Edition Creep: How I don’t 40k

[Trixie]

I first played 40k as a little kid in the late 80s, loved it for many years and played for many editions. 

 

I wouldn't touch modern 40k with a barge pole, this 3 year release 'cycle' is brutally anti-gamer. I feel sorry for those got their codexes last...then 10th came and made them wholly redundant. You know that even if they somehow created a nicely balanced edition...once that 3 year timer is up it's all getting torn up for no reason other than "time to resell everyone their codexes again".

 

Still playing plenty of GW games, but can't see myself playing 40k ever again.

[Ahzek451]

25 minutes ago, Trixie said:

I first played 40k as a little kid in the late 80s, loved it for many years and played for many editions. 

 

I wouldn't touch modern 40k with a barge pole, this 3 year release 'cycle' is brutally anti-gamer. I feel sorry for those got their codexes last...then 10th came and made them wholly redundant. You know that even if they somehow created a nicely balanced edition...once that 3 year timer is up it's all getting torn up for no reason other than "time to resell everyone their codexes again".

 

Still playing plenty of GW games, but can't see myself playing 40k ever again.

This. Started in late 2nd. GW could improve sustainability without resorting to edition whiplash. Credit where it is due, happy to see a more proactive response since 8th, but the fact is, we applaud GW for something they should have been doing a long time ago.

 

GW typically saves major rule tweaks for grossly out of balance rules but primarily works through points tweaks to balance things. Mostly targeting overpowered units in both cases. Honestly, some of the weaker units need rule tweaks, not points adjustments. Therefor the only excitement I see with a new edition is that the "reset" grant's a chance for very underpowered units to get re-worked to become more useful. 

 

The necron obelisk has zero hope in any editio.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Ahzek451

[WrathOfTheLion]

13 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

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. 

Your first statement is definitely true, as Sigmar is on a similar 3 year cycle, while being significantly more stable in my opinion.

 

Still, another year would allow things to stabilize a bit and give some time in there to breathe. It won't fix what can be fundamentally unstable, though.

[spessmarine]

4 hours ago, Trixie said:

I first played 40k as a little kid in the late 80s, loved it for many years and played for many editions. 

 

I wouldn't touch modern 40k with a barge pole, this 3 year release 'cycle' is brutally anti-gamer. I feel sorry for those got their codexes last...then 10th came and made them wholly redundant. You know that even if they somehow created a nicely balanced edition...once that 3 year timer is up it's all getting torn up for no reason other than "time to resell everyone their codexes again".

 

Still playing plenty of GW games, but can't see myself playing 40k ever again.

 

3 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Your first statement is definitely true, as Sigmar is on a similar 3 year cycle, while being significantly more stable in my opinion.

 

Still, another year would allow things to stabilize a bit and give some time in there to breathe. It won't fix what can be fundamentally unstable, though.

 

The hard downsides of being the largest brand/line, it's the cow to milk the most and receive the most attention.