Help support TMP


"Why 7th edition "failed" " Topic


16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Warhammer 40K Message Board



1,153 hits since 12 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 3:00 p.m. PST

"8th is here and in general it seems to be widely embraced by the community. Common consensus seems to be that "This is better than 7th Edition" and/or "This is the best edition yet."

Well, I am here to tell you "So was 7th"…."
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 3:58 p.m. PST

Nice analysis of 7th edition's "faults," but unless GW balances the various factions by releasing their codices close to each other time-wise "Codex Creep" (aka the "latest and greatest syndrome") will always recur.

Considering that the goal of selling toys is of higher priority to GW as a profit-making business than game balance among the factions, I fear it is only a matter of time before we see 8th edition going down the same road as all previous editions that came before.

And so the cycle will start all over again…

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 4:40 p.m. PST

And when 9th Edition comes out in 2-3 years they will all tell you "Why 8th edition failed so badly"….

Der Krieg Geist Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 7:28 p.m. PST

I love the ever hopeful outlook, that after seven previous rules editions and supplement cycles over thirty some odd years of Bleeped text poor rules…..this one is going to be the good one. I have enjoyed GWs models and games since the RT days, but can we all stop pretending the writing is anything but sub par tripe that does but one thing right? A fantastic job of doing its primary purpose. Selling more toys. Great toys by the way, just really dumb rule sets. :)

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP13 Jul 2017 1:53 a.m. PST

What do you expect from a set of rules that begins in the marketing department and ends in the marketing department ?

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP13 Jul 2017 4:44 a.m. PST

"Nice analysis of 7th edition's "faults," but unless GW balances the various factions by releasing their codices close to each other time-wise "Codex Creep" (aka the "latest and greatest syndrome") will always recur."

So-called "Codex Creep" is a myth and has never been true. There have always been the odd codex that came out that was either over or under powered, of course. But the idea that a codex released in August of 2009 is better than one released in March of 2009 as a matter of course is not true and never has been.

Codex creep is an artifact of how people will play a game.

When a new codex comes out in any given edition there are some big or small changes to the existing rules for a faction. When that happens it takes time to adjust to it for all the players but the ones who play that faction are going to spend more of their game thinking time thinking about how to take advantage of it, while a lot of the other players, even if they buy the new codex are going to think about how it works but probably not as much.

So you have the players of that faction coming up with ideas about how to use it and initially it looks more powerful, but as time goes on people come up with counters and the whole thing settles back down.

In August of 2009 it may look like the new codex is more powerful, and in the odd case that may be so but not by design.

But if you took that same codex and played it in 2013 it wouldn't seem any better or worse than any other codex released between the start of whatever edition that was and 2013.

"I love the ever hopeful outlook, that after seven previous rules editions and supplement cycles over thirty some odd years of Bleeped text poor rules…..this one is going to be the good one."

I think GW has made some great rules over the years. Warmaster, 3rd edition 40K, Space Hulk, Age of Sigmar, Necrodmunda and on and on. I'm not sold on 8th edition yet, I have only played 4 games of it so far, but it could be there.

It is certainly not "sub par tripe." The rules are great at allowing me to have a fun time with my friends. As far as their intent in writing them I'm sure it is to sell models, what else could it be?

But as far as I'm concerned their primary purpose is to have fun and they do a fantastic job of that as well.

We played SW:A all night last night at historicon and people were having a great time.

That is all that really matters.

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP13 Jul 2017 7:27 a.m. PST

Codex creep is not a myth. The article linked in the OP put it quite well and with some humor: The uber formations and "Decurions" (formations within formations) prevalent in 7th edition in the newer codices are increasingly powerful with their special abilities, exceptions and USR's. And to add insult to injury, they're cheaper in points cost. It's an escalating spiral.

Part of the reason for this is that GW is selling these formations and Decurions in box sets, and to incentivize people to buy them had to make them really powerful. It's business.

This makes the earlier codices relatively weaker and weaker. The Necron codex (as the OP's article correctly argued) broke 7th edition. The Tyranids and Orks have not been competitive for a long time. Clearly, 8th edition is called for to redress the faction imbalances.

Now that formations and decurions are gone in 8th, the people who bought them probably have more models than they need in games, but that's not a bad thing.

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP13 Jul 2017 1:17 p.m. PST

So-called "Codex Creep" is a myth and has never been true.

This was totally true and GW did it on purpose since it would drive sales.

New Codexes ended up being far better than older Codexes.

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP13 Jul 2017 2:59 p.m. PST

Regardless of codex creep, fun can still be had playing the game. Since only the math-hammer min-max power gamers who can't stand losing are the ones most likely to take advantage of the latest and greatest armies with their new powered-up codices, just stay away from them and play with like-minded individuals who play for fun and keep their armies within the background and spirit of the game.

It's not so much what you play but whom you play with.

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP14 Jul 2017 12:25 p.m. PST

Assaulting out of Deep Strike

Shooting and Running

Essentially not having to take saves (rerollable 2+/3++ and 2+ FNP rerollable)

Well first off units should be able to Assault after Deep Striking. Since that is the whole purpose of carrying out a Deep Strike.

Get the surprise on your enemy, but no you have to Deep Strike and then allow your opponent to shoot the crap out of your units.

Oh and I know that I could run and still fire a weapon soldiers have been doing that for sometime now.

But it is the last one that really hurt 7th Edition since many models had so many saves at it was hard to kill them.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jul 2017 6:40 p.m. PST

"Codex creep is not a myth. The article linked in the OP put it quite well and with some humor: The uber formations and "Decurions" (formations within formations) prevalent in 7th edition in the newer codices are increasingly powerful with their special abilities, exceptions and USR's. And to add insult to injury, they're cheaper in points cost. It's an escalating spiral. "

Yeah, I get what he is saying but he is wrong. They seem more powerful and, of course, codexes that have them are more powerful than codexes that came out before the idea, but to say that a codex published in March of a given years is more powerful than one published in January is crap.

If that were true then why doesn't the most recent codex win all the tournaments.

Look at the results from Adepticon. Genestealer Cult Codex was released in late September 2016. Adepticon was March 2017.

There had been a few things released between the two, it was released about a year after Craftworld Eldar Codex and GSC Codex doesn't appear anywhere in the top tournament results. The Eldar do quite well.

Another top contender is Chaos Daemons Codex, released March 2013, still winning tournaments in 2017.

There is no evidence to demonstrate so-called Codex Creep. There is evidence to demonstrate that some codexes are not equal to others in terms of the army capable of being fielded out of them. This does not seem to be deliberate.

A belief in codex creep is simple ignorance of the facts. It has never existed, there is no evidence that it exists and there is a simple explanation about why people might believe in it.

It is kind of like how some people will continue to deny that the world is round.

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP18 Jul 2017 12:44 p.m. PST

It is kind of like how some people will continue to deny that the world is round.

We cover this already and it not, since it is kinda flat and punched in in places.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Thomas Thomas Supporting Member of TMP19 Jul 2017 9:27 a.m. PST

IN its long history GW has produced two good sets of rules:

The original Space Marine (based on Command Decision mechanics)
Space Hulk

Its has produced several average sets of rule including several editions of Warhammer and many at least better than mowing your lawn on Saturday afternoon including a few editions of 40K (but several sets that you would have much preferred to be home doing house work).

They are great (if rather ruthless) marketers and very mediocre game designers. They have learned (and we have taught them) that game design does not sell games fluff and models do (and making sure its all they play at local stores). So why waste time and money on paying top designers or playtesting? They will buy it anyway.

Hence the many editions that do little but shuffle rules around with no real long term fixes.

Codex Creep: outside devoted fans this seems to be a generally recognized problem. But it would be interesting to do some actual research into tournament placements of various codexs. You would need a lot of data, however, to have any firm conclusions. A one off victory by some odd ball old codex can skew the data unless the sample size is large. You'd need a hundred tournaments or so and by then you'd have a new edition. In any case I doubt its intentional – just a lack of playtesting and understanding how special rules rapidly warp play balance.

In the end it makes no difference – there will be a Ninth edition. Why? for the same reason that there is an Eighth edition because people (lots of people) will buy it. We reward this behavior by the company (McDonald quality rules at steak-house prices) but then blame the company for doing it. Sorry its our not their fault.

As a concrete example: the vehicle rules in the new 40K are about as bad as humans can create. Yet no one cares as long as their army remains "compitative" (ie overpowered).

TomT

Personal logo The Beast Rampant Supporting Member of TMP23 Jul 2017 1:05 p.m. PST

In the end it makes no difference there will be a Ninth edition. Why? for the same reason that there is an Eighth edition because people (lots of people) will buy it.

So then, refining previous concepts in order to:

a. Keep the game from dragging, and/or

b. Make the game more enjoyable overall, and/or

c. Better reflect the fluff it purports to represent, and/or

d. A good dozen other reasons.

…Don't factor in at all. It's just more moneygrubbing and sneetches on the beaches. What a remarkably simple worldview.

In its long history GW has produced two good sets of rules

While I won't argue SM, and never bothered with SH, I would have prefaced that with an "IMO".

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jul 2017 10:39 p.m. PST

Yeah, clearly a pretty misinformed opinion too if the list of good GW rules doesn't at least include Warmaster.

alpha3six24 Jul 2017 5:38 a.m. PST

c. Better reflect the fluff it purports to represent, and/or

For me, this is very important, which is why I love the pseudo-historical wargame nature of the current Horus Heresy game.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.