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.

Slipspace wrote:

The changes seem fine overall. Not a fan of increasing AP on a bunch of close combat weapons, even if they were bad. I feel like if you're going to make such sweeping changes you need to just commit to them fully. 40k's biggest problem is the ludicrous lethality of the game (and has been for a while). I'd prefer a general reduction in that lethality rather than trying to bring weapons like combat knives up to the same level as everyone else. Not that I think giving extra AP to Infernus marines and knives is going to break the game, it's just indicative of a game moving in the wrong direction, IMO.

Agree for guns but I do believe melee should be extremely lethal.

After all you aren't going to be charging with your whole army in turn one. Most melee units will spend 2-3 turns moving before getting to charge. The corollary is that 1st turn charges shouldn't exist.

 Overread wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I like books when the contents of the books arent changed every 3 months and the entire book isnt scrapped and replaced ebery 3 years.

Rulebooks used to have longevity, you used to buy them and get a decade of use out of them.

This!

I'd also add I love reference books when the information is presented logically and where you can quickly find stuff. Another area GW fails on these days is that info can be scattershot all around within a single book. Heck without the FOC it seems that GW just throws dataslates in anywhere. The tyranid one has no logical structure, not even just basic alphabetical order. IT's lots of little things like that which likely make them faster to make (because you can 100% see that the 3 year cycle takes a toll on the writers); but which makes them a LOT harder to use.

It actually creates a barrier of entry all on its own

There's no order for a book that's more convenient than just filtering down to the models that are actually in your army. That's, theoretically what datacards are for, but pretty much every game system out there has learned that cards effectively as hard to update as books.

Honestly, I have never enjoyed playing out of a book. Way too much flipping around looking for stuff. It doesn't help that Deathwatch has at times, required up to 4.

Has anyone of you tried to keep a physical rulebook "up to date" with all the FAQs/erratas of 10th edition? I bet that book has more red pencil and postit notes on it than a 2nd hand school book

F this ish. I aint buying a single book for current 40K going forward

I will still buy the new IK codex when it comes out. I love the books.

 tauist wrote:
Has anyone of you tried to keep a physical rulebook "up to date" with all the FAQs/erratas of 10th edition? I bet that book has more red pencil and postit notes on it than a 2nd hand school book

F this ish. I aint buying a single book for current 40K going forward

Ha I remember in the early 2000s when GW provided replacement sections you were supposed to glue over the top of in the books, hours cutting out little squares of text to stick over paragraphs...

At least 10th is somehow getting it a little better.

9th, you can customise your own SM chapter while Chaos is Black Legion, a few missing Slannesh models, or nothing.

Drukhari has Lelith... with no way to play her....

 parakuribo wrote:


Drukhari has Lelith... with no way to play her....

What do you mean?

 parakuribo wrote:
At least 10th is somehow getting it a little better.

And as soon as 10th is feeling fairly polished whilst also grinding under a weight of welcome updates FAQ/Errata and expansion books instead of giving a nice 10.2 update with fresh books that include all the corrected info --- GW will instead throw it all out and start over again

i suspect 11th edition is going to be what 9th was for the 8th edition rules set. we're not going to see codexes invalidated so soon

I really hope so but I admit I didn't believe GW was going to be stupid enough to outright invalidate 9th ed codexes.

 Tyran wrote:
I really hope so but I admit I didn't believe GW was going to be stupid enough to outright invalidate 9th ed codexes.

I feel like GW is riding a fever train of edition releases and that at some point its going to break.

Either its going to break because GW has so many games out at once all updating so fast they HAVE to slow some down or end up with big releases so close they can't schedule them.
Or (and this is more likely to happen for 40K or AoS) the community ends up backlashing in a big way. Ergo not just grumpy people online but a proper backlash.

I think they ALMOST had one with AoS when they stripped not just books but models in one big go. I do wonder if it might cause Gw to rethink making stormcast the marines of AoS in marketing and perhaps consider that maybe they could put a different army in the next big boxed set.

Right now they are still on a big high; but at some point I think something has to give out and change course. It just doesn't feel like a sustainable game model to me. Even accepting that GW's balance and rule writing has always been a bit moreon the casual side

I feel like the long term plan is to grow the audience of the secondary games so that they can cut back on release pace for 40k/aos and spread out editions across more product lines

chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like the long term plan is to grow the audience of the secondary games so that they can cut back on release pace for 40k/aos and spread out editions across more product lines

I'd like that to be the plan but I don't quite see it. The Website alone basically hides a chunk of the specialist games. Only HH and Old World have direct front page links; the rest are hidden behind two menu clicks so you've got to know they are there to find them.

I do honestly think GW today realises that a healthy broad spectrum of games is good for them and us so I think that most of the core specialist games are "here to stay".

But GW is also doing a LOT of random heroes; random promotional models; one offs and such alongside all this. On the one hand they can't keep some stuff in stock; on the other they are pushing out one-off stuff a lot more so.


I think there's not one plan but several and I suspect its more a case of inter-departmental competition going on

 Hellebore wrote:
Ha I remember in the early 2000s when GW provided replacement sections you were supposed to glue over the top of in the books, hours cutting out little squares of text to stick over paragraphs...

My (first) copy of 6th edition WHFB has stuck together pages because of this. (I probably shouldn't have used Clag glue, that smooshes out when close the book.)

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It's just... reality? I mean the other option is these things just aren't worth playing.

Isn't the other option to not write rules that aren't worth writing?

I don't have an issue with FAQs and Erratas.
GW might have a bit too many, but it's unrealistic to expect perfection out the gate, no matter how much playtesting and editing you do, and it's better to fix issues than let them fester.

That said, the lack of ease of use (and paying for the App and all the rules is not a good answer) is an issue.

What if they wrote rules that were cool, thematic, and fun to play for each army and stopped chasing this competitive meta win-rate bullcrap that the community wasn't asking for?

What, and be like other games???

ccs wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It's just... reality? I mean the other option is these things just aren't worth playing.

Isn't the other option to not write rules that aren't worth writing?

I don't have an issue with FAQs and Erratas.
GW might have a bit too many, but it's unrealistic to expect perfection out the gate, no matter how much playtesting and editing you do, and it's better to fix issues than let them fester.

That said, the lack of ease of use (and paying for the App and all the rules is not a good answer) is an issue.

What if they wrote rules that were cool, thematic, and fun to play for each army and stopped chasing this competitive meta win-rate bullcrap that the community wasn't asking for?

What, and be like other games???

Quite a lot of the GW community do ask for that. Every detachment, codex, unit or model that's released is immediately graded on how "good" it is on practically every media outlet, including this one.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I doubt we'll ever know the rationale behind sonic weapons now having flamer-style fuel canisters...

I guess the "serious" answer might be "pheromones".

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It's just... reality? I mean the other option is these things just aren't worth playing.

Isn't the other option to not write rules that aren't worth writing?

I don't have an issue with FAQs and Erratas.
GW might have a bit too many, but it's unrealistic to expect perfection out the gate, no matter how much playtesting and editing you do, and it's better to fix issues than let them fester.

That said, the lack of ease of use (and paying for the App and all the rules is not a good answer) is an issue.

What if they wrote rules that were cool, thematic, and fun to play for each army and stopped chasing this competitive meta win-rate bullcrap that the community wasn't asking for?

What, and be like other games???

Quite a lot of the GW community do ask for that. Every detachment, codex, unit or model that's released is immediately graded on how "good" it is on practically every media outlet, including this one.

Suggest a bit of caution here - The internet, particularly forums for specialist interests, isn’t and has never been a good barometer of wider opinion. They are, almost by their very design, set up to represent a vocal minority.
That, plus the fact that the motivations for trend chasing and endless commentary on hobby sites these days is usually motivated by generating clicks rather than because there is genuine interest and passion for the subject matter

Roll Three Dice wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It's just... reality? I mean the other option is these things just aren't worth playing.

Isn't the other option to not write rules that aren't worth writing?

I don't have an issue with FAQs and Erratas.
GW might have a bit too many, but it's unrealistic to expect perfection out the gate, no matter how much playtesting and editing you do, and it's better to fix issues than let them fester.

That said, the lack of ease of use (and paying for the App and all the rules is not a good answer) is an issue.

What if they wrote rules that were cool, thematic, and fun to play for each army and stopped chasing this competitive meta win-rate bullcrap that the community wasn't asking for?

What, and be like other games???

Quite a lot of the GW community do ask for that. Every detachment, codex, unit or model that's released is immediately graded on how "good" it is on practically every media outlet, including this one.

Suggest a bit of caution here - The internet, particularly forums for specialist interests, isn’t and has never been a good barometer of wider opinion. They are, almost by their very design, set up to represent a vocal minority.
That, plus the fact that the motivations for trend chasing and endless commentary on hobby sites these days is usually motivated by generating clicks rather than because there is genuine interest and passion for the subject matter

Whilst that's true, it's also what's presented and shoved down peoples throats most commonly, so you could argue has the wider appeal, or they'd be presenting more narrative content.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I doubt we'll ever know the rationale behind sonic weapons now having flamer-style fuel canisters...

It looks weird, considering that style of canister is a visual signifier for flamer fuel, among several model lines in the game.

However I -am- actuslly assuming it’s a gas canister of some similar sort. Loud, portable, horns are usually driven by gas, after all.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Rulebooks used to have longevity, you used to buy them and get a decade of use out of them.

If we're talking GW games, when has this ever really been the case?

Longest would be 3rd Ed, at 6 years if memory serves.

Rogue Trader doesn’t count, because supplements changed fundamental parts of the game.

If you were (un)lucky a codex might span a couple of editions, but would have a bit of FAQ/errata at that point. Even for the old days when GW didn’t do much of that, they gave enough for the out of date books to limp along until replaced.

Ten years or more is an outlier for GW. It happened for Dark Eldar whose 3rd ed codex was replaced in 5th ed after twelve years (and a White Dwarf update to the 3rd ed codex that turned into a second printing). The 3rd ed Space Wolves supplement was also in use until it got replaced by the Space Wolves codex in 5th ed, which I think was only slightly shorter than Dark Eldar.

Not quite so sure about the dates in Fantasy, but Tomb Kings I think were 2002 for 6th ed, skipped 7th ed and got replaced sometime in the first half of 8th ed. Bretonnia might hold the record for a main game because its 6th ed book was never replaced.

More often than not, you're looking at a release every other edition at the latest with at most two documents that adapted an old codex to a new edition. And more often than not, people weren't ecstatic about getting ten years of use out of their codex because rules maintenance hasn't been GW's forte and overwhelmingly new miniatures were tied to a new codex release. That said, the current approach and frequency of changes is also far from ideal. At least for the customer.

three year edition cycles have been a thing since like 5th edition. the only reason people are causing noise about it now is because the perception with 10th edition that every new edition will invalidate codexes (when that's something they've only done three times ever)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bile detachment is fun, btw. silly stuff, because the more powerful version is the one where it's more random. we need more stuff like that

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
three year edition cycles have been a thing since like 5th edition. the only reason people are causing noise about it now is because the perception with 10th edition that every new edition will invalidate codexes (when that's something they've only done three times ever)

7th ed 40k was the first edition to use the now familiar and stable three year cycle. That was in 2014, on the heels of 6th ed that only lasted 23 months (which was and still is an outlier).

People have complained about the three year cycle since it was established, not because of dissatisfaction with the rules as that is a separate issue, but because it's a terrible release model for a game that requires a large number of models that take time to build and, ideally, paint. 10th ed, for all the controversy about it, is not special in that regard. It is however the first edition since 8th ed which invalidated codices. And 8th ed is an edition which brought in a lot of new players. It's the first time that those players see it happen. 8th ed is also the edition in which a fair few people who got disillusioned in 6th ed and 7th ed placed their hopes for a better handling of the game.

It's no surprise to hear more complaints now than in the years before. It's the inevitable consequence of GW's business practices.

On the three year cycle? I wonder if it’s more the implementation.

For instance, a three year, republished with all errata and FAQ folded in, rulebook isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

But, with 40K? GW has done extensive changes to base rules, army selection etc. That I’m not terribly fond of.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the three year cycle? I wonder if it’s more the implementation.

For instance, a three year, republished with all errata and FAQ folded in, rulebook isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

But, with 40K? GW has done extensive changes to base rules, army selection etc. That I’m not terribly fond of.

It’s the churn for the sake of churn. They don’t incrementally improve things, they pound the reset button every 3 years to make you re-buy everything.

If it was just a clean copy with everything rolled in, there would be a LOT less hate for it. And maybe better balance, as they are not starting from scratch every cycle.

But presumably someone at GW has run the numbers and decided this was the best business plan…

I don't have a dog in the rules discussion, but I do have a theory on the sonic weapon tanks - I reckon they are full of promethium, but only for pyrotechnic purposes. I'm imagining the full Rammstein experience with every blast

This reminds me of the comic book world, where DC and Marvel hit the cosmic reset button to draw in new fans.