Help support TMP


"Why 7th edition "failed" " Topic


32 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



1,765 hits since 11 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP12 Jul 2017 2:00 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

28mm Fanatik12 Jul 2017 2:58 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 3:40 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 TMP Inactive Member12 Jul 2017 6:28 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 12:53 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 3:44 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.

28mm Fanatik13 Jul 2017 6:27 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 12:17 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.

28mm Fanatik13 Jul 2017 1:59 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 11:25 a.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 5:40 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 11:44 a.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 8:27 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 12:05 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 9:39 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 4:38 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.

Field Marshal31 Jul 2017 5:16 p.m. PST

I have played so many sets of rules for historical, fantasy and sci fi games and in IMHO GW rules are no worse than most.The same guy that wrote a lot of the core engine of GW rules has gone on to write pleny of successful rulesets and in fact the original engine of Warhammer was based on the types of historical rules popular at the time in the 70s and 80s. Calling it tripe puts other rules about pushing toy soldiers on a pedestal they do not deserve.

Mithmee Supporting Member of TMP31 Jul 2017 7:11 p.m. PST

In the end it makes no difference there will be a Ninth edition. Why?

To make more money by selling the books.

There are a few pages of 8th Edition Rules but actually to get everything just to play Space Marines you need.

The Rulebook – $60 USD
The Index – $15 USD
The Codex – $40 USD

So $115 USD before any Taxes.

Oh and chances are there will be additional Chapter Codexes.

So another $25 USD – $30 USD

That is just one Army

Now the cost to get the stuff you need for another Army will be less since you already have the Rulebook.

But you will still be spending quite a bit of money.

So for those individuals who have 5 or more armies the cost is just too much when you know that in 3-4 years GW will put out 9th Edition and charge even more for what is basically the same information.

That is why there will be a 9th Edition.

Centurio Prime01 Aug 2017 3:06 a.m. PST

Which aspect of the game should GW make money on, Mithmee? According to you they should not make money from the books or miniatures. So where should they make their money?

Eclipsing Binaries01 Aug 2017 7:35 a.m. PST

They shouldn't make money. Making money makes no sense. They should try to make a loss so they can't afford to develop any new products, just so that Mithmee can live in the past.

Anyway, I'm away to have a game of 8th Edition Warhammer 40k with my two kids, using the miniatures, rules and game mat from the First Strike starter set that we got from a Games Workshop store for £25.00 GBP!! We have everything we need to play.

The other option was to get a PS4 games console, but after using Mithmee logic I soon realised I'd have spent £250.00 GBP only to have to pay a further £31.50 GBP for a game! And I'm fairly sure we would need more than one game, so god knows home much that would cost! Then Sony will probably bring out more games to steal our money with. I think I'd end up spending quite a lot of money…. and end up with the kids staring at a TV screen for even longer than they already do.

Suddenly the costs involved with playing Warhammer seem a little less.

wehrmacht01 Aug 2017 8:18 a.m. PST

There are a few pages of 8th Edition Rules but actually to get everything just to play Space Marines you need.

The Rulebook $60.00 USD USD
The Index $15.00 USD USD
The Codex $40.00 USD USD

So $115.00 USD USD before any Taxes.

Not really – you need

Rules – free
Index Imperium vol. 1 – $15 USD

Just saved you $100. USD You're welcome :-)

Cheers

w.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Aug 2017 8:42 a.m. PST

"So for those individuals who have 5 or more armies the cost is just too much when you know that in 3-4 years GW will put out 9th Edition and charge even more for what is basically the same information."

This is just completely untrue.

I have:

Tau
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult
Emperor's Children
World Eaters
Black Legion
Grey Knights
Ultramarines
Dark Eldar

Not to include 30K armies.

I bought the basic set, but if I didn't want the marines in it I would not have done so. I would not have bought the $60 USD rule book.

So for my 8 armies it would cost me a total of $100 USD to play all of them in the new edition with the new rules.

So not $115 USD for one army, $100 USD for eight armies.

Centurio Prime01 Aug 2017 9:09 a.m. PST

If you don't want the new starter box, you can look on ebay and within about 3 seconds find that people are selling the core rulebook for about $35. USD Then pick up an Index for 20-something dollars.

Thomas Thomas Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2017 9:11 a.m. PST

Though I hate internet arguing some comments here have gone a bit far so I will (against my better judgement) respond.

In response to:
"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."

You have listed a set of goals not accomplishments. Based on several games, watching many others, talking to players and my sons many games, I don't think the "new" 40K accomplishes any of these stated goals. The games I played dragged, had little or no manuver and did see to reflect what I had knew of the "fluff". Had it accomplished any of these goals I would be very happy (and able to use my large Guard Army again). My sense is that not many have played in wide open tournament games (as I have) but are merely repeating the companies ad copy.

Pictor: my opinion is quite well informed based on years of playing GW games (players marvel over some of my old Guard figures) and most importantly playing other games and game systems. So I can compare the design concepts to other games. I have played Warmaster and find it much inferior to DBX (which it sought to emulate). Its gone and DBX isn't. You are intitled to your pro-GW opinion but that hardly means others are misinformed – I've played lots of GW games – remember Gorka-Morka? Most were mediocre designs that quickly faded. This isn't to say other companies haven't produced mediocre designs – its a problem across the industry – only that GW is a bit on an industry leader in this regard.

TomT

Centurio Prime02 Aug 2017 10:00 a.m. PST

Why cant you use your Guard army in 8th edition?

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP02 Aug 2017 10:05 a.m. PST

"Its gone and DBX isn't. You are intitled to your pro-GW opinion but that hardly means others are misinformed"

Certainly my opinion doesn't mean that others are misinformed. No offense but my view that you are misinformed is based solely on your comments. Take this one, for example. You state that Warmaster is gone, that is just your ignorance of other gaming systems. Warmaster lives on in several popular rule sets. Black Powder is a very popular gaming system that has spawned more than a half dozen supplements.

Pike and Shotte and Hail, Caesar are not as popular from what I've seen at conventions but between the two of them have spawned 8 supplements in addition to the main rules.

Blitzkrieg Commander, Cold War Commander and Future War Commander have seen some degree of popularity over the years, BKC being popular enough to see a second edition.

So when you say things like Warmaster is gone, it really seems like you don't know what you are talking about.

Your point about Games Workshop putting out mediocre games is a little bit disingenuous too. They put out a ton of games. There are almost no other companies in the miniature gaming world that have put out close to as many, and certainly none with the sales numbers, and yet despite this they are still going. There must be something to their game design.

And if they are a industry leader in that regard it is because they are the industry leader in every regard so your point is a tautology.

I don't know about tournament game, but I've played quite a few games of 8th edition now myself. It is faster play than 7th edition (which we gave up on here and played 3rd when we got back into 40K) which in turn made it more fun.

Perhaps there was something about the rules that you didn't understand?

kallman04 Sep 2017 3:57 p.m. PST

+10 Pictor.

SeattleGamer04 Sep 2017 7:30 p.m. PST

Well … For me, GW has done more right than wrong:

Warhammer Quest – Top 10 favorite board game
Blood Bowl – Top 10 favorite board game
Space Hulk – Top 10 favorite board game

Necromunda – Top 10 favorite tabletop minis game
Warhammer – Top 10 favorite tabletop minis game (esp 7th)

So they made 5 of my top 10 games with minis. And I rode with Warhammer from 3rd edition through 7th. I bought nearly every army book that came out as well (loved the various backgrounds).

I didn't care for 8th edition, and then they destroyed that universe, and everything I liked about it. Age of Sigmar doesn't interest me in the slightest. Oh well, time marches on, and I am sure thousands of new gamers love AOS.

For me, 40K was always just "okay". I like bugs and bots in sci-fi universe, and a friend went with the bugs so I went with Necrons (when they were an article from WD). I stayed current with them thru various editions. But it was never my game of choice. My son became interested in Space Marines for a time, but that faded. I ended up selling all my old (and painted) Necrons to someone else who had an army of them that were metal figures. Sold my Space Marines too.

I bought a bunch of the new plastics, but just never got around to building an army from them. Not even sure what editiont he rules are on now.

If I lived near my old 40K gaming buddies, I would have an army, and enjoy playing. But we play for fun, not for blood, and when a certain combo seems downright over the top, we simply don't field that combo again.

I haven't liked a number of their company policies, but have always enjoyed most of their games. Other than paint, I haven't bought anything from GW in 20 years, but I now have my eye on their upcoming Necromunda release. Might be my first purchase in two decades!

kallman05 Sep 2017 10:43 a.m. PST

Let's see,

Warmaster, one of the best mass battle games I've ever played and as Pictor correctly pointed out has been vastly copied and adapted.

Warhammer Fantasy I played from 3rd up to 7th till GW broke what did not need fixing with 8th and killed it for me with AOS. Plus I have probably played more games of Warhammer Ancients than any other miniature table top game. So thanks GW. Pity you could not see the value of doing historical games but we have Warlord now.

Then there is Necromunda, Mordhiem, Space Hulk, Battle Fleet Gothic all great fun games. Now I am coming back to 40K and my eldest son has shown an interest in Age of Sigmar, so who knows I might give it a go. And I am looking forward to the new Necromunda game.

But to say GW has never designed a good or great game is simply hyperbolely.

The H Man17 Sep 2017 9:30 p.m. PST

After a couple of editions a good game should not require revision.

Take monopoly. They only change it make money.

Take gw. They only change it to make money.

Thomas Thomas Supporting Member of TMP21 Sep 2017 12:52 p.m. PST

Oh never get into a discussion with GW fans…its just hopeless.

For the record (as stated before) GW has designed several good games over its long long history: Space Marine, Space Hulk, Blood Bowl (sorry forget it), and some versions of Warhammer. 40K has always been a mixed bag (which even its fans generally admit). Its still a fairly short list for a company that has put out so many titles. Warmaster isn't bad either it just has to compete in a field full of other very good games.

GW's tremendous marketing advantage will insure their product gets in stores and gets sold. Quality not with standing.

I enjoy virtually every miniature game I play (I like toy soliders) that includes GW products (even the current 4OK). Thats not the point – I also recognize that the designs could be much better apparently just because I'm familar with a wider varietly of designs.

But enjoyment is subjective. You may feel the new 40K vehicle rules are great and that being the case I doubt anything I can say would dissuade you (nor would I want to since your having fun with them). But those who have played a few other tank games may note some serious silliness.

TomT

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Sep 2017 8:04 a.m. PST

"Oh never get into a discussion with GW fans…its just hopeless."

I guess it is when you don't know what you're talking about.

Here is the structure of this discussion:

You spouted off about something you obviously didn't have full knowledge about. You got called out on it with facts showing your ignorance. Then you come back and do a group attack to try to cover up for your failure of knowledge.

A more mature approach would be to come back and admit that you didn't realize that many successful rule sets had been based on Warmaster and say that Warmaster appears to have been much more successful than you originally thought. Then you could go on to whatever point you might want to ultimately try to make after that.

Instead you just basically resorted to name calling because you didn't have a valid point to make in the long run.

I do agree that the new vehicle rules probably aren't great. I've criticized them elsewhere on here. I haven't actually used any vehicles in my 8th edition games yet so I'll reserve full judgment but just from what I've read and the math it seems a little bit duff.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.