums - then at the very least we'd see progress and it would foster an atmosphere where quality does get to the rise to the top and where it can make improvements and respond to feedback in the long not just short term.
But GW is wedded to the edition cycle and despite the fact that the models are clearly what drives the BIG sales volume of new- editions and such; GW doesn't seem able to shed this need to reprint everything on a 3 year cycle for easy profits.
Overread wrote: Sadly that's GW rules writing. I suspect even skilled writers of rules are likely depressed with the fact that, certainly for the main core games; no matter how much hard work they pour into the rules - they will get thrown out the window in 3 years time.
And not even with logical things but just different things and agendas and likely with a manger or two forcing a few things in (I could very well see the forced use of power level for 10th being a manager drive choice).
Honestly not only do I feel that some writers of rules at GW are too casual in their approach to the game to make good rules for a strong format; but GW itself at the management level doesn't setup their rules system for success. I suspect if editions were say 5 years apart and if edition changes were more refinements and cleaning up changes and printing updated content reflecting 5 years of updates and addendums - then at the very least we'd see progress and it would foster an atmosphere where quality does get to the rise to the top and where it can make improvements and respond to feedback in the long not just short term.
But GW is wedded to the edition cycle and despite the fact that the models are clearly what drives the BIG sales volume of new- editions and such; GW doesn't seem able to shed this need to reprint everything on a 3 year cycle for easy profits.
Honestly, there is one advantage to the rapid fire pace of the release cycle - not to GW but to everyone else - rules experimentation. Theyve tried some interesting mechanical concepts with the rules over the past 3 editions or so, especially in 10th with the keywording being applied to weapons such as anti-, etc. If they keep doing stuff like that it will more adequately prime the market to accept a wider variety of rules styles and mechanical systems, while also providing amateur designers more and more inspiration to work with and more seasoned designers a wider variety of free market research that they can observe and parse to inform their own designs, etc. I expect in 10 years time we will be seeing OPR esque not-40k rulesets that are based on refinements to 10th edition style mechanics and stuff like that.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
1616/11/22 18:03:39
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Honestly, there is one advantage to the rapid fire pace of the release cycle - not to GW but to everyone else - rules experimentation. Theyve tried some interesting mechanical concepts with the rules over the past 3 editions or so, especially in 10th with the keywording being applied to weapons such as anti-, etc. If they keep doing stuff like that it will more adequately prime the market to accept a wider variety of rules styles and mechanical systems, while also providing amateur designers more and more inspiration to work with and more seasoned designers a wider variety of free market research that they can observe and parse to inform their own designs, etc. I expect in 10 years time we will be seeing OPR esque not-40k rulesets that are based on refinements to 10th edition style mechanics and stuff like that.
That's true. I'm generally on board with GW trying new things out. It's just frustrating when they do get the game to a pretty good place but then botch it tossing out elements that were working. Or when a new edition drops and you see that they're still refusing to experiment with things a lot of us are calling for (alternating activations).
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/11/22 18:38:51
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
A new edition, used to be an event, something to get excited about. If they are going to continue this rate of release (for those who play both big systems it's a new edition every year and a half) I can definitely see them having to deal with a large amount of dropout in the near future.
Note I am not predicting The Death Of GWTM but I do think they may have to rethink this strategy in the not so distant future.
I think someone in the higher management had the idea to copy what video games do and they see edition changes as essentially a sequel and ultimately it isn't a bad idea within limit but they seem to be taking it way to far imo. Their are notable differences between video gaming and wargaming. Even the books for a new edition will come to more than a new AAA game right and that isn't even taking into consideration any new models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 18:39:22
2023/11/22 20:17:53
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Honestly, there is one advantage to the rapid fire pace of the release cycle - not to GW but to everyone else - rules experimentation. Theyve tried some interesting mechanical concepts with the rules over the past 3 editions or so, especially in 10th with the keywording being applied to weapons such as anti-, etc. If they keep doing stuff like that it will more adequately prime the market to accept a wider variety of rules styles and mechanical systems, while also providing amateur designers more and more inspiration to work with and more seasoned designers a wider variety of free market research that they can observe and parse to inform their own designs, etc. I expect in 10 years time we will be seeing OPR esque not-40k rulesets that are based on refinements to 10th edition style mechanics and stuff like that.
but this is not something new nor are there really any new mechanics in the GW systems
at least I have not seen anything in the past Edition that was not somehow already there before in a lesser known or older rules system
and given that OPR was there before 8th, it is more likely that we see 40k becoming more like OPR than OPR copy their mechanics back (and a lot of things in 8th were pretty close to some of the alternative SciFi games that developed during 7th out there)
new things GW try are only new to the GW bubble not in general and the actual new ideas are often coming from those who were never related to GW at all
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 20:24:51
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/11/22 20:41:26
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Degrading profiles, the whole anti/devastating/lethal/critical hit/wound system, the weird crossfire mechanics GSC had last edition and a handful of other things are either fairly unique mechanics (or implementations of them) or only seen in more obscure and niche titles away from mass market, etc.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2023/11/22 23:41:09
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
PenitentJake wrote: C was VERY well timed given Covid and many new players who might be intimidated by the need for a large, dedicated table; .... Having a smaller table size does make it easier for casual players to play at home with friends and family members, and it encourages people to use smaller armies.
The thing is, that was already happening with 4x6 recommended tables anyway. Those who had access to a 4x6 board used it, and everyone else played on their kitchen table. Whenever I've played on a smaller table over the years, we've just shrunk the deployment zones so that the engagement area remains the same, and I've been doing that quite happily for 20 years now. Nobody ever needed an official stamp to play on whatever table they have access to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: A new edition, used to be an event, something to get excited about. If they are going to continue this rate of release (for those who play both big systems it's a new edition every year and a half) I can definitely see them having to deal with a large amount of dropout in the near future.
Honestly, I don't know that edition churn is adding that much to the dropout rate at all. We had store staff a decade or more ago saying that the vast majority of customers don't stick with it for more than 5 years. It would be difficult without extensive market research to pin down whether that's due to people not wanting to buy new rules, or simply due to them getting bored with the game and moving on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 23:45:43
2023/11/22 23:51:47
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Hopefully that thing is delayed because they're making an extra sprue with all the weapons they remov... oh wait the rules only let it have a Storm Bolter and Sword...
VladimirHerzog wrote: oh ok, when you said options you meant an almost RPG-like amount of them, gotcha.
I'm not sure why you'd think that, given that that's not a normal thing in war games. Not even in older editions of 40k, except for the one edition where it was basically an RPG.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/23 02:12:37
PenitentJake wrote: C was VERY well timed given Covid and many new players who might be intimidated by the need for a large, dedicated table; .... Having a smaller table size does make it easier for casual players to play at home with friends and family members, and it encourages people to use smaller armies.
The thing is, that was already happening with 4x6 recommended tables anyway. Those who had access to a 4x6 board used it, and everyone else played on their kitchen table. Whenever I've played on a smaller table over the years, we've just shrunk the deployment zones so that the engagement area remains the same, and I've been doing that quite happily for 20 years now. Nobody ever needed an official stamp to play on whatever table they have access to.
This is fair, and absolutely true, but once again, nuance:
It's been your experience, and it's been mine, and I'd estimate it's been the experience of many who post on Dakka.
But the person whose experience I'm writing about in that post is the family with 2-3 kids who had to make a decision about something to buy for their kids to keep them from going crazy during Covid. They're going to make the decision based on whether or not they perceive the game is stimulating for the kids, whether it encourages literacy and numeracy skills, whether or not it fits into their budget and lifestyle- including space.
They will not know there have been other editions. They will not know that the current edition has a max 3-year lifespan. Even if they did, they wouldn't understand viscerally what that means.
A game that is marketed as having a kitchen table mode as a core feature of the game will appeal to this customer. A game that is marketed exclusively as a 2k army standard on a purpose built 4x6 game table is less likely to do so. This customer wants kitchen table out of the box. They don't want to adapt a 4x6 to kitchen table size.
Obviously, players who care enough to post on forums will be comfortable making those adaptations- that's just not who I was writing about.
2023/11/23 03:03:18
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
40K has never been marketed as a 2K standard army on a 4x6 table.
It's marketed as a miniatures game in which you can collect what you want, and those editions that mentioned the size of the table at all have generally also said that you can play on smaller or larger surfaces.
2023/11/23 03:13:13
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Have you played warcry? Because the armies and models aren't set.
Yes. Some of them have the option of two different weapons on the sprue. It still ain't Necromunda. It's what GW wishes Necromunda was though.
What a world it would be, then, if GW only had the power to make its own wishes come true. If only they could find the one in charge of Necromunda, hidden away as they are, and force them to enact the change they want.
Rihgu wrote: What a world it would be, then, if GW only had the power to make its own wishes come true. If only they could find the one in charge of Necromunda, hidden away as they are, and force them to enact the change they want.
And watch the Necromunda player base riot as their game is stripped down to nothing? No. Game Workshop are stupid, but they're not that stupid.
Changes would be incremental, not seismic. Look at Blood Bowl. That game was in the hands of the community. They didn't need GW for anything, and hadn't for literal decades. So what did GW do? Well they added a single new stat to the rules. Now none of the previous rules were compatible with the current rules, everything new was in their new format, and once again GW was the one in command of the game, rather than the community. It was a simple change, but it worked.
Necromunda wouldn't become Warcry or Combat Patrol overnight, much like First Born weren't dumped the moment Primaris Marines came onto the stage. These things take time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/23 04:46:22
Rihgu wrote: What a world it would be, then, if GW only had the power to make its own wishes come true. If only they could find the one in charge of Necromunda, hidden away as they are, and force them to enact the change they want.
And watch the Necromunda player base riot as their game is stripped down to nothing? No. Game Workshop are stupid, but they're not that stupid.
Changes would be incremental, not seismic. Look at Blood Bowl. That game was in the hands of the community. They didn't need GW for anything, and hadn't for literal decades. So what did GW do? Well they added a single new stat to the rules. Now none of the previous rules were compatible with the current rules, everything new was in their new format, and once again GW was the one in command of the game, rather than the community. It was a simple change, but it worked.
Question about BB: So if "the community" was happily doing thier own thing, and didn't need GW, why didn't they just keep on doing thier own thing?
2023/11/23 06:58:53
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Because people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom...
I somewhat suspect that you knew that already ccs, and were going for a "gotcha!". But look at the tournament scene. They'll drop whatever the current hotness is for the new hotness the moment GW gives Malibu Stacy an official new hat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/23 07:00:14
A problem is that the newer players that come from the new GW version will want to play that so to grow rather than split the community some of the people who would prefer fanmade or older versions transition over to the new official version.
2023/11/23 12:31:57
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom...
I somewhat suspect that you knew that already ccs, and were going for a "gotcha!". But look at the tournament scene. They'll drop whatever the current hotness is for the new hotness the moment GW gives Malibu Stacy an official new hat.
So apparently the community DID need/want something from GW....
And they were really just treading water while waiting on new content - be it revised rules, new models, increased interest from potential BB players due to the game being back on shelves, etc.
Anyways I asked because you seem oddly upset that GW, once again, made a new version of one of thier games. (It IS what they do you know.) And that people responded positively to them doing so.
Why are you holding that against them?
Are you going to be cranky when the day comes that BFG, Man-O-War, or something gets a refresh?
BTW, your claim that BB was unsupported & left in the hands of the fans for decades is incorrect. Looking it up?
The longest stretch looks to have been 7 years (2009-2016) when annual pdf update support for 4th ed was ended.
2023/11/23 12:40:11
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom. And they want the newest things... some of which don't have rules in the old style... and people love officialdom...
I somewhat suspect that you knew that already ccs, and were going for a "gotcha!". But look at the tournament scene. They'll drop whatever the current hotness is for the new hotness the moment GW gives Malibu Stacy an official new hat.
So apparently the community DID need/want something from GW....
And they were really just treading water while waiting on new content - be it revised rules, new models, increased interest from potential BB players due to the game being back on shelves, etc.
Anyways I asked because you seem oddly upset that GW, once again, made a new version of one of thier games. (It IS what they do you know.) And that people responded positively to them doing so.
Why are you holding that against them?
Are you going to be cranky when the day comes that BFG, Man-O-War, or something gets a refresh?
BTW, your claim that BB was unsupported & left in the hands of the fans for decades is incorrect. Looking it up?
The longest stretch looks to have been 7 years (2009-2016) when annual pdf update support for 4th ed was ended.
Weren't the PDF's essentially a collab between Rick Priestly and fans? A real example of how Games Workshop could do things right imo.
1000pt Skitari Legion 
