10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread

[Evil Eye]

It quite literally is. The book's contents, as written, have been superseded by the FAQ/contents of another book and are thus invalid. A prime example of this would be the points values in a Codex.

[Wulf Vengis]

I think what BBF means to say is that if someone is unaware of the faq/errata than they would still use the codex listings as if the faq/errata were non-existent.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Wulf Vengis said:

I think what BBF means to say is that if someone is unaware of the faq/errata than they would still use the codex listings as if the faq/errata were non-existent.

Until they try to play someone who is aware of changes that nerfed the book and refuses to play with the ignorant player

[MysticTemplar]

I feel like the question of how rules are delivered is a tangent to the broader problem that I feel like GW needs to address going forwards: Releasing faction rules sequentially over a long time frame.

 

It is awful from a game perspective - in no small part because it means that if you're unlucky, you get to be stuck on last edition's design paradigm for most of the edition (or multiple editions, in the case of some older codices).

Edited September 28, 2022 by MysticTemplar

[Verbal Underbelly]

Or stuck with a load of models you've spent time painting (and bought) and can't now use in a game legal setting. That's a feel bad moment for anyone. The game is updated too quickly and too often currently; it's not Star Craft II - there's physical consequences for a lot of players.

 

[Mandragola]

I've found the current state of 40k kind of impossible. In the past I've been a hardcore competitive player but the state of the game now means it's just not worth the time or financial investment. 

GW aren't going to change. You only have to look at the new LoV codex to see that power creep is here to stay. The only change is that we also now know that it'll get nerfed back to a more reasonable state in a short while. So what are people who like space dwarves to do? The rules in their codexes are clearly only temporary, and they've no idea if stuff they buy now will be good in three months' time.

I'd encourage disillusioned 40k players to look elsewhere while we wait for 10th. I personally really enjoy Adeptus Titanicus, which is a great rules system and relatively stable. The starter set is enough to play proper games with and the models are phenomenal. I've also had fun with stuff like historicals, where you can get an army together for about the cost of some single units in 40k. And the great thing about a model Sherman tank or Roman Legionary is that they aren't limited to just one rule system.

The main point is that even if you think 40k sucks right now, the hobby doesn't. You can still paint models, play games, complain about dice rolls and your opponent's WAAC list in many different ways. Nobody is forcing you to hand money to GW for a product you don't like.

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Verbal Underbelly said:

Or stuck with a load of models you've spent time painting (and bought) and can't now use in a game legal setting. That's a feel bad moment for anyone. The game is updated too quickly and too often currently; it's not Star Craft II - there's physical consequences for a lot of players.

 

This is a great point.

Swapping armies or models is not like swapping out your character in a MOBA. You have what you have, and that is it.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

What I meant was as follows… many codices have been FAQd and new points for certain units assigned. I don’t think this invalidates them. It’s just how geedub does business now.

[Wulf Vengis]

Well any faq would certainly invalidate the previous codex printing concerning it's subject matter, whether that be a points/PL cost or how an ability works is dependant upon the faq in question.

However just because an faq is released doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow its contents, specifically if you don't have ready/easy access to said faq. In my experience a player without their faq just follows their codex as written.

(I understand the faq supersedes the codex but without access to an faq you would default back to your codex would you not?)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

36 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

What I meant was as follows… many codices have been FAQd and new points for certain units assigned. I don’t think this invalidates them. It’s just how geedub does business now.

Again, if someone is unaware of a change to points and builds an army based on the codex and they then bring that army to the store, either they’re playing at a large advantage (in the case of points increases) or disadvantage (in the case of points decreases) in the case of the former people who are aware of the changes may not want to play them as a result, invalidating the codex as a list building tool.

here’s a fabulous idea, GW could just release balanced rules and not change the rules throughout the edition.

id rather things not change at all during an edition, and let a few armies be OP. If I don’t want to get steam rolled by them I can choose not to play them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 minute ago, Wulf Vengis said:

Well any faq would certainly invalidate the previous codex printing concerning it's subject matter, whether that be a points/PL cost or how an ability works is dependant upon the faq in question.

However just because an faq is released doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow its contents, specifically if you don't have ready/easy access to said faq. In my experience a player without their faq just follows their codex as written.

(I understand the faq supersedes the codex but without access to an faq you would default back to your codex would you not?)

Assuming the opponent is ok with that sure.

I know I wouldn’t be too interested in trying to learn a rule on the fly and figure out how work my army around/with that new rule or new interpretation of a rule, as that would not be a fun enjoyable experience for me.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I play only competitive 40K and it is imperative to use the most up to date rules. Also the FAQ often clarifies how to properly interpret an existing rule for fair play.

Edited September 28, 2022 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I play only competitive 40K and it is imperative to use the most up to date rules. Also the FAQ often clarifies how to properly interpret an existing rule for fair play.

And if they stop doing monthly updates to rules you can still play with the most up to date rules that way.

[Mandragola]

11 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And if they stop doing monthly updates to rules you can still play with the most up to date rules that way.

True, but as BBF points out, these updates aren't just about balance. They also clarify or fix rules that don't work. You'd have to be selective about which parts of the FAQ to use and which not to. At that point, wouldn't it be better to just use all of it?

GW seems to be dragging itself kicking and screaming towards a digital subscription rules system. I think it makes sense to separate the ephemeral rules, which don't really work on dead trees that will be out of date weeks after release, from the fluff and painting guides which should last across multiple editions.

[Redcomet]

3 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

True, but as BBF points out, these updates aren't just about balance. They also clarify or fix rules that don't work. You'd have to be selective about which parts of the FAQ to use and which not to. At that point, wouldn't it be better to just use all of it?

GW seems to be dragging itself kicking and screaming towards a digital subscription rules system. I think it makes sense to separate the ephemeral rules, which don't really work on dead trees that will be out of date weeks after release, from the fluff and painting guides which should last across multiple editions.

Fully agree. Having often updated rules being land locked to dead tree books, makes little sense. 

[Emperor Ming]

Considering how many physical books they sell every year

Full digital probably isn't going to happen anytime soon

 

[Mandragola]

And what do you know, LoV are nerfed before their book even gets its full release.

They do have the good grace to be apologetic about it, for once. Sort of.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Mandragola said:

True, but as BBF points out, these updates aren't just about balance. They also clarify or fix rules that don't work. You'd have to be selective about which parts of the FAQ to use and which not to. At that point, wouldn't it be better to just use all of it?

GW seems to be dragging itself kicking and screaming towards a digital subscription rules system. I think it makes sense to separate the ephemeral rules, which don't really work on dead trees that will be out of date weeks after release, from the fluff and painting guides which should last across multiple editions.

And no one is complaining about clarifications.

people are annoyed about points changes, and completely new special rules being added.

there’s a huge difference between clarifying someone wording, and creating an all new rule.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

And what do you know, LoV are nerfed before their book even gets its full release.

They do have the good grace to be apologetic about it, for once. Sort of.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

Yay! A codex invalidated before it’s even released!

 

lets face it, they’re either liars, or they don’t understand their own game and rules beyond the level of a new player.

but anyone with any moderate understanding of the game and it’s rules saw how OP their rules were.

GW doesn’t care about balance, they intentionally make codexes OP to sell books and models, LoV was just an extreme example of this.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Orange Knight]

It's worse than this. We need an Errata for the Errata that was released for a codex before the codex even came out lol.

It's very tedious, I have to say. I think that whilst the core rules of the game are indeed simple, the design ethos of how the codex rules are built upon layers and layers of abilities is starting to cause problems. I don't know what GW will do with 10th, I don't know if they will change the core rules, but they absolutely must tear down all existing codex books and start again with something more elegant and interesting, and remove the strats in favour of unique rules for individual units.

[Mandragola]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yay! A codex invalidated before it’s even released!

 

lets face it, they’re either liars, or they don’t understand their own game and rules beyond the level of a new player.

but anyone with any moderate understanding of the game and it’s rules saw how OP their rules were.

GW doesn’t care about balance, they intentionally make codexes OP to sell books and models, LoV was just an extreme example of this.

My understanding from the article is that they only tested the LoV against other new books, Tyrannids and Eldar, which also came out with awful balance issues on release. If they did indeed test those books in a sort of bubble (perhaps to keep the LoV secret?) that would explain how they were all such a mess. It would also be incredibly stupid.

I'd be cross about this but I'm already checked out of 40k. I get to be cross about the FAQs for 30k instead, which are arguably worse.

The one thing I don't and have never agreed with is the idea that GW does this on purpose for sales. They wouldn't have nerfed the book before it got released if that was the case - they'd have let everyone buy three land fortresses before raising their price by 70 points each and nerfing their guns.

[Scribe]

This edition needs to be taken out back...

Normally,  system mastery kicks in and companies don't release work this late in an edition that is broken.

GW can't even handle the layers of complexity!

Laughing, out loud.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

My understanding from the article is that they only tested the LoV against other new books, Tyrannids and Eldar, which also came out with awful balance issues on release. If they did indeed test those books in a sort of bubble (perhaps to keep the LoV secret?) that would explain how they were all such a mess. It would also be incredibly stupid.

I'd be cross about this but I'm already checked out of 40k. I get to be cross about the FAQs for 30k instead, which are arguably worse.

The one thing I don't and have never agreed with is the idea that GW does this on purpose for sales. They wouldn't have nerfed the book before it got released if that was the case - they'd have let everyone buy three land fortresses before raising their price by 70 points each and nerfing their guns.

Isn’t it already up for preorder? They probably figured that they got all they would from the power gamers.

im sure they have some sort of equation for that sort of thing.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The uproar was so load and extreme this time they didn’t really have time to wait… they were bleeding everyday.

[Scribe]

Day 0 patch. Truly GW is getting with the games design times.