Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to

"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"

Ok. Baldur's Gate 3 was in development for 6 years. Even though its release was lauded as the most complete game ever, with no DLC or microtransactions in sight, it still had a bevy of issues that needed fixing only when it could be put into the hands of millions of people worldwide.

Game. Systems. Will. Never. Be. Complete. On. Release. This is true of Dungeons and Dragons. It's true of Pathfinder. It's true of Star Wars Legions. It's true of Warmahordes. It's true of tabletop and video games.

This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.

If this dissuades you, guess what! They made the Core Rules free online! You don't have to buy the 60 dollar book, or the 25 dollar smaller book, you can print out the rules, commentary, and other things right here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/

Go to your local office supply store, have them print these pages out in the binder and format of your choice, and reprint the pages that change when they do so.

The technology that some of y'all are suggesting is already out there and they've made it fully available to you.

I comparing 40k to BG3 seems wildly appropriate considering patch #2 broke the game for a lot of people and they can't even load a game without it crashing.

leopard wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

People complain things need changing/fixing. They fix them. People then complain their book is no longer correct. Pick one.

its two different group usually.

And saying "GW should get it right the first time" is a valid thing to say considering GW's age

as I've noted, this is the 10th edition, by now the core rules should be watertight

Thats not really a fair assessment. 1st/Rogue Trader, 2nd, and 3rd were all very different games mechanically. 4th and 5th evolved from that. 6th was in many ways a radical departure from the 2-3 editions that came before but still built on the same core operating system, and 7th was a further evolution of 6th.

8th was essentially another whole new game built on a new set of core mechanics and rules systems, some of which bore a resemblance to previous editions, but others which were wholly new. 9th was a further evolution of that. 10th is similar to 6th in that its a more radical departure from the editions before it. It has a lot in common with 8th and 9th, but the addition of the [anti], [devastating wounds], [sustained hits], [lethal hits], etc. keywords and their widespread application across what feels like half of the weapons, models, and units in the game fundamentally alters the way elements interact on the tabletop vs how they functioned in the editions prior to it.

Point is, GW may have had 10 editions, but given how dramatic some of the revisions to the core operating system have been - especially in the jump from 7th to 8th - its not hard to figure out why the rules *arent* watertight after all this time.

drbored wrote:
So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to
"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"

I'm astounded that we've gotten to the point where some consider expecting a functional product an unreasonable goalpost

This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.

And yet most of them are spotted by a casual reader on their first pass.

Despite what some may think, there's nothing complex about 40k, certainly not like the thousands of plot and character interactions in a computer RPG. To equate the two is so laughable I'd be banned if I said what I really think of it.

10th Edition is functional out of the box. However, it is better if they fix the issues that have been noted. The problem is some people are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The rules are functional.

Functional and well balanced are different things, balance play testing is more in the realm of non-functional testing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.

It might never have been great, but from 3rd to 5th, there was an obvious throughline of design, with each edition building on and clearly trying to improve upon the prior (regardless of whether anybody necessarily agreed with changes made).
From 6th onwards editions became increasingly about adding MORE STUFF! (allies, fliers, fortifications, superheavies, formations) and making abrupt changes in core rules design, often with re-introduction of problems which had already been previously 'fixed'. The length of an edition also settled on an entirely arbitrary three year cycle which just feeds into the need to change rules direction frequently.

drbored wrote:
So we've gotten to the point where the goalpost has been moved to

"GW should sell us a fully tested edition!"

Ok. Baldur's Gate 3 was in development for 6 years. Even though its release was lauded as the most complete game ever, with no DLC or microtransactions in sight, it still had a bevy of issues that needed fixing only when it could be put into the hands of millions of people worldwide.

Game. Systems. Will. Never. Be. Complete. On. Release. This is true of Dungeons and Dragons. It's true of Pathfinder. It's true of Star Wars Legions. It's true of Warmahordes. It's true of tabletop and video games.

This is not a problem unique to Games Workshop, nor is it a problem driven by edition churn, it is a simple matter of fact that so many interactions of rules, points, and models cannot be accounted for even given years of testing by limited numbers of people.

Baldur's Gate 3 was full of bugs in act 3 because it was moved to release one month ahead of schedule to avoid Starfield. You don't really believe any studio is able to collect, identify and fix 1000+ totally new bugs within 14 work days, do you? Financially it might have been the right decision, but it definitely soured an otherwise nearly perfect game and Larian received - rightfully - flak for it. The PS5 version is basically what you would have gotten originally minus the few hotfixes any maybe patch 2.

Your comparison falls flat, though, as Larian is not going to release the same game for the next 20 years while changing the underlying engine and ruleset every now and then. New problems showing up that need fixing is absolutely (Authority) caused by edition churn. Or would you argue that in 2023 the game wouldn't be in a better state, balance wise, if we never moved away from 5th edition and instead adjusted the few points that needed it?

Any number of models and profiles can be accounted for, if the underlying math is sound and only having a limited amount of people playtesting is a circumstance chosen by GW itself. Nobody is stopping them from a) staying with the same rules system instead of re-inventing the wheel every few years and b) making things public and asking for feedback before finalising it and sending it to be printed.

leopard wrote:
Better is a hardcopy rulebook that comes in a binder, or pre-drilled to be inserted into a binder (stick a reference sheet on the inner covers)

ensure pages have some decorative artwork on them and that sections start on a new page (not on the back of the previous one)

when there are changes issue a printable PDF with the new pages that can be used to replace previous ones

Hah, could you imagine the griping about that?

"GW makes you assemble your own rulebook!"

 Kanluwen wrote:

leopard wrote:
Better is a hardcopy rulebook that comes in a binder, or pre-drilled to be inserted into a binder (stick a reference sheet on the inner covers)

ensure pages have some decorative artwork on them and that sections start on a new page (not on the back of the previous one)

when there are changes issue a printable PDF with the new pages that can be used to replace previous ones

Hah, could you imagine the griping about that?

"GW makes you assemble your own rulebook!"

This makes me want to do an art piece of GW's rulebook on a sprue with separate FAQs as upgrade sprues. Sounds like an op-ed cartoon.

If people had been discussing the update a month ago, it would have been 'wAiT aNd SeE!'

 Lord Damocles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
40k has never been a well-designed wargame. Thats not to say it wasn't a fun wargame, but there have always been various fundamental issues with the core gameplay loop and system logic, as well as the general underlying design philosophy, in large part due to it being a "mass battle" style wargame built on the bones of a skirmish game.

It might never have been great, but from 3rd to 5th, there was an obvious throughline of design, with each edition building on and clearly trying to improve upon the prior (regardless of whether anybody necessarily agreed with changes made).
From 6th onwards editions became increasingly about adding MORE STUFF! (allies, fliers, fortifications, superheavies, formations) and making abrupt changes in core rules design, often with re-introduction of problems which had already been previously 'fixed'. The length of an edition also settled on an entirely arbitrary three year cycle which just feeds into the need to change rules direction frequently.

I don't disagree, though I will say (from my perspective), the 6th onwards "more stuff" trend was driven by community demand. I can recall participating in many threads on dakka and elsewhere in the 4th/5th era where we collectively wished for and whined about the lack of those things in the game and how awful it was that forgeworld stuff wasn't properly integrated into the ruleset, etc. Moral of the story is careful what you wish for I guess.

To me, there's a difference between an update modifying a special rule and a fully game system not working.

10th edition was working without it, it's just a "balance update" to cater to the competitive scene. You're not competitive scene ? Just play the usual way so far, it won't change anything for you.

People still play older editions even if they're not supported anymore. You can do the same, it simply implies talking with your game partner before a game about it. It's also the same if you're not in the know and want to be updated too.

It's not such a big deal, in the end.

As for recent editions of GW core games leaning heavily into the competitive scene...yes, it's a fact now. Like it or hate it, just play according to your tastes or play something else and wait for the storm to pass.

Sarouan wrote:
To me, there's a difference between an update modifying a special rule and a fully game system not working.

10th edition was working without it, it's just a "balance update" to cater to the competitive scene. You're not competitive scene ? Just play the usual way so far, it won't change anything for you.

People still play older editions even if they're not supported anymore. You can do the same, it simply implies talking with your game partner before a game about it. It's also the same if you're not in the know and want to be updated too.

It's not such a big deal, in the end.

Looking at win rates, at what point do you consider a game not working? Let's say you play Wraithknight Eldar against your friend's Death Guard or Sisters.

Do you think further update iterations after the initial release should/would not concern you, since you are not participating in tournaments?

To me, the new Devastating Wounds change is welcome.

There was way too many armies/units that you can spam out Mortal Wounds.

I also welcome the new Death Guard rules, as now that army is playable. (tbf, the non-vehicles are still slow af) And that lends me to believe that the next update, LoV and Drukhari should see even more love.

To those criticizing GW, you may be justified in your positions but lets try to have some perspective here.

For years, ie, during 3rd-5th editions, we were demanding GW to be more engaged in updating the rules and particularly for the competitive scene. And now that they are engaged, it's.... not enough?

I think it's reasonable to assume that GW is going to get things wrong. I take heart, though, that at least GW is willing to fix certain armies/rules in between codexes/editions.

So, if you think Eldar should be hit with more nerfs, the next update should address that.

If you think Tyranids or LoV needs more love, again, the next update should address that.

All these super-duper combo may not have manifested itself as strongly during play testing. The true test is seeing the armies/rules in the tournament scene, when you have dialed-in competitive generals looking to maximize their damage outputs whilst designing a list to counter the meta.

Fine tuning rules/armies isn't easy, and I'm happy that GW is at least willing to make updates at regular interval. I'm in this in the long haul, as I remember there was a time that the only updates GW was willing to engage were new codexs and FAQs.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Looking at win rates, at what point do you consider a game not working? Let's say you play Wraithknight Eldar against your friend's Death Guard or Sisters.

Do you think further update iterations after the initial release should/would not concern you, since you are not participating in tournaments?

No, I'm saying that 40k v10 as a game system doesn't revolve only about Wraithknight Eldars, and that the game still works even if some units are unbalanced.

For example, play a scenario where a Wraithknight alone is fighting a whole army by itself. See if it's as "not working" as you claim then. The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games (hell, we even did that for DECADES in Blood Bowl, which is also known to be unbalanced as hell between teams), we didn't die by doing it.

Will 40k work as well with this new change ? Of course it will. Does that mean it was "completely broken" before ? Well, no...it just means some games were indeed in the advantage of some factions in specific situations. "Some" isn't the same as "everything", though.

It just comforts me in thinking competitive play is always ruining the fun in games. People abusing way too good units won't disappear suddenly with the update, they'll still be there and will just find something else to abuse. Nothing in a game system will ever fix that mindset of theirs, and that is that mindset of theirs that's causing so much "unbalance" in games. Because they always feel justified to bring unbalanced armies because "ThE RuLEs aLloW mE tO Do iT".

I think cries that the rulebook is invalid are a little extreme. I also think considering the game non-functional is pretty out there. That said, I agree its essentially non-functional at a tournament level and if that's where you play, I think its a valid take. There's just a lot of people without Eldar armies out there and most of them don't even have particularly tuned armies at that. The game "functions" at that level just fine, though its not something I invest myself too greatly in the outcome. That should be a known quantity by now though. 40k has always been like that, though often not as egrigious at the top end of things.

The rulebook is certainly not invalid as a whole but having to 1) know an errata was released, and 2) now bring that errata with you to play with your brand new purchase both set a bad tone for the future of this iteration of 40k. GW seems fixated on catering to a tournament crowd that they can't make a game to please and the rest of the customer base suffers for it.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
The rulebook is certainly not invalid as a whole but having to 1) know an errata was released, and 2) now bring that errata with you to play with your brand new purchase both set a bad tone for the future of this iteration of 40k. GW seems fixated on catering to a tournament crowd that they can't make a game to please and the rest of the customer base suffers for it.

That's pretty much the main issue. That GW indeed changing core rules so soon after the release just to cater to the competitive scene is sending a signal to players they were suspecting already at the launch of this edition : that it will be another hell ride to follow to be "up to date" with the new meta.

Not sure there are enough competitive players ready to keep up that pace at any cost to really sustain sales on long term, but hey, it's not like Privateer Press tried that dead end too in the past. It worked so well for them, right ?

Sarouan wrote:

No, I'm saying that 40k v10 as a game system doesn't revolve only about Wraithknight Eldars, and that the game still works even if some units are unbalanced.

For example, play a scenario where a Wraithknight alone is fighting a whole army by itself. See if it's as "not working" as you claim then. The rules don't stop to function if "balance" is broken...like Ash from Guerilla Miniature Games says right, not everything needs to be balanced in a game at all times...just let people adapt and find new tactics. We did that in the old days of previous editions of GW core games (hell, we even did that for DECADES in Blood Bowl, which is also known to be unbalanced as hell between teams), we didn't die by doing it.

Will 40k work as well with this new change ? Of course it will. Does that mean it was "completely broken" before ? Well, no...it just means some games were indeed in the advantage of some factions in specific situations. "Some" isn't the same as "everything", though.

It just comforts me in thinking competitive play is always ruining the fun in games. People abusing way too good units won't disappear suddenly with the update, they'll still be there and will just find something else to abuse. Nothing in a game system will ever fix that mindset of theirs, and that is that mindset of theirs that's causing so much "unbalance" in games. Because they always feel justified to bring unbalanced armies because "ThE RuLEs aLloW mE tO Do iT".

I mentioned WK as they were the most egregious example I could think of. They are far from the only problematic unit. Some armies don't have or need a stark outlier at all, but are still better overall compared to others. We are not talking about 1% or 2% better, but rather "good" and "dumpster fire bad".

I'm all for custom scenarios, but they are irrelevant when talking about the balance side of a game. I can (and in fact did) come up with my own rules to get a balanced game for my buddies and me, but that won't help any of those people out there who go to a store and play against random people or who simply don't have an open minded playgroup.

GW should be able to deliver a balanced experience for everyone in their provided scenarios and armies. You said yourself in a previous post that the Eldar combat patrol is the best. How is somebody buying this box (which is advertised as a starter set to play against other starter sets, by the way) abusing models with their competitive mindset?

You shift the responsibility too much on the customer, imho.

I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.

Let's put it this way.

If you are expecting a perfect game from GW, you're not going to get it. Go out there, find another game that is 'perfect' to you, and go play that instead. Hit GW where it hurts, by zipping up your wallet.

And let me know when you find that 'perfect' complete game with a humongous model line that gets new releases weekly, gets quarterly balance updates and points adjustments, and has 30+ years of lore and story behind it.

In fact, don't let me know. Just keep it to yourself. I've got Tyranids to build.

In fact I challange someone to find me ANY complicated table top game that doesn't need/get errata

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.

Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.

But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?

Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.

That REALLY better?

Here, I’ll show how to reply like an adult.

1. I’d like the game system to last closer to 5 years, rather than 3.
2. I’d like that the last codex of the edition is out with at least 1 year of gameplay remaining (by all means, add campaign books for variety to get your constant “sell”)
3. I’d like a decently balanced reset at the very beginning (10th has been atrocious when you compare the likes of Votann, DG etc to Eldar, Custodes, GSC. This is supposed to be a professional company, not a 2 person fan fest operating from a garage)
4. I’d like that all codexes are tested vs each other from onset and when released, only add a few new units and flavor, not extensive changes that break the game.

Then, we wouldn’t need these fundamental fixes within a few months after launch, and massive points changes, etc.

drbored wrote:
I love how instead of addressing the fact that a complicated product is seldom 'complete' when put out to the public, and simply understanding that simple line of logic, people start getting pedantic and instead find every way in which a video game is unlike a tabletop game, dodging the point entirely.

Let's put it this way.

If you are expecting a perfect game from GW, you're not going to get it. Go out there, find another game that is 'perfect' to you, and go play that instead. Hit GW where it hurts, by zipping up your wallet.

And let me know when you find that 'perfect' complete game with a humongous model line that gets new releases weekly, gets quarterly balance updates and points adjustments, and has 30+ years of lore and story behind it.

In fact, don't let me know. Just keep it to yourself. I've got Tyranids to build.

Who asked for a perfect game right from the start? We are on the 10th iteration and 3rd complete reset for the same product, by the way.

Is Microsoft forgetting all the bug fixes in the past and breaks pivot tables with every new version of Excel? Is Activision resetting the balance between guns with every release of CoD?

Or are the problems GW faces maybe unique to them because of their way of doing things?

GW could still release something every week easily if they would stop making new editions tomorrow.

People are in love with the IP, not the rules. I don't see why we shouldn't discuss their shortcomings here.

If this is your first edition then I can maybe understand the frustration that GW changes the rules. If however you've been here for years - decades - who are you kidding?

I'd prefer GW got it right the first time. But they clearly didn't here. Changes are the best thing to do.

If you've watched GW failing for multiple editions, I'd think it perfectly reasonable to be MORE annoyed.

 bullyboy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I don’t get all the rejoicing over this fix, it’s like people forgot how GW run their business. The game is designed to break within 3 years, requiring a new edition. Each new codex will come with its own set of problems and the rules team will play whack-a-mole with patches to try and keep a resemblance of balance, even though we know they cannot do that competently (otherwise a reset game would be balanced at the onset).
I wouldn’t mind these updates if I knew that nothing new was coming, because they would be balancing a preset group of rules/models and eventually find a pretty good place , but with each new codex will come new minis, new rules and new broken interactions that will need fixing. The ruleset and armies will be mostly indistinguishable from what it is right now, and to be honest, that churn is getting kind of old.

Then again...looking at 1st codex changes with codex aren't all that big. Some points change but as is could play index list almost as is.

But sure. Better option to leave problems as is? No point changes and rule changes beside codexes ever?

Is that REALLY what you would prefer? Seriously? So basically as codexes aren't changing much we now already would know who will win next 3 years.

That REALLY better?

Here, I’ll show how to reply like an adult.

1. I’d like the game system to last closer to 5 years, rather than 3.
2. I’d like that the last codex of the edition is out with at least 1 year of gameplay remaining (by all means, add campaign books for variety to get your constant “sell”)
3. I’d like a decently balanced reset at the very beginning (10th has been atrocious when you compare the likes of Votann, DG etc to Eldar, Custodes, GSC. This is supposed to be a professional company, not a 2 person fan fest operating from a garage)
4. I’d like that all codexes are tested vs each other from onset and when released, only add a few new units and flavor, not extensive changes that break the game.

Then, we wouldn’t need these fundamental fixes within a few months after launch, and massive points changes, etc.

Point 2 and 4 are proably muturally exclusive I hate to say, 40k just has too many factions at this point. we MIIGHT be able to see more reasonable balance and testing agaisnt everrything else if we went back to the days of "6 factions or so" but no one wants to see their army squatted.

Ash Video is much like how I feel about things.

This devaluation of the object and relentless chase for the meta even before the meta is in place... 2 months is ridiculous... not even 1 dex has been released yet. Will only work against GW because erodes the casuals in favour of the pro gamers.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Ash Video is much like how I feel about things.

This devaluation of the object and relentless chase for the meta even before the meta is in place... 2 months is ridiculous... not even 1 dex has been released yet. Will only work against GW because erodes the casuals in favour of the pro gamers.

But for GW does it really affect them now? I think only the 6th-7th drop is the only time I really seen things change.
GW now just does what it does, and sells fine. And with so much advertisement for free online, they have a list of new players constantly to fill any loss. Even casual players seem to support GW where any other company in the industry would likely not fare well.

Well, I have the Tyranid Codex and the new cards due in the post. I’d already bought the index cards for the 8 armies I collect and paint. I had all the codices for my armies and rules for 9th and barely played. I’ve been buying codices and rulebooks since 3rd. I know the 3 year cycle’s been here for a while, and most of the editions since around 5th have major changes to ensure new rules are sold rather than perfecting the game, but I’d been buying anyway. I’m going to stop now and just play with what I’ve got, with the rules I have. GW’s loss.

More importantly, I know by the time I get my Leviathan box slowly painted, GW will already be releasing the new “bestest eva” 11th edition with all new “wargear-points™”