6th Ed pulled

[Lord Draconiroth]

Apr 29, 2014 12:22:54 GMT The Irontooth said:

I rather want a new Fantasy edition!

But do we really need one of those either? It comes to a point that they're just releasing new editions for the sake of it and they pick a writer than had a beef with one part.

[Geifer]

3rd ed lasted us from 1998 to 2004. 4th ed from 2004 to 2008. 5th ed from 2008 to 2012. Just to name the ones I followed from start to finish.

The Fantasy edition preceding 4th ed 40k started the trend of four year cycles which we are currently accustomed to.

So while it is true there is historic precedent for a consitent cycle, lasting for over a decade now, it would appear that GW isn't of the opinion anymore that this is the way to go. If the rumors prove correct, of course.

Unfortunately, GW doesn't want us to know what's going on, so the rumors of 7th ed being 6th ed plus expansions are, to anyone without first hand knowledge, no more likely than rumors that tell of greater changes. We simply don't know just yet.

[Geifer]

Apr 29, 2014 12:29:38 GMT Lord Draconiroth said:

But do we really need one of those either? It comes to a point that they're just releasing new editions for the sake of it and they pick a writer than had a beef with one part.

Depends on how you define need, of course, but people take issue with steadfast, the power level of magic and the cost of armies because of the rules favoring horde formations requiring many models.

Personally I think the rules of 8th ed, though somewhat flawed, make for an entertaining, largely balanced game, and are fun. Much more so than the previous edition. So as far as I'm concerned, Fantasy is not in dire need of an update. That said, I acknowledge that GW profits from releasing new editions every so often, and a new edition of Fantasy is (over-)due. Following that aforementioned schedule that we can probably now forget about, we should have gotten a new Fantasy edition this July.

[The Irontooth]

I think the 'need' of a new edition lies in the fact that a lot players within a single ruleset and armybook/codex after some time get stuck in the same armylist and the same match-ups. A new armybook as well as a new BRB brings change, which breaks the repetitive pattern. For example in 40k 5thE made troops and missions in general far more important than in 4th. 6thE with flyers and making it a more shooty edition made you have to play differently and build other armies.

New editions break the pattern, they add something new.

Even when I'm enjoying an edition, I like it when GW comes with a new edition just so it revives the enthousiasm that sometimes gets lost after 4 years with some people. That's true for all games (not for all people playing them though).

When I said, I rather want a new Fantasy edition, well that's because I'm now restarting WHF, and I rather have a new one at the start than after a year.

[Geifer]

Yep. I was rather happy to see 5th ed 40k and 7th ed Fantasy go. Four years for one edition is enough for me, at the rate of codex renewal they had back then. I'm getting the same for 8th ed Fantasy now, although the fairly rapid army book overhauls in recent times have alleviated that somewhat.

6th ed combines the worst of those. It's not even been two years since its release, and it saw more codex updates than the previous edition in twice that time. Which makes me wonder where the appeal is meant to be in a new edition.

[The Irontooth]

Yeah I agree. Two years is just too short. It would only make sense as a quick fix for a very bad edition with a lot of players dropping out. But I don't have the impression that's the case with 6thE 40k.

Actually, I have the impression that more people are dropping out of GW games than previous years, but talking to them tells me the too many rule updates and add-ons are mainly the reason for this (so a new edition only would enforce this dropping out rather than trying to halt it). Next to the fast release schedule the rise of other game developers (combined with the big hole GW created by neglecting their specialist games and eventually dropping them) probably is GW's worst enemy. I'm still convinced that a 40k skirmish game (and a WHF skirmish game) would both help GW keeping a strong position in the wargaming market and be a nice pull-in game for their larger cousins.

Meh, I'm getting far too off-topic.

[Geifer]

People I spoke to personally don't have a problem with increased codex release rates. Marine players don't care because they got updated regularly, so nothing changes, and everyone else can look forward to a recent, updated for the current edition book. I don't see how that could be a bad thing.

I do know from reading online, though, that lots of tournament players complain that they don't get the necessary time to break a codex before the next one is released, so they never get the chance to ride on the latest release because the next best thing is out and they have to readjust again.

However, on the edition of the core rules I agree. It's an awful lot of money to spend on something that gets replaced so quickly, with the prospect of seeing a new codex to go with the new edition, with is even more money. So not only do you get to exhaust all the possibilities a single edition offers, but relatively speaking you get less value for money as well. That can't go down well.

I think you're spot on on the effect Specilaist Games could have. GW markets its models to those willing to play one of two games, or both, at a fairly specific points level or above. If you want to start slow, don't have the time for large games or simply don't want to have a large army but prefer warbands or squads, the core rules don't give you a balanced enough game. You exhaust your options quickly for 500pts games in both systems, because the rules are balanced for three to four times the points. If you introduce new players like that and keep going for longer than a month, it is my experience that games tend to go the same way because your options are limited and you have to keep doing the same thing in every game, or lose to your opponent doing the same thing over and over. A dedicated skirmish system would be a good thing to have, but I think GW doesn't do it because they fear pleasing the customer after only buying two or three model kits is not enough profit to them, discarding any goodwill this might generate and the possibility that players might want to expand their forces to give larger games a try. In the meantime everyone else is doing skirmish games, and GW doesn't get anything from those people.

Apr 29, 2014 13:08:36 GMT The Irontooth said:

Meh, I'm getting far too off-topic.

It's what we do.

[The Irontooth]

Well, we are of course always basing our opinions on our own local gaming group and our own national tournament scene. That's why those UK guys think Bolt Action is a really popular game worldwide while it only is on their Island.

I'm (obviously) living in a small country (Belgium) which is again divided in two parts (dutch and french part) which means all tournament players, clubs and organisers in the dutch part more or less know eachother.

When WHF 8thE got released one of my local gaming clubs (which was 100% WHF) switched entirely to Warmahordes, and the amount of players on WHF tournaments the first years of 8th got halved (there has been an increase again the last couple of years). This is I think a good example of how an unpopular ruleset can lead to drop-outs. Just to be clear, I actually like the 8thE ruleset (or at least on paper as I have never played it yet ).

With 40k a similar thing is happening. This year an entire club (with a strong 40k part) stopped playing 40k, because they thought the ally system ruïned the game as well as the too high tempo release schedule. In my own gaming club (in which I yearly organise a 40K campaign for 15-20 players as well as being the head TO of our own 40K tournament) I now have to see that people wanting to play 40k have a hard time finding an opponent. Members rather playing Dystopian Wars, Warmahordes (which out of the blue converted 10 of our 40k'ers), etc.

One thing that is a big evil (so to say) are the internet forums though. As I have to say that part of the reason is that people don't want to face armies that are build to win with the least bit of background, as well as armies using data sheets and formations, and supplements, and they just don't want to play versus armies they don't know (as part of being a good general is of course knowing your enemy). And though I understand their fear, I can't see why they should all fear the big internet monster armylist if no one of our own gaming club has started a new army in over a year or has bought a data sheet. They fear the armylists they see online, while forgetting they are playing versus their own clubmembers. But you do see these internet monsters on tournaments though.

I'm just rambling I guess.

EDIT: to be more replying to your post than just rambling, people don't like the high speed release schedule because they don't have the time to to know their enemy. Combine this with lots of extra rule-adds, they before had to get familiar with 2 armies (maybe 3 each year) while now with 5, + 3 supplements, + tons of data stuff, etc. They just lose their grip on the game (and especially their enemy).

[haywiregrenade]

I have said the same on a couple elf FS groups
So an Edition that had a big fanfare with the ltd Ed version and all the jazzy bag and stuff was valid for 18months?
Then you added in Stronghold and Escalation books in December which are now going to be pointless after just 5 months because they won't be "current edition" so can be scrapped as well.

So £110 ish of wasted paper then. Awesome.

A regular gamer gets 1 game in a week I think. (club nights or whatever). An average gamer probably plays once a month. 18 games for £110?!

[Geifer]

I see. It never occured to me that anyone would tie their enjoyment of the game to sufficient knowledge about other armies beyond knowing they don't get cheated, but okay, why not? In that case a faster pace of rules releases will have detrimental effects.

That doesn't mean that I agree, of course, at least in principle. The distinction I make is between moderate and extreme change. GW can't please everyone, and players have been clamoring for years for increased codex release speed. There is obviously demand for such a thing, and personally I like it now more than I did before. I see the negative sides, though. Quality is an issue, consistency across platforms (if your iThingy says something else than your epub and that's different from your murdered tree codex, there's obviously a problem), download only content, different release formats (codices (historically proper), codices (mini), codices (isult to players' intelligence), dataslates, expansions, supplements), these are all, well, let's just say less than ideal in the way they exist now. But in general principle I quite like the idea that I don't have to wait another nine years to get a new Necron codex.

Indeed, the Internet seems to have a greater need to discuss and promote the power builds than other aspects of army building. I can understand why. Build a themed list, pure theme, no consideration for performance allowed. What do you get? A pure art project. There's not much to discuss. You can voice appreciation for the selection of units and theme, make suggestion what might complement them, or express doubts as to the validity of the theme as implemented in the army or as possibly by the games's background. Many a time, it will boil down to personal taste in the end.

On the other hand, army performance and rules allow you to have more objective discussions. You are more often than not talking about facts and tendencies, plus math. There's so much more room for discussion there, so it takes up more space, gets more attention, and so forth.

Just look at the Bols article about the Wyvern posted today. And by look I mean do the same as I and look, don't read. I'm pretty sure that I could sum up what that wall of text says into: rules excellent, points too low, buy three. There's math in there, you can analyze this, check it for mistakes, cite different experiences because math and scattering templates over differently spaced models are hard to reconcile. Then you have a debate about whether the model makes other artillery pieces redundant, and then there's the ever so popular question of whether GW makes new units overpowered to sell more. I'm sure you can argue about even more things. And this is just one unit out of one codex. Compare that to an army or conversion feature on Bols and see the difference in quality and quantity of comments.

So I can understand why powergamer talk is more prevalent on the Internet and influences people, negatively in many cases where different outlooks on the game are affected. It would be nice to have less focus on that, but I think that's just not realistic.

[The Irontooth]

Well GW and its games have become so big and the internet has it made it so easy, that on everything GW does there will always be people disliking it (and people liking it). And mostly the ones disliking it will shout most often and the loudest. I guess the truth lies in the middle.

I agree that people wanted their own codexes getting updated more often. I think like now with Wood Elves having to wait 9 years is just too long (or Dark Eldar as an example in 40k). Next to this people loved (and blamed GW for not doing it anymore) fluffy alternative armylist published in White Dwarfs.

In contrast, GW did indeed speed up codex releases and you could say supplements and digital rulesets are the answer for the lost White Dwarf alternative lists. And we are still not happy?!

Well there isn't of course such a thing as the 40k'er, and so some people didn't mind the slow codex updates (especially not if they played SM and so got a new one every edition anyway ), and others didn't miss the WD alternative lists.

But what I think is the real problem (but I could be completely wrong ) is that updating 70% of all codexes per edition (2-3 a year) was too slow, and now (trying) updating them all in one edition is the right thing to do. But at a speed of 5 per year and a 2-year edition it is just too fast. I think sticking with 4-year editions and 4 codexes per year would be perfect (and I believe many would agree ).
+
Releasing supplements and digital stuff is a good thing for those who missed these things from old(er) WD, but GW should have kept these labeled "casual games only/ needs opponent's approval" like before. This would remove the fear of too many different possible formations at tournaments as well as give some relaxing thought to casual gamers that they at least have some control in what they will be facing (for example their opponent asking them and so knowing in advance, or at least knowing they don't have to face it every week). And to be honest, you also should publish these in a WD (like before). This would upgrade WD and this would make these rules also more easily available (because you either would buy WD anyway, or probably know some one who does).

Believe me, if I would be GW ceo every one would be far more happy (well besides the shareholders possibly ).

[badfang]

There are all sorts of different games to play with 40k, the interweb Death Star discussions, the painters and converters, had a good bun-fight over shooting grot suparokkits at flyers once - not really having a problem with any of them, and when playing with friends it really is up to you what rules you use (eg. Waaagh Jim Lad).

The problem I have with 40k is the excellent (if derivative - little green men from outer space?) Ork fluff that is simply not allowed by or reflected in the Kodex army list suggesting to me that GWs writers at best just don't care.

As for 6th ed, as a wargame I really can't be bothered.

Old saying - 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' so what are we to conclude from GW's constant attempts to fix it?

[Geifer]

Apr 29, 2014 14:42:02 GMT haywiregrenade said:

I have said the same on a couple elf FS groups
So an Edition that had a big fanfare with the ltd Ed version and all the jazzy bag and stuff was valid for 18months?
Then you added in Stronghold and Escalation books in December which are now going to be pointless after just 5 months because they won't be "current edition" so can be scrapped as well.

So £110 ish of wasted paper then. Awesome.

A regular gamer gets 1 game in a week I think. (club nights or whatever). An average gamer probably plays once a month. 18 games for £110?!

Yeah, not a lot of happy thought to be had on that subject. Two years is too soon for an edition change.

Just wait until GW officially announces the new edition. If you're irritated now, think of the positive spin GW will put on it to promote tthe new edition as the best edition ever, an overhaul that implements improvements everywhere and released in record time because the designer were so happy with it they no longer wanted to keep it hidden from the public.

You just wait and see.

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

Well GW and its games have become so big and the internet has it made it so easy, that on everything GW does there will always be people disliking it (and people liking it). And mostly the ones disliking it will shout most often and the loudest. I guess the truth lies in the middle.

To be fair, you don't need to be big to be disliked. I could rabble all day about Warmachine models and how I'd rather throw myself in front of a moving train than spend one cent on Privateer Press models.

I'm pretty sure you are right, though. Criticism is expressed the loudest, typically, so it's hard to know just how many really have a problem with what GW is doing.

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

In contrast, GW did indeed speed up codex releases and you could say supplements and digital rulesets are the answer for the lost White Dwarf alternative lists. And we are still not happy?!

There are issues, of course. Cost being one. Or in my case, where cost is one step into a process I can't enter in the first place, no ability to legally obtain digital products without going out of my way, which I am not prepared to do just to pay GW's inflated prices.

As opposed to just walking into my local store, grabbing a WD from the shelf and walking to the counter to pay.

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

But what I think is the real problem (but I could be completely wrong ) is that updating 70% of all codexes per edition (2-3 a year) was too slow, and now (trying) updating them all in one edition is the right thing to do. But at a speed of 5 per year and a 2-year edition it is just too fast. I think sticking with 4-year editions and 4 codexes per year would be perfect (and I believe many would agree ).

Yep, speeding up codex releases to get everything updated in one edition only to release a new edition in half the time is... less than helful

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

Releasing supplements and digital stuff is a good thing for those who missed these things from old(er) WD, but GW should have kept these labeled "casual games only/ needs opponent's approval" like before.

Let me translate that for you. To me that label reads "never gets used".

Like special characters when they were still opponet's consent. Some people around here take exception to this day if you turn up with an army including a special character.

There is an unfortunate tendency, to name a negative aspect that I encounter, to believe that something that is already labeled as not fully part of the game to be considered inherently broken and not to be used. Because, you know, if the designers already admit to it being dodgy, how could that be balanced compared to the otherwise flawlessly balanced (except when it isn't) game of 40k.

I prefer an all or nothing solution. If you like it, bring it without fear of getting rejected on a technicality.

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

This would remove the fear of too many different possible formations at tournaments as well as give some relaxing thought to casual gamers that they at least have some control in what they will be facing (for example their opponent asking them and so knowing in advance, or at least knowing they don't have to face it every week). And to be honest, you also should publish these in a WD (like before). This would upgrade WD and this would make these rules also more easily available (because you either would buy WD anyway, or probably know some one who does).

Tournaments should really do this themselves. If something is utterly broken or so unfun that you don't want it at your tournament, include in your tournament rules as a no go. Why you would want to play tournaments of 6th ed 40k in the first place is a mystery to me, but to each their own. But to expect GW to release two rules systems for the same game is is a bit much, I think. GW has been there with special characters and Forgeworld, and as far as I'm concerned correctly left that idea behind.

As for the fear of facing something abominable every week, it would be a good thing if GW simply balanced everything to such a degree that this wouldn't be an issue. They might not solve all problems (historically they never managed to do that, neither with a complete reboot like 3rd ed 40k nor as advanced an edition as 8th ed Fantasy), but it would provide a solid foundation that cultivates fewer problems than what we have today.

Apart from that, I can only suggest talking to people about your expectations for casual gamers so as not to waste anyone's time playing a game they don't enjoy. Because in the end, the worst thing that will happen is that the group splits in two, a competitive and a casual half, but you are pretty much assured to get the same effect if you suggest basic and advanced rules from GW's end. If there are options at all, people will flock to the one they find most to their liking, and there is precious little you can do other than keep the groups separate if you want to avoid problems.

Apr 29, 2014 15:40:52 GMT The Irontooth said:

Believe me, if I would be GW ceo every one would be far more happy (well besides the shareholders possibly ).

If I were GW's CEO I'd be filthy rich and on the run from the law and and a lot of angry gamers.

Apr 29, 2014 17:18:08 GMT badfang said:

The problem I have with 40k is the excellent (if derivative - little green men from outer space?) Ork fluff that is simply not allowed by or reflected in the Kodex army list suggesting to me that GWs writers at best just don't care.

Ah, allow me to correct this commonly held misconception. For this purpose I shall quote from my Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer:

"... they are considerably weaker than the average man, despite what their appearance suggests."
"... lack of intellect..."
"... little, almost useless eyes..."
"Orks are cowards."

Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to consider Codex Orks an apt depiction of Orks.

Apr 29, 2014 17:18:08 GMT badfang said:

Old saying - 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' so what are we to conclude from GW's constant attempts to fix it?

Honestly, ignoring the break from 2nd ed to 3rd ed which essentially replaced one system with a lot for good things and some rather unhelpful bits for another system with a different lot of good things and some different rather unhelpful things, I would consider every new edition since I started an improvement over the previous incarnation. Even 3rd ed over 2nd ed, for the sole reason that it elevated 40k to a game of armies rather than a few units.

6th ed is as close to 2nd ed as it has ever been, with a different foundation to retain some of the advances 3rd ed through 5th ed brought.

[haywiregrenade]

Sounds like there was a GW managers meeting today. Probably being indoctrinated on the positive spin techniques to sell 7th ed, 7th ed ltd ed, 7th ed collectors ed, 7th ed one click bundle, 7th super bundle, 7th psychic deck, 7th ed templates, 7th ed ltd ed templates, 7th iBook release, 7th ed ebook release, 7th ed apocalypse v3, 7th ed apoc v3 ltd ed, 7th ed apoc iBook, 7th ebook, 5 issues of WD to cover it all, 2 issues of Visions showing you the same pics from GW online and the WD, and the new 7th ed starter box! and finally 7th ed ltd ed starter box with some ltd dude in it.

[Stretch]

Did someone swap the forum for the house of commons?

You lot should be politicians. Lol