Edition Creep: How I don’t 40k

[Schlitzaf]

Don’t take title as flamebait, I like 40k, I enjoy it, and on a theory level I like aspects of 10th. Through by and large I’d rather playing 9th if I played a game, not for any particular favoritism mostly just I haven’t played and 10th too much relearning despite waiting for 10th. Because I didn’t want to relearn.

 

For me however my frustration, is that I feel like I barely get time to use my minis and rules. Before “its an exciting new time! New edition!” And there is the waiting for codex. Sometimes for most of the edition cycle then “New Edition”. 
 

Like am I only one who rather 4-5 year cycles then 3 year ones? I left MtG because Rotation. Albeit that was 1 vs 3 years. But we have 6 months updates now. Its just too much. Even if I understand the top dog wanting to get batted. But like at some point, there is always gonna be a top dog.

 

I am just failingn to word. And apologize this hecame a vent

[sarabando]

yes the 3 year edition cycle is too short especially if you play more than one game. give us a new rule book with all the FAQs applied and a new starter set sure but keep the game itself the same 

[Kallas]

17 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

Like am I only one who rather 4-5 year cycles then 3 year ones?

Not at all, this is one of the worst elements of 8th/9th and will presumably continue in 10th.

 

I do believe it's intentional, however. Keep people in the mindset that they need to keep buying the latest release - ooh, balance change, these units are good now buy them! - ooh, new release...and so on. It's the treadmill to keep people buying as much as possible, it's not intended to be good for us, the consumer. At least that's how it appears to me.

[NovemberIX]

The game could well do with much longer edition cycles, I'd say a 6-8 year cycle would feel a lot better, some stability to the rules and a chance to balance pass broken things by allowing multiple codex releases in a cycle.  Might even give a chance to really dig in and properly release campaign books and variant game types as their own books like Apocalypse, Zone Mortalis, Cities of Death, or old Kill Teams. I kinda miss that time during 5th and 6th when you could still feasibly use resources from earlier editions to find some interesting things to play around with.

[The Spitehorde]

1 hour ago, Schlitzaf said:

For me however my frustration, is that I feel like I barely get time to use my minis and rules. Before “its an exciting new time! New edition!” And there is the waiting for codex. Sometimes for most of the edition cycle then “New Edition”. 

 

I share your frustration. Mere months between finally getting a WE dex and then seeing it become useless when 10th rolled up was extremely irritating. 

 

 

[Emperor Ming]

Editions defiantly could be longer

 

Due to capitalism thou, it will just never happen

[Lord_Ikka]

Unfortunately, GW seems to have locked into the 3-4 year cycle for editions for AoS/40k. It seems that they've planned that out as the best way to maximize profits while still keeping a reasonable level of new product coming out. 

 

Personally, I'm stepping back from 40k for a little bit- I went pretty hard in 9th edition, especially at the end, and need a break so I don't burn out completely. I'm currently having a pretty good time with Battletech and am about to dip my toe into Necromunda. I'll still keep up with 40k, but I'm not going to be as up to date as I was for the last couple of years. 

 

I'd prefer a 5-6 year cycle to the editions, where you have the first two/three years getting the new codices and rules figured out, then the last is either a 2.0 or some sort of refinement of the rules. I like that GW is now actively paying attention to the rules, but their business model is still not great in my view (ignoring the fact that free rules are now a standard thing in most mini games and still trying to cash grab with codices). 

[Bryan Blaire]

In this situation, to echo some of the above, this is all business and virtually nothing for “the good of the hobby” as a whole - maybe it benefits some segments of the 40K gaming community well, but I have accepted that in the long run, I’m in the wrong part of the “hobby funnel/trumpet” for GW to really care about me as a customer.

 

I’ve also accepted that honestly, that’s okay - I keep more of my money that way, or devote it to other companies products.  I still get some of the things that I really want from GW, but I can devote my time, money, and effort to the wider wargaming and tabletop hobby as a whole that way.  GW isn’t the only game in town - I still enjoy it, but it isn’t the only thing to play.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[MARK0SIAN]

I don’t mind the edition churn too much, the game changes every few months anyway with the balance passes and seasons so I honestly don’t see a huge difference in having to adapt to a new season and having to adapt to a new edition (although I admit there are obviously more changes when it moves to a new edition). I also look at it like this, if an edition sucks then you know it’s ‘only’ a max of a three years you have to wait until there’s a chance it might be significantly improved. If the cycle was longer it would be much worse. I’d completely tuned out of 9th edition by the end due to the balance and codex creep, but I always knew that in a year or so it might be improved.

 

I think a bigger problem, and one that makes the 3 year cycle annoying to a lot of people is the codex release schedule. It is simply not acceptable that some armies have to go a couple of years of an edition with no codex only for it to be released then invalidated 6 months later. It’s even worse in 10th because it’s a reset so older codexes don’t work and (unlike 8th) there’s no plan to release the codexes quickly, or at least quickly by GW’s standards. It’s looking like some armies will be index only for a couple of years of this edition.

 

There’s no reason a company with GW’s resources shouldn’t be able to get all the codexes ready for release in the first year of an edition if not in time for launch, especially with the newer simplified rules. I think if we had our codexes quickly, a lot of the annoyance at a three year edition cycle would disappear.

[spessmarine]

Three year edition cycle sucks when it takes three years to get through all the codices.

Judging by 10th's start, doesn't seem like three year cycles are working all that great at all.

[Doghouse]

Yeah it's definitely intentional, I suspect it's driven by the finance and marketing people and the design team have little say in it.

 

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here in that we need a longer cycle, but for the time being this is making them a ton of money so they  really don't care.

 

I find the problem for me is this new mentality of the game, whether it is intentional or not, adopting a more MMO type release schedule. I think tenth is basically the equivalent of a modern triple A release that came out in a broken buggy state and relies on the players to beta test it for them and constant patches. Trouble is over the three years they finally get all the armies released and it in a working state then throw it all out to start over. 

 

As I have said before they should do a six year release cycle, split it into two three year seasons with four main protagonist armies then release a starter set at the beginning containing two armies then a second "starter"  focused on their new story arc with the other two armies. You aim to have all the codex out by then and spend the next three years adding supplemental material. The main reason they won't though is because they need a consistent stream of reasons to buy new products and once all the codex are out what are you going to spend the following three years buying?

 

The other downside to the short cycle is that I had absolutely no interest in the World Eater, Leagues of Votann and Guard codices or any of the Arks of Omen because all the rumours about tenth signalled that the edition was coming to a rapid end. They were rushing out all the material to make as much money as possible. Had it been like in previous editions where a codex could carry over to the next edition then fair enough but to have players wait all that time for those army books then make them obsolete is pretty disgusting regardless of any internal issues. These books are an investment in the game and to have them thrown out each edition is just a bad feeling as a customer.

 

I think the main reason they won't get their act together (and this is not bashing us as the players) is because they don't need to because we accept it. I can't and won't speak for anyone else but for me it's becoming a very unhealthy relationship where it's gone from something I have grown up with, loved, supported and promoted to others for decades only to become a dealer and addict cycle of constant FOMO. 

 

I think I will hang around and see what happens but if 11th is the same cycle I'll probably give up the ghost on 40k. I'll probably stick to Blood Bowl and go back to something easier on the wallet like Mordheim.

[LameBeard]

Yes it’s one reason why I tend to play the other games, not 40k - I just don’t want to see stuff invalidated. Having said that, 3 years is about the lifespan of many other games too. Kill Team 2018 lasted 3 years? At least one book gave functional army list for all factions. Kill Team 2021 leaning more towards 40k attempts to squeeze more money. Adeptus Titancius just hanging in there at five years now? Please don’t pull the plug!

[Xenith]

Agree. I think 4 years was ok. 3 is too short, especially as they can't get all the codexes out in time. Worse if you play multiple armies. 

 

But then, this is what the community wanted, regular updates to armies and points, more frequent editions of the game. They just didn't realise they were wishing on a monkey's paw instead of a magic lamp. Still, the constantly shifting meta keeps all the podcasts and stakeholders with regular content to put out, and allows professional 40k players to stay on top, so that's an upside, right?

[Doghouse]

4 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Agree. I think 4 years was ok. 3 is too short, especially as they can't get all the codexes out in time. Worse if you play multiple armies. 

 

But then, this is what the community wanted, regular updates to armies and points, more frequent editions of the game. They just didn't realise they were wishing on a monkey's paw instead of a magic lamp. Still, the constantly shifting meta keeps all the podcasts and stakeholders with regular content to put out, and allows professional 40k players to stay on top, so that's an upside, right?

 

I think I was at my happiest in the hobby when it was more of a sandbox of the imagination. This whole era of celebrity creator and professional players makes me cringe and is one of the worst aspects of the modern game for me.

[Redcomet]

3 years is laughably short a cycle, when the game is so big as 40k has become. Especially if the first 6 months goes with fixing the worst problem of the edition. 
 

There has to be a way for GW to generate the book money they apparently can’t live without, that would let them spend a couple of years more building the next iteration.

 

But I suspect the CEO’s budget heavily for the 3 year boost in bonuses that 40k brings with it.

10 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

 

I think I was at my happiest in the hobby when it was more of a sandbox of the imagination. This whole era of celebrity creator and professional players makes me cringe and is one of the worst aspects of the modern game for me.

Warhammer is not the only hobby hit with this. Many older cosplayers look back to when their hobby was purely for fun and not primarily for likes, clicks, careers and money. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Even just going up to a 4 year cycle would give things a lot more time to breathe.

 

For 30k for instance, it's slightly annoying that we don't see the FAQs/updates we need as frequently, but then again, it's not as frequent. There's something I really like about having the time to actually plan out, build and paint a force without everything changing.

 

40k has been very volatile for a while now, going back at least one edition. This maks it quite difficult to pick up even like 1000 points of an army and have those models function the same when you're done building/painting it.

[MARK0SIAN]

38 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Even just going up to a 4 year cycle would give things a lot more time to breathe.

 

For 30k for instance, it's slightly annoying that we don't see the FAQs/updates we need as frequently, but then again, it's not as frequent. There's something I really like about having the time to actually plan out, build and paint a force without everything changing.

 

40k has been very volatile for a while now, going back at least one edition. This maks it quite difficult to pick up even like 1000 points of an army and have those models function the same when you're done building/painting it.

I agree it’s annoying that everything g changes so quickly but switching to a longer edition cycle wouldn’t necessarily change that. If you want a more a stable edition you’d have a much bigger impact by dealing with the seasons, balance data slates and points changes. These come along much more often than a new edition and upend the game quite considerably.

 

You’re much more likely to have your force/models/project invalidated or substantially altered by one of those updates than by an edition change. They could go to a 10 year edition cycle but if they’re going to keep altering the game every six months it wouldn’t help. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by MARK0SIAN

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

40k has been very volatile for a while now, going back at least one edition. This maks it quite difficult to pick up even like 1000 points of an army and have those models function the same when you're done building/painting it.

 

If you like playing with painted models, you either have to be a fast painter with a ton of options on hand or you just have to hope you guessed right several months down the line. That, or just use the models in a different game system. Could be one of the reasons model-agnostic games are taking off these days.

 

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

But then, this is what the community wanted, regular updates to armies and points, more frequent editions of the game. They just didn't realise they were wishing on a monkey's paw instead of a magic lamp.

 

I think what people wanted was quicker response times to broken rules, and maybe more new mission packs, and to keep the improvements that had been made by previous changes.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Been saying this for years. I cant really get down with devoting much energy on wether or not my factions rules are good or not. Current rules will be replaced in about as long as it takes for me to schedule a game

Edited September 10, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard

[SkimaskMohawk]

9th especially felt the sting of the edition churn because it came out right at the start of covid lockdowns, and right as those started to ease off in a lot of ways, the dark ledar, as mech and ork triple feature dropped to suffocate the meta. There was a brief window pre crusher/custodes and then debatably in arks where people could get a lot of in person games with an alright shot at having a fair game. With the right subfactions of course.

[tinpact]

For me it feels like campaign books especially get squeezed. Although, looking at it, there were what, four Charadon books and another four Arks, plus Crusade (then again,  looking at the wiki there were nine books in Psychic Awakening alone).

 

Granted, maybe it's just that I haven't liked 40k's writing for a while, but aside from a couple of the Warzone books, none of those really stood out to me. Arks, of course, completely breezed by with the end of the edition. I mean, I could still go back and play through, but the rules weren't that great either.

Edited September 10, 2023 by tinpact

[Arikel]

I don’t like the edition churn much myself, especially when the rules change enough to invalidate your experience with the game, such as 7th to 8th ( which caused me to take a break for roughly 5 years) and 9th to 10th is quite the difference as well it seems, just as we were getting back into the swing of things.

 

Only being able to meet up to play something max twice a month will likely mean we won’t end up continuing with warhammer and fizzle out again, as we will play D&D or other boardgames instead that are more stable.

 

I still have the collecting bug bad though, hoarding them because they are cool and I enjoy the setting, so I’ll continue on the hobby side whatever happens now I think. I have my company to finish and assorted other minor forces to paint up. I try not to fomo too much but I’m a sucker for cool models and the big box releases especially.

“Look at this box! I only really need these two squads but for only the price of 60 bucks more i get the two squads and all this other random crap that will sit there taking up space! That would be like another 150 separately  on their own. Think of the money saved on stuff i would never buy otherwise!”

[Helias_Tancred]

20 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Editions defiantly could be longer

 

Due to capitalism thou, it will just never happen

 

GW figured out a marketing mechanic that is good for them, at the customers expense.  Someone mentioned it previously. It keeps the truly hardcore buying the new strong stuff from edition to edition. 

 

I'm all for 5 year edition cycles at the minimum!

 

[Naryn]

The folks saying the "seasons" add to edition fatigue are in the right. It was so lovely in 5th and 6th to be able to figure out what worked over a period of years--now every few months I have to relearn not only my army, but all my friends' armies. It's so frustrating to never feel like I can achieve mastery because the rules are constantly in flux.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Naryn

[ThePenitentOne]

@Arikel I love those box sets too. I can supply a whole league of Kill Team Players with my collection.

 

Helps get games- I have  who friends like to play that don't buy.

 

Rules that allow for allies also support this approach- I loved 9th's Torchbearer Fleets (Custodes + Mechanicus + Marines) and Armies of Faith (Sisters + Guard + Marines). The Imperial Agent rules are also better now than they were for most of 9th, though Inquisition has less flavour.

Edited September 10, 2023 by ThePenitentOne