Time to Embrace the Horror

[Kazzigum]

So, I've seen the new rumors regarding the end of codexes and the possibility of 40K becoming AoS-ized. Not so long ago, I would have scoffed. But not anymore. I've seen the future, and I don't like it.

Let me backtrack a bit. I've played 40k since the beginning, when my brother and I learned with Rogue Trader back in 1988. We dabbled in other GW games -- Fantasy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, etc. -- but we really only stayed loyal to 40k. For my brother, it's always been Orks. For me, Chaos. Oh, we've both played other armies, him more than me, and we both have several armies, but our true loves stayed the same. To this day, we talk each week, mostly about gaming, and in particular about 40k. So seeing AoS burst onto the scene was a mild surprise. I don't think either of us really believed GW would go this far... And now this week, we see the 30k sprues, and we know that that rumor too was true. I don't think either of us really believed it would be either. So speaking to my brother today, he says to me he thinks that it's gonna be AoS-like too. I argued against the idea, saying what many on the net have been saying, "Nah, why would they mess with something that is working so well? Fantasy, sure. It was dying. But 40k, and 30k too, are doing fine." I wanted to believe this. Maybe I even did once. But everything I was saying sounded so hollow this time, even to me. And this was all before either of us saw the rumors regarding the end of codexes and all the rest Hastings was saying.

So why am I posting all this? Well, honestly, perhaps I'm hoping for some sorta cathartic purge of my spirit. Because, honestly, I believe it IS a done deal. Looking at the trends over the last year, even before AoS, we all know/knew GW is gonna release a new edition of 40k next year. Knowing that, and looking at how 40k is rapidly sliding into the same sorta 'extremely large armies to play' model that ended Fantasy (i.e. Formations that gift 500+ free points), I don't think it's that hard to see the writing on the wall, once I turn off my bias. The things that Hastings was saying just ring true to what GW has done as of late. The next edition, which will come next year, will be some form of AoS. And I find that depressing. I hate the whole idea of AoS.

And that's the real kicker. I hate AoS, but both my brother and I are fluffy players. We should love it, right? Turns out, not so much. We play the armies we like, build them the way we like, and then get on with the losing. We attend tournaments occasionally and mostly lose there too. We've railed against 'power-gamers,' 'beardy players' and whatever other spiffy term that was in vogue at the time. And we carried on doing our thing. So, oddly enough, over the course of the last year, while debating this or that horrifically broken net list or dreary Goatboy article where he tries to convince everyone that he loves and embraces the fluff and then attaches a power/spam list at the end that proves otherwise, we found ourselves agreeing with many of the opinions of those 'dirty power-gamers' or event organizers when they began arguing for, and then implementing, slight rules corrections/modifications (for example, nerfing Invisibility, D weapons, etc.). We began to openly question each others sanity. How can this be? How can we be agreeing with these guys? After some soul searching, the answer is simple really. We just want a fair game. We love 40k and we don't mind losing, but we want it to be fair. I want a fair fight. Or at least, I don't want it to be so obvious that it isn't a fair fight.

So, I know that's a lot said, but not really a topic for a discussion, right? Well, if you've come this far, and honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, as I think I might be sorta talking to myself, let me give you one. So after feeling a bit depressed about the coming apocalypse as I see it, I realized I'd probably just stick to 7th edition (why can't I quit you!). Likely to just play against my brother once or twice a year when we get together. Because, I've played all the editions, and I honestly feel it's the best, most closely evocative of the fluff GW has produced. At least, it was at the beginning. There are a number of things I think could and should be changed, but realistically, Formations and some of the altered detachments are the biggest problem. I originally thought they were just a cheap method to push product on us, and then somehow I was hypnotized to believe some were kinda cool and not so bad, and now this year, we see them is all their naked glory. Marketing has taken complete control of the ship and they are steering us into the iceberg. Anyway, back on track. So here's the crux of it. I think 7th in its purity is great and I'll keep playing it. But when GW turns to the AoS version of 40k, and I find myself playing a defunct version of the game, why not tweak it in such a way that I know is just more fair? And if I'm willing to do that, would others be too? So, what I'm asking is, are there fans out there that would consider joining me, and likely my brother, to form a cabal of limited size to tweak the 7th edition rules to be fair and fun? I'm not interested in writing a whole new edition, or creating our own codexes wholesale blah-blah-blah...I'm talking about taking what we've got, ironing out the stuff that we all know to be unfair, broken and/or stupid underpowered, and straight-up fixing it. Build a living, breathing 7.5 and doing what GW refuses to do -- identify the stuff that doesn't work, throw out ideas and debate them with one another and then just fix it.

So, would there be an interest from the fans in doing such a thing? Am I just talking to myself at this point? Why am I even still up???

[Mr Mystery]

Warhammer had an issue that 40k simply doesn't. Downward scaling.

40k plays just fine at 500 points. The game might be fairly short, but you don't really miss out on any of the key tactical challenges the game presents.

Warhammer didn't really work beyond 1,500, as you'd typically lack enough units to enjoy the manoeuvres that brought victory, and a single whiffed combat spelled disaster.

Me, I don't think 40k as we know it is going anywhere. The formations you mentioned? Some are for large games, others for smaller games, and some offer a bit of everything for all sizes of game. They're there to encourage and reward those who want a 'historically accruate' type force, rather than a more eclectic mix of what's available.

Some do get a bit daft, but then they're not a compulsory part of the game - so just as you agree a points limit with your opponent and perhaps a specific scenario, discuss which, if any, formations you'd like to exclude.

[Path Walker]

I do think they will try and purge 40K of the competitive scene, but this has already been happening, they have so many options and fluffy things there now, it's becoming less and less suitable for competitive play with every release.

If anything, the Formations and Detachments help evoke the fluff better than anything else has in years by offering incentives to move your army away from the min/max ideals.

GW see their market as casual miniature collectors who might want to play a game with their models, you can agree or disagree with the viability of that strategy but that's the market they want.

[Denzark]

There is a major anti-competitive theme with GW. Their very own flagship tournament chooses the winner on 'favourite game' votes. When a shedload of people provided feedback that they wanted skill as a general recognised, this was chinned off.

I don't think 40K will be 're-booted' in the way WFB/AoS happened - because I think AoS was done deliberately to access a new market because of falling sales.

However, that being my thought until 5 minutes ago, I notice from the front page and then reading the investor comments, that GW is launching a top down review of all products. So who knows what idiocy this will entail.

[Kazzigum]

Me, I don't think 40k as we know it is going anywhere. The formations you mentioned? Some are for large games, others for smaller games, and some offer a bit of everything for all sizes of game. They're there to encourage and reward those who want a 'historically accruate' type force, rather than a more eclectic mix of what's available.

Some do get a bit daft, but then they're not a compulsory part of the game - so just as you agree a points limit with your opponent and perhaps a specific scenario, discuss which, if any, formations you'd like to exclude.

I wish I could agree, but I no longer do. I think GW's plan is indeed to move 40k to the AoS model. And I don't agree about the formations either. They have fully embraced a blatant 'sell lots o' models' mentality. The space marine ones that grant you free tanks are a naked push to get players to buy multiple tank kits. It is not about representing anything fairly or historical anything else, it is simply about getting the space marine player to buy a bunch of tanks, and you gotta do it now now now, damn game balance and any illusions of fairness or balance.

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I'm done apologizing for them. They no longer have interest in balanced game play, and appallingly, are even saying so openly.

[Path Walker]

I wish I could agree, but I no longer do. I think GW's plan is indeed to move 40k to the AoS model. And I don't agree about the formations either. They have fully embraced a blatant 'sell lots o' models' mentality. The space marine ones that grant you free tanks are a naked push to get players to buy multiple tank kits. It is not about representing anything fairly or historical anything else, it is simply about getting the space marine player to buy a bunch of tanks, and you gotta do it now now now, damn game balance and any illusions of fairness or balance.

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I'm done apologizing for them. They no longer have interest in balanced game play, and appallingly, are even saying so openly.

Its not though, that formation is to let you play a full company and get a bonus for doing so. The design team didn't make the decision to include that because they thought it would sell tanks, they did it because they wanted people to use Space Marines how the fluff depicted them

[Kazzigum]

However, that being my thought until 5 minutes ago, I notice from the front page and then reading the investor comments, that GW is launching a top down review of all products. So who knows what idiocy this will entail.

Yeah, I saw this after posting originally. It did not lift my depression, as it seems to pretty much confirm my vision of the future. And perhaps even sooner than I imagined.

[Alaric]

Cant see why you couldnt do a living rulebook. It would be alot of thankless, non paying work but if it makes ya happy, why not? Really tho, is that what you wanna do? You have seen how impossible it is to please gamers (re: yourself) so I have no idea why you would wanna go down that road.

There are lots of other games dude, Id look into them if I was you, no sense getting mopey over a game you have no hope of changing easily.

[Caitsidhe]

So, would there be an interest from the fans in doing such a thing? Am I just talking to myself at this point? Why am I even still up???

You aren't talking to yourself. I think you made your points clearly. I've always said that the rules have to be as good as the models. Only a portion (and I'd argue a smaller portion) of the fan base collect the models purely for the models. A significant portion play the game because the hobby is actually war gaming. Good rules work for both fluffy and competitive players. Idiotic, random rules work, at best, for the fluffy types but not for anyone else. I'd argue, as you said yourself, that even many fluffy types would like to see the game be fair and work. In that that light, it is literally insane (and bad business) to intentionally work toward eliminating a large percentage of your consumers. It all but ensures that those who do want good rules will migrate to other games. In Bizarro World ( [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World[/url] ) it might make some sense to eliminate customers (cutting the dead weight from the customer base) rather than trying to grow them, but in our world it is just moronic.

There is simply no logical reason not to cater to as wide a consumer base as possible. Perhaps they believe they are the gaming geek version of the Soup **** from Seinfeld. "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" Sad to say, that doesn't work because they don't have the gamer version of good soup. It looks good but tastes like dirty water.

[Path Walker]

Which is exactly why they don't want you as a customer.