Can GW really fix the problems that repeat with every edition of 40k?

[Orange Knight]

I made this post over in the 10th edition rumour topic, but I think it warrants it's own separate discussion.

 

The cycle has repeated itself over and over. GW release a new set of rules, everyone is happy. Over time the game is drowned in erratas and faqs, rules bloat, rapid updates after updates that have a significant impact on the game, and it's all compounded by uneven codex creep.

 

Let's assume that GW are taking some drastic measures to streamline the game - returning to an Index format is certainly something that would give that impression.

The current game of 40k has another big problem - Faction and Sub Faction bloat.

 

The factions and units need to be consolidated, and GW also need to think very carefully about the sub faction rules in every codex.

Look back on 9th edition - Marines have been awful for the last 2 years, but even during that time there were specific lists built around certain sub-factions that were able to compete with the more powerful codex books. The specific faction bonuses, in combination with the sheer number of available units and wargear combinations, created a vast disparity between armies that were built from the same codex. 

 

I don't know how this can be solved exactly. Perhaps something similar to what happened in the Guard codex? It is a single army able to take units from different "regiments" that have some unique rules and wargear. That isn't ideal to me, and I wouldn't want to see the same happen with the Marines. Whatever change they end up making, the community will need some maturity in recognising that a toning down of unique rules might be what's needed for a more healthy tabletop experience.

 

I'm happy that Eldar and Harlequins were consolidate under a single book. In my opinion GW need to create an Inquisition codex that would consolidate the Grey Knights and Deathwatch into two separate sub-factions in a single book, alongside all the various Inquisitors. They are, after all, the military arms connected with the Ordo Malleus and Ordo Xenos. Imperial Agents is something else that needs to be looked at - perhaps a mini codex that features the assassins, arbites, rogue traders, etc etc.

 

Marines themselves present a massive problem. The faction has over 100 datasheets at this points, whilst other armies exist and function perfectly well with only 12-16 separate datasheets. If the Primaris range is separated, the entire generic faction (and all existing chapter specific Primaris units) can be consolidated quite easily under a single codex. What GW intends to actually do is anyone's guess at this point. Having to release 10 separate books for a single faction across years of real time is starting to feel really stupid at this point, not to mention that it has created massive problems like what occurred in 9th edition.

My Imperial Fists haven't received a rule update for an entire edition of 40k. This starts to sound more crazy when you realise that the Ultramarines, White Scars, Salamanders etc have also been completely neglected. How did we reach a point where a faction is simultaneously the most supported in an edition, and the most neglected?

 

GW have a bit of a mess on their hands. There are way to solve all these issues but the community is very sensitive to both change and perceived slights against them. It remains to be seen if their streamlining and consolidation will have any meaningful impact, or if the same problems that exist today will be cropping up again a year or two into the next edition. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Orange Knight

[Emperor Ming]

Thing is, marines are just gonna keep getting more and more daasheets, that's never gonna change

 

I can see firstborn eventually being legends, 30k only, something like that. Its already slowly creeping that way

 

 

[Halandaar]

I think even the initial premise (that everyone is happy when a new Edition comes out) is a bit flawed. The big 8th Edition reset, despite being objectively popular overall, did see a fair few people abandon 40K for good in favour of Heresy which stayed with 7th Edition Ruleset. And although there is a lot of rose-tinted-glasses kind of appreciation for the early days of 8th when it felt like a fairly level playing field, we forget that as time wore on people started to tire of their very under-developed and one-dimensional Index armies, especially when they were getting outstripped by new Codexes.

 

As to the core point; can GW fix the problems? Well yes, they can. The real question is will they, to which I have to think no, they probably won't, because the current paradigm is so profitable.

 

Some people want the most powerful army, so there's always a market that supports the newest Codex being stronger than the last, and then when other Codexes get left behind, people playing those armies want to be brought up to the same level, so there's always a market for replacement Codexes. People typically want more options, not less (see all the complaints about kit-limited wargear choices on datasheets) so the expansion of subfactions makes sense. And even if it might make the game easier to balance, people hate having options taken away from them, so the number of different options and moving parts in the game that rules have to interact with only ever goes up. When it all gets too much we're practically begging GW to strip it all back and start over, and they rub their hands with glee at the prospect of selling us all another rulebook and another Codex for each of our armies.

 

 

 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

What you call "faction and sub faction bloat" is my favourite part of the game, and why 8th/ 9th have been my favourite editions.

 

From 2nd to 7th, marines have had 3-4 times as much source material as any other faction. Some factions have never had any distinction between their subfactions at all. Some factions didn't exist at all, while others sat out for editions.

 

Now ALL of those problems are finally fixed- something I've waited 35 years to see. And people are complaining about cognitive burden. I don't play 40k like a board game or a table-top game; I play it like an RPG. In D&D, no one complains there are too many monsters or too many classes, because in an RPG, not knowing EVERYTHING about every possible opponent is a part of the story.

 

But people who come from a war games background are interested in a competitive game, and they play it like a sport and that makes them think that you MUST memorize every possible rule for every possible army. It's two different mindsets. Both points of view are valid... but they are irreconcilable.

[Halandaar]

8 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

What you call "faction and sub faction bloat" is my favourite part of the game, and why 8th/ 9th have been my favourite editions.

 

From 2nd to 7th, marines have had 3-4 times as much source material as any other faction. Some factions have never had any distinction between their subfactions at all. Some factions didn't exist at all, while others sat out for editions.

 

Now ALL of those problems are finally fixed- something I've waited 35 years to see. And people are complaining about cognitive burden. I don't play 40k like a board game or a table-top game; I play it like an RPG. In D&D, no one complains there are too many monsters or too many classes, because in an RPG, not knowing EVERYTHING about every possible opponent is a part of the story.

 

But people who come from a war games background are interested in a competitive game, and they play it like a sport and that makes them think that you MUST memorize every possible rule for every possible army. It's two different mindsets. Both points of view are valid... but they are irreconcilable.

 

I think this is absolutely a fair point, that when you approach an RPG you have a lot of interlocking systems at play and the high amount of detail is a feature, not a bug, although in that setting you're typically only looking after one character with one set of abilities (or at most a small group), not an entire army of different units that do different things based on different conditions. 

 

FWIW I don't personally have an issue with there being a lot of factions or subfactions in 40k, and the way I play the game (casually or narratively) means that for me, choosing a subfaction is a question of theme or flavour, rather than power or efficiency. But it's hard to argue against the idea that all those different possible combinations make balancing the subfactions against each other a difficult task. More variables means more chances for broken combos to slip through, and for the people who play 40k in a competitive or organised environment, they are sometimes going to be pushed away from their preferred choice to something that is just objectively better at winning the game.

 

To be honest with you if GW announced that Crusade was being cleaved off from the main game and would exist in the 9th Edition ruleset in perpetuity (with just updates released to integrate new kits into the system) then I would genuinely go out and buy every 9th Edition Codex in print and just play that forever. 

[The Yncarne]

I don’t think GW can or will solve the accumulation of rules, complexity, or inability to provide a consistent power level amongst or even within codexes. 8th and 9th editions’ lifecycle don’t give me hope for 10th edition’s long term (3-4 years max) success. 
 

it’s been about a year since I last played (started in 89) and I honestly don’t see myself investing in 10th edition. I’m happy playing an alternative game with my existing models. 
 

I actually like to play games again, it’s just not made by GW.

[Special Officer Doofy]

2 hours ago, Halandaar said:

I think even the initial premise (that everyone is happy when a new Edition comes out) is a bit flawed. The big 8th Edition reset, despite being objectively popular overall, did see a fair few people abandon 40K for good in favour of Heresy which stayed with 7th Edition Ruleset. And although there is a lot of rose-tinted-glasses kind of appreciation for the early days of 8th when it felt like a fairly level playing field, we forget that as time wore on people started to tire of their very under-developed and one-dimensional Index armies, especially when they were getting outstripped by new Codexes.

 

As to the core point; can GW fix the problems? Well yes, they can. The real question is will they, to which I have to think no, they probably won't, because the current paradigm is so profitable.

 

I started in 3rd, quit in 6th and came back in 8th. 8th's streamlining is what brought me and my friends back. None of us cared for vehicle facings, armor values, initiative or templates. It was like a dream come true for us. Indexes didn't bother us one bit. But fast forward halfway through 9th, most of my group took a step back cause of the codex creep and constant rebalancing. Don't get me wrong, I like the rebalancing for glaring issues, but it's kind of pathetic how some of the issues even existed and made it to print in the first place.

 

Your second paragraph is right on the money and leads back into the first one a little. Their business model is what hurts their game the most. The snail speed that codexes come out with the constant power creep is one of their largest profit drivers I believe. They could release all the codexes so much closer to the beginning of the edition, and just add datasheets for partial or full range refreshes and collect them the following edition. That would make them alot less money. And that's what causes similar issues every edition as time goes on. Every time I mention codexes closer together, people always go "BuT tHe LoGiStIcS aNd ShElF sPaCe". It's almost like in 2023 they could go digital. For a billion dollar company their 40k app seems like it was built by two college interns who don't want the job. With the codexes coming out closer together and not just tested against the last few, there would be better balance.

 

As long as GW is a model manufacturer first and a game designer second they will always have these issues. For me the models are overpriced plastic, I only find value in them because they are part of the game of 40k. If the game is in a bad spot, I won't buy or paint models, I've moved on to a different hobby that holds more value to me. Don't get me wrong, I think the models look cool, but the money could be better spent elsewhere if they are not hitting the table.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

What you call "faction and sub faction bloat" is my favourite part of the game, and why 8th/ 9th have been my favourite editions.

 

From 2nd to 7th, marines have had 3-4 times as much source material as any other faction. Some factions have never had any distinction between their subfactions at all. Some factions didn't exist at all, while others sat out for editions.

 

Now ALL of those problems are finally fixed- something I've waited 35 years to see. And people are complaining about cognitive burden. I don't play 40k like a board game or a table-top game; I play it like an RPG. In D&D, no one complains there are too many monsters or too many classes, because in an RPG, not knowing EVERYTHING about every possible opponent is a part of the story.

 

But people who come from a war games background are interested in a competitive game, and they play it like a sport and that makes them think that you MUST memorize every possible rule for every possible army. It's two different mindsets. Both points of view are valid... but they are irreconcilable.

 

I think I saw you post something similar before, talking about your battle sisters specific sub faction identity. I get that. Where do you draw the line though? Battle sisters are a faction, and it has Sub-factions. But what about death guard and thousand sons? They are already sub factions of chaos space marines. Do they really need 7-9 sub-sub-factions each? With a different relic, warlord trait and strategem?

 

The space marine centric thought tank in 40k (specially this forum which many moons ago was marine only) can get really annoying. People said free wargear is awesome. Well in a 10 man squad of tacticals that can only take 2 specials, it's not THAT bad for balance. But what about plague marines? All 10 can be kitted out completely different, and their weapons are not all the same (some are strong some suck). Lost all balance. I get that it's annoying a majority of people only see things through a space marine lense. But loyalist marines make up a vast majority of the hobby. There are more ultramarine players then there are players for certain xenos factions I'm sure.

 

I certainly don't speak for everyone, but when I'm calling for less bloat and sub faction identity, it's mostly because of things like DG having 30+ strats plus another 7 tied to sub-sub-faction, and that's just ridiculous. It's also hard to balance sub factions way more than the overall faction. Flamestorm aggressors with salamanders got bonkers there for a minute before they lost their double tap. How do you balance that? Nerf the unit so they are not OP with salamanders but kind of crap for everyone else? Or nerf the salamanders rules around it and take away their identity? Might be a bad example, but it's one I remember all too well on the receiving end (my main marine opponent is salamanders).

 

The one constant with GW is you can't have your cake AND eat it. For me personally, game balance > faction identity. I'm not saying remove sub factions, but each difference makes balance that much harder, and GW kind of sucks at balancing as is. I'm cool with sub factions changing the "chapter trait", but do they need to come with their own relics, warlord traits, strats, spells, second mono bonuses and so fourth? Probably not.

[Orange Knight]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting sub factions are culled or removed.

 

There should be Ultramarines, Blood Angels, Farsight Enclaves etc etc

 

The way their unique faction bonuses work, the ways rules get stacked, the way stratagems interact -It is causing balance issues, it has created vast tomes of bloat and hurting everyone as a result, both directly and indirectly. The above mentioned example with the Salamander Aggressors is great. The unit gets nerfed so it's no longer as powerful with the Salamanders, but as a knock-on effect it gets completely gutted for use with any other chapter. 

 

There was a rumour that 10th will focus on character even more than 9th. What does this mean exactly? I have a theory that GW will lean into rules unlocked by the various heroes, instead of focusing as much on army wide bonuses and modifiers. Of course I could be completely wrong on this.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Custom traits I don't think are a good thing. I've never seen anyone use that to build their 'fluffy' faction rules, they just pick from the subset of good ones.

[Cpt_Reaper]

9 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Custom traits I don't think are a good thing. I've never seen anyone use that to build their 'fluffy' faction rules, they just pick from the subset of good ones.

That's their problem. I absolutely love mechanically representing my Chapter with custom traits. I won't give them up without a fight.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Haha people upset they might lose their custom traits, I can't even get my legion trait to apply to all my units in the codex. Death Guard Daemon Engines don't have the <Bubonic Astartes> keyword so they don't get their legion trait. Chaos space marine Daemon engines get the <traitoris astartes> keyword and benefit from legion traits. The rules writing is so inconsistent.

[Evil Eye]

29 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

That's their problem. I absolutely love mechanically representing my Chapter with custom traits. I won't give them up without a fight.

I'm in the same boat. Munchkins abusing thematic rules should not be solved by removing the thematic rules, but by ostracizing the munchkins.

[Reskin]

I mean... GW could decide not to be greedy, selfish ghouls and stop thinking about their back pocket for once and think about the consumer. And release all 10th edition codex's at once. There would be a huge influx of cash from every person playing the hobby at the start of the edition. It would stop power creep in relation to newest codex released is best.

 

I mean, the heresy of putting the customer/fan base first. Woah! Don't crucify me!

 

Common sense would tell you its hard to balance a game and play test when you havent written rules for the other 99 codex's.

 

Write them all, play test each vs each other. balance and release. This should of been done A year ago..

 

10th edition would launch with a bunch of product litterally for every consumer and everyone would be relatively on an even playing field in terms of power.

 

What's common sense?

Edited February 9, 2023 by Reskin

[ThePenitentOne]

This is why I love B&C- so much willingness to see the points of view of others, even when our opinions differ.

 

I agree with a lot of what's been said- while I LOVE my subfaction traits, they really do pose challenges to balance- there is no denying that. One of the ways I mitigate the impact of imbalance is that as a Crusader, there are so many goals that aren't about winning, I can generally find ways to feel good about a game even when I get my butt kicked. The non-Crusader doesn't have access to the same kind of short/ long term story-based goal environment, so the win/loss takes on so much importance that balance is everything.

 

I loved Halandaar's idea about keeping Crusade alive and freezing it in 9th and updating for inclusion of new units. I don't think GW will do that, but the community could... And I went all in bought a ton of dexes, because I do plan on 9th Crusade being my forever edition.

 

And I also agree with the folks who worry about sub-factions of subfactions where the god-specific CSM factions are concerned.

 

And of course, restricting Legion traits to only some units in the dex is less than ideal- especially when those units can have the traits of other legions in the CSM dex. Consistency would go a long way.

 

 

[Domhnall]

9 hours ago, Reskin said:

I mean... GW could decide not to be greedy, selfish ghouls and stop thinking about their back pocket for once and think about the consumer. And release all 10th edition codex's at once. There would be a huge influx of cash from every person playing the hobby at the start of the edition. It would stop power creep in relation to newest codex released is best.

 

I mean, the heresy of putting the customer/fan base first. Woah! Don't crucify me!

 

Common sense would tell you its hard to balance a game and play test when you havent written rules for the other 99 codex's.

 

Write them all, play test each vs each other. balance and release. This should of been done A year ago..

 

10th edition would launch with a bunch of product litterally for every consumer and everyone would be relatively on an even playing field in terms of power.

 

What's common sense?

 

That would be the perfect world. However....

It would have to be from 11th edition, and mean either hiring a new team (probably several new teams, because that's a lot of factions!) to develop everything during 10th editions run (while the existing team does as it does) so they could release at the start of 11th (not sure how long it takes to write, playtest, amend, playtest, amend, playtest ad nauseam until there is something approaching "balanced").

Or just abandon 10th edition updates/codexes and focus on 11th with the team (or additional teams) they have (which would take a lot longer, as they'd have to do all of the codexes at the same time!)

Both have their downsides: New employees need paid, or the risk of losing players because the current edition has stagnated because there's no development. Both have the downside from the 'business side' in that there is a heavy front loading of cash, then a trickle (notwithstanding any campaigns/new models). 

Unfortunately, it's not the case they have everything ready and just holding it back. They have a finite resource in staff, who work on different books/rules which are scheduled for release during the edition run. Is it the best way? No, as some factions get nothing for several editions at a time. Could they change? Possibly, but maybe not feasibly. It would require a major shift in company structure and direction, that someone of that size would struggle to do quickly.

I'd like it to be that everything was done at the start, you bought your codex (digitally and a paper copy if you so wished) and that price included all the updates and errata for that edition because there will be balance issues that the playtesters either didn't foresee or come up against. Campaigns etc could also be realeased for the edition, and possibly each edition lasts longer. 

 

I doubt it will happen though, because I am not a business person, and don't have to answer to a board who's main interest is in the cash money coming in  

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

They definitely could fix the problems, but why would they?  What possible motivation would they have to do so?  When 40k sales flag, they will finally modernize it, but that’s probably a ways off.  

[USNCenturion]

The game will never be effectively balanced because they need to keep releasing things to make more money. Say whatever else you want on the subject, but the flow chart will always lead back to this. 

[Schurge]

They could. They won't. It's not good for sales. After ten years and several editions of the same reoccurring problems I am finally looking elsewhere, though part of that is lifestyle changes.

 

Give us all the rules up front GW. Don't stagger them. Patch in new models as it goes, have it balanced from the beginning because you know what will be released. Not every aspect of this hobby needs to be monetized. (Free rules?)

 

Pull a Blizzard and cannibalize your competitors. Rule changes are scary but it's what we need. Losing in other games is still fun.

 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a great policy to adopt for non-GW stuff in official settings.

 

For me personally, I would like to see a skirmish game that more closely resembles their competitors both in balance and financial cost. It takes a long time for me to get people into Warhammer. With some of these other games I might have 10-30 models and it's all I and another guy need to have infinite varied games.

[Halandaar]

2 hours ago, Schurge said:

For me personally, I would like to see a skirmish game that more closely resembles their competitors both in balance and financial cost. It takes a long time for me to get people into Warhammer. With some of these other games I might have 10-30 models and it's all I and another guy need to have infinite varied games.

 

I mean they do have games in that category (Kill Team and Warcry) and both of them seem to be better regarded rulesets than 40K. And Titanicus as well; needs it's own specific models rather than ones that have use in 40k/AoS, but I read consistently that people think it's GW's best ruleset.

[crimsondave]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:42 PM, Reskin said:

I mean... GW could decide not to be greedy, selfish ghouls and stop thinking about their back pocket for once and think about the consumer. And release all 10th edition codex's at once. There would be a huge influx of cash from every person playing the hobby at the start of the edition. It would stop power creep in relation to newest codex released is best.

 

I mean, the heresy of putting the customer/fan base first. Woah! Don't crucify me!

 

Common sense would tell you its hard to balance a game and play test when you havent written rules for the other 99 codex's.

 

Write them all, play test each vs each other. balance and release. This should of been done A year ago..

 

10th edition would launch with a bunch of product litterally for every consumer and everyone would be relatively on an even playing field in terms of power.

 

What's common sense?

Releasing all the codexes at the start of the edition has always been the answer to codex creep.  Problem is their first priority has to be to the stockholders and they need consistent sales for that. You absolutely hit the nail on that the head but I don’t think they even can do that much less want to unless they figure out a different business model.  That’s easier said than done.

[Halandaar]

Yep, we were already clamouring for all the Codexes at once at the start of 9th Edition. 

 

The problem IMO isn't that Codexes drive sales and therefore they must be spaced out to keep revenue consistent (because obviously not every faction's fanbase is equal in size anyway), but that models releases which DO drive sales are still attached to Codexes because of the whole "no rules without models to show" thing.

 

They could easily write and release all the Codexes in one go at the beginning of an edition, but that would require them either to leave out all the rules for upcoming kits (which would suck if those kits came out relatively soon afterwards), or have the rules there along with products photos of kits that could be 1-2 years away from release Neither is ideal and both would piss people off in different ways.

[Valkyrion]

The No Models No Rules thing could be sidestepped in one way by including the rules in the codex but banning their use at Tournaments until the official models are released. 

That way people could kit bash their own if they really wanted and play games with the new rules, but that unit would have no influence on the meta, and if people did want to use the new unit when it came out they'd have to buy the new unit. 

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

9 hours ago, Halandaar said:

Yep, we were already clamouring for all the Codexes at once at the start of 9th Edition. 

 

The problem IMO isn't that Codexes drive sales and therefore they must be spaced out to keep revenue consistent (because obviously not every faction's fanbase is equal in size anyway), but that models releases which DO drive sales are still attached to Codexes because of the whole "no rules without models to show" thing.

 

They could easily write and release all the Codexes in one go at the beginning of an edition, but that would require them either to leave out all the rules for upcoming kits (which would suck if those kits came out relatively soon afterwards), or have the rules there along with products photos of kits that could be 1-2 years away from release Neither is ideal and both would piss people off in different ways.

Yeah exactly there are just so many structural factors involved with being a big public company that push against what a proper rules model would actually be, I stopped having any expectations for them ever changing until their sales drop like they did for Fantasy before they blew it up. 

[Scribe]

Yes, it could be fixed.

 

I have no reason to believe at this point the issues will be fixed, but they could be fixed and it has little (to nothing) to do with sub factions.