Codex design 9th in general.

[niiai]

I just have to gush. My little brain is erupting some thoughts. This is my tinfoil hat theory of how they designed 9th.

8th edition was the era of the guardsman. From a mathhammer perspective a guardsman was morelikly to kill any other infantry. And from a durability perspective the guardsman was more likely to survive incoming fire better then other infnatery. This was a well known fact in 8th. Leading to many armies spamming guardsmen. It was a bit dull and a pain to move around the board.

Start of 9th every model got a price increase. Leaving the horde armies in a pinch.

Every codex design tried to make a good codex, and for the most part it worked. That include good internal balance. And to balance all the guns. As a side effect all the weapons became much more deadly. This removed the consept of anvil units, aka, units that where so durable they could be shot at, but had little offensive capabilities. Because these anvil units where balanced to be dangerush, not durable. Another side effect of this is that all the really bad guns all became super jacked.

Armies that where T3 (imperial guard stats) needed something to make them playable. Admech got a bucket or rules. Dark elder where super jacked on release (hello harlequeens). GSC got some T4 and the crossfire rule to make their guardsman better.

And now we see the full power creep on all the guns. Leaving earlier designed armies like SM that rely on armour saves to get almost a whole new point of armour save in the latest update.

I think 9th is good over all. But they clearly should have had the general design of the 9th codexes in place and balanced around that before printing them.

Edit: I would like to state that I am quite fond of 9th edition. It is possible to like something and be critical about it. They do a descent enough job, but it is visible in the seams.

[nbmraptor]

You've got some good points. It does seem that the codexes have been conceived and designed very separately from each other. Perhaps if they were all designed simultaneously, at least in principle (even if they were then released separately), we might not need all the balance updates.

Of course, they could have been initially designed all together and when it came time for each codex, it just evolved and got out of hand.

Then there's always the (seemingly likely) possibility that new codexes are just made better to make sales.

[dkng]

Apr 15, 2022 10:52:56 GMT nbmraptor said:

Then there's always the (seemingly likely) possibility that new codexes are just made better to make sales.

 This is called Power Creep and is definitely used for increasing sales

[niiai]

Apr 15, 2022 11:58:08 GMT dkng said:

Apr 15, 2022 10:52:56 GMT nbmraptor said:

Then there's always the (seemingly likely) possibility that new codexes are just made better to make sales.

 This is called Power Creep and is definitely used for increasing sales

Powercreep can increase sales. But having a good game can increase sales as well. However I do belive power creep can occur with the best intensions. "How do we make genestealer cultists better. Give the +1 to hit and +1 to wound on wouding." "How do we balance gaunts? Give them a S5 gun to make them better." It could just a series of tuning upgrades instead of some person on topp that goes "make tem ibalance, sell more books."

[hivefleetkerrigan]

I honestly think that GW messed up making marines 2.0 in 8e and cranked the power level up too much. I understand why they buffed marines and gave them extra rules: they were underpowered and lackluster to play against (marine flavors felt almost identical IMO). So, GW increased marines killing power, gave them new models, and gave them rules to give them more flavor. However, they over did it. Iron hands and other marine varieties rules the meta for months.

Then, along comes 9e. Now, marines are always the first codex of a new edition. GW has a choice: they can either bring marines inline with the rest of armies power levels or they can bring everyone else up to marines levels. I think they feared making a new codex that was going to nerf the most popular faction in the game, so they started brining all other codexes up to marine levels.

As for 9e meta issues:
1. GW underestimates how much movement can help a skilled player win a game
2. GW underestimates how lethal alpha strike can be (note that they're now pushing for more terrain heavy boards
3. GW underestimates how good shooting can be

[piersonsmuppet]

Apr 15, 2022 14:21:01 GMT hivefleetkerrigan said:

As for 9e meta issues:
1. GW underestimates how much movement can help a skilled player win a game
2. GW underestimates how lethal alpha strike can be (note that they're now pushing for more terrain heavy boards
3. GW underestimates how good shooting can be

Funny thing is those were also the big issues for 8E as well... 

[gigasnail]

You're giving GW way too much credit. There is no plan and they have no idea what they're doing, and they never really have.

[jesses]

Power creep is somewhat inevitable, it happens in all games. It's just particularily relevant to 40k because of it's insane size. The number of factions GW needs to balance is larger than any other game.

Reducing factions is the only way to viably combat it, and that would be a very unpopular move. They've started doing it though. Harlequins and Scions got rolled back into their parent books. Sisters of Silence got merged into Custodes. The Marine chapters are all now supplements instead of full books on their own (a very smart move). But you can only take this so far without angering players, and they are a model company so they need to keep creating new models.

8th and 9th have had issues, but so far they've been more on the ball about fixing them (or at least attempting to fix them) then they've ever been. I remember playing my 3rd ed Necron book all the way up until the very end of 5th. Thank the Four Armed Emperor that BS is over and done with.

[yoritomo]

I've often wondered if it wouldn't be better for the game if they introduced a limited unit format for 40K. Kind of like how Magic: The Gathering has the vintage and standard formats. Every so often, say when a new mission pack drops, GW publishes a list of units you can use for that "season".

I know it wouldn't solve the problem, but it would shake things up as you would have to parallel metas running at the same time.

[jesses]

Apr 18, 2022 0:12:27 GMT yoritomo said:

I've often wondered if it wouldn't be better for the game if they introduced a limited unit format for 40K. Kind of like how Magic: The Gathering has the vintage and standard formats. Every so often, say when a new mission pack drops, GW publishes a list of units you can use for that "season".

I know it wouldn't solve the problem, but it would shake things up as you would have to parallel metas running at the same time.

I would hate this, haha. It works in Magic because cards are cheap, easy to store, and require no prep like assembly or painting.

Perhaps seasonal Detachments however, with more or less restrictions? Different seasons migbt have 0-1 Heavy Support and mandatory 2 Fast Attack or something similar. This would still give you the meta shake-up without preventing you from using any of your models specifically.

So you could play a standard game, or the seasonal meta but the seasonal would require you use the 'Nachmund Detachment'.

[nbmraptor]

Isn't the seasonal thing kinda what they're doing in AoS at the moment? Right now, monsters are the thing they're focusing on. They could introduce something similar to 40k