Why successive editions?

[Argonor]

The legions of 40K diehards?

I am in danger of repeating myself, here 

[joroas]

To be fair, they have nicked an idea from FOW 3rd Ed, WH40K 7th will be three books.........

[Major_Gilbear]

To be fair, they have nicked an idea from FOW 3rd Ed, WH40K 7th will be three books.........

40k 2nd Edition was in three books too, as were many other GW games I could name that were published before FOW. Not sure what your point is here...? 

[joroas]

Aah, but that was in the olden times before the books started weighing several kilos.......

[maxxon]

Who cares, really?

Basically anyone wanting to have a reasonable chance of playing sci-fi pickup games, or any sci-fi games without buying and painting two armies.

(Yes I know there are a couple of relatively popular alternatives out there, but their market share is still insignificant compared to 40K)

[Conquistador]

Basically anyone wanting to have a reasonable chance of playing sci-fi pickup games, or any sci-fi games without buying and painting two armies.

(Yes I know there are a couple of relatively popular alternatives out there, but their market share is still insignificant compared to 40K)

With all due respect, Stalin was not entirely correct... Quantity can compensate for Quality but that doesn't mean it is equally satisfying.  

Gracias,

Glenn

Edit: And we just went off topic.  My apologies but I will leave the post but not develop the thought any further.

[Conquistador]

On an upbeat note, can people give some examples where a successive edition improved the game significantly?

I have several THW games where the Final Version (FV) or 2nd Edition seems to have created a better game worth buying a 'successive' edition but what non-THW games come to your mind?

Has there ever been a third edition, (any thoughts on GW products welcome but there is a thread for GW talk on the forum I remind myself,)  of a rules set that was worth the effort or justified the expense?  Fourth??

Gracias.

Glenn

[Argonor]

Basically anyone wanting to have a reasonable chance of playing sci-fi pickup games, or any sci-fi games without buying and painting two armies.

(Yes I know there are a couple of relatively popular alternatives out there, but their market share is still insignificant compared to 40K)

This discussion belongs in the GW discussion thread, and not here, and is really completely off topic, but I simply fail to understand the reasoning behind that argument, based on the number of minis needed for a standard 40K game these days.  

[Major_Gilbear]

From Infinity 1 to 2 was an improvement, as was Warmachine/Hordes Mk1 to Mk2.

Sometimes though, as the case with Infinity showed, small changes have bigger impacts than you might think.

And whilst no fundamental mechanics really changed in Warmachine/Hordes, the game was still a top-to-bottom revision of the game at every level.

I think that Epic 40k (essentially a totally new game rather than a revision) was in many ways an improvement over Space Marine too, at least in game terms, but I know I'm very much in the minority there. Ironically, a second edition of Epic 40k would have probably solved its issues. Instead though, we got a complete revision again in the form of Epic Armageddon - which whilst a better game, was totally different from Epic 40k.

It's too early for me to comment much on Malifaux yet, but like WM/H it has undergone a fairly comprehensive overhaul; time will tell how much better it is however.

[Cubs]

Nostalgia aside, WHFB 2 was an improvement on the original, playability-wise. Having said that, nothing could compensate me for the joys of picking through the old book with its myriad of different Goblin and Elf types.

I did hear that the WHAB2 was an improvement on the original WAB, but that's second hand opinion since I don't know.

[thebinmann]

Nostalgia aside, WHFB 2 was an improvement on the original, playability-wise. Having said that, nothing could compensate me for the joys of picking through the old book with its myriad of different Goblin and Elf types.

Oh yeah and don't forget Half Orcs!

And concerning 40K RT is just a great book, even if you never play it was a cross between WFB and WFRp in space, the mutations pages alone are worth whatever it would cost you to pick up a copy now....

RE games over books, second ed WFB had RH and then I think third started with siege etc so that's not really new.3 Plus  and 2 had three books, all in one box mind you....

[Archie]

Not quite wargaming but I really like 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons and feel those rules are far better than previous editions.

And I care about 40k as having a son who has invested a few quid (!) Into the game I would like to see him not disappointed or put out by new rules. Codification of existing rules wouldd be fine buy a rewrite would seem like a slap in the face. And I think he represents their core target audience at 15 years old.

[weismonsters]

Generally speaking, I am often amazed by peoples rate of publication. In my own field I often see this mentality. The phrase publish or perish seems to have caught on. As someone who likes to write and rewrite drafts and often decides his own work isnt quite up to the standards he sets for publication, i am frequently in danger of perishing. Hopefully one day i will find a happy middle ground.

Coming back from that digression to rulebooks, recently I have been reflecting on how many rukebooks and articles Priestley et al wrote between 1988 and 1991. It was a tremendous rate of publication. To fast even to check carefully the writing style let alone the logical structure of the exposition of the rules. And indeed you can find various rules contradictions and muddled exposition in those old warhammer books. In the case of warhammer nth edition it is clearly a case of cynical strategy, as has been mentioned above. But many other examples seem to be just the individual authors have a need for "productivity". Recently I bought some pdf skirmish rules and, whilst it is no doubt a fun game, the way the rules are written seems a bit like a first draft rather than a first edition. I would certainly have done another rewrite before putting the pdf out there, if it had been me.


Having said all that I can definitely see the need for a new edition once in a while, even if the original was well playtested and the writing was crafted. It must be hard to incorporate new elements like expansions or new types of troops without exposing some imbalance or need for change in the rules, unless you were really visionary in your original writing and forsaw all the possible new lines of miniatures and so on that would come along. Pulling things together into a cohesive structure is really quite tricky once you have written any quantity of material.

[maxxon]

This discussion belongs in the GW discussion thread, and not here, and is really completely off topic, but I simply fail to understand the reasoning behind that argument, based on the number of minis needed for a standard 40K game these days.  

Quite frankly I don't think so, please bear with me.

For the record, I don't play any GW games nor do I particularly like them. I don't play tournaments, I don't play pickup games with strangers. However, I'm willing to entertain the thought that some people play differently than I do. In fact, probably most of them do.

The undeniable fact is that 40K has a huge player base (compared to any other miniatures game). The new edition matters to them.

Especially given that 40K promotes a style of play that requires all the players to be "on the same page" ruleswise. (I'll get back to this topic in a bit.)

This is how you make your customers buy the new edition, essentially the same books over and over again.

The same is true of, say, Warmachine or Malifaux or Flames of War or any game that promotes tournament-style play. Try going to a game store and having a game of 1st ed. Warmachine with a random stranger...

Why new editions?

New editions are born partly from genuine attempt to introduce improvements to the game, collect stuff that may have been spread over various supplements and magazine articles, consolidate errata, fix loopholes and so on.

They are also born out of desire to "keep the game fresh". This is mostly a commercial concern. A commercial publisher needs a constant source of revenue simply to stay alive. In practice this means either a constant stream of new players or having the existing player base buying more books -- preferably both. New editions facilitate this and also remove used copies form the market.

A few words about play styles.

There is the traditional hobby style of gaming. Let's call it "hosted games". The host provides the rules, the scenario, the figures, everything. Other players can chip in bringing stuff, but the host makes the ultimate decision what makes it into the game. This gives the host a lot of freedom, but also requires a lot of work. I know, cause I do this a lot... This is the way you can keep playing WRG 5th when all the tournaments have moved on to 6th or have a game on that obscure subject no one else even knows about.

No commercial game I'm aware of endorses hosted games as the primary mode of play (apart from things that are really self-contained boardgames or RPGs).

Then there is the "games among equals" style. All tournaments do this and it's pretty much a requirement for pickup play. The idea is that both players provide their own army and play under mutually agreed rules. Since terrain is nobody's responsibility, it usually suffers but that's beside the point... While you can technically first agree on the rules/point limits/whatever, this style makes it possible to compose your army with no knowledge of your opposition by adhering to some common standards.

And guess what's always part of the common standards? Yup, playing by the latest published rules.

This is basically the model most commercial games push. It does have advantages, even if you're not into competetive play. It cuts workload by half, since you're only responsible for preparing one army. It lets you play even without an established gaming group. It lets you concentrate on building your army in isolation.

And it provides a constant source of revenue for the publisher.

I would say the latter style is more popular by far, and many of its aficianados can't even comprehend the first style.

[Conquistador]

This could become a GW are "Paladins serving the hobby" versus "Greedy Bastards of Industry " thread very quickly.

Can we move this part of the discussion to the appropriate thread provided on LAF before it gets locked, please?

Gracias,

Glenn