Things are pretty crazy these days with supplements everywhere and forgeworld units, not to mention new units being released constantly. It's virtually impossible (or really expensive) to keep up with it all. It's also a lot for GW to print, FAQ, and cast. With so many units available many of them must be just taking up shelf space, and costing the company money. Is 40k going the way of WFB? Is it inevitable because of GW's model of constantly expanding the range and continuing to support the old models (as not to invalidate players previous purchases). If it was a private company they could just sit on the range they have now and fill the gaps (eg: Sisters), work on improving the rules, and make modest profits. Being a corporation however, forces them (or should I say "it") to chase higher profits. Is GW strangling itself and therefore the games we love? What would GW do when even 40k, their flagship game, is costing more than it's making? (Don't say raise prices, it's not funny.) Liquidate?
40k is very definitely bloated. In 5E, to own all core rules, not counting expansions, forgeworld, etc, it would cost you ~$300-$350, and perhaps $600 with Forgeworld and expansions like Apocalypse and Cities of Death. Now it's closer to $2000 between datalsates and hardcover codex books and formations, and roughly $3000 if you include Forgeworld and expansion materials like Apocalypse.
There's also a problem of scale. 40k is increasingly trying to incorporate Epic into itself, while maintaining and expanding micro-level functionality more suited to a skirmish game consisting of a dozen models. This then results in us having Titans and Gargantuan Flying Creatures on the same boards as basic infantry and having to worry about if sergeant X is armed with mace or an axe or a sword.
Ultimately, we've got four or five different sales channels, with effectively zero lead time before release for anyone to know about anything, zero playtesting or functionality, etc. We've got tons of supplements on stuff nobody ever really cared about or asked for (Crimson Slaughter? Black Legion when C:CSM is already basically that? Individual Iron Hands and Imperial Fists companies?) and very few people can keep track of all the formations and dataslates out, fewer still have them all (especially legally).
40k is gigantically bloated, both in releases and in terms of the scope of the rules.
I'm not entirely sure it's too bloated, more that there's no central source for a definitive list of rules and options. It seems like every time I turn around there's another digital only supplement or formation or what have you that I hadn't heard about before.
If we had something like Infinity's official online army builder that collated all the options into one place I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about it.
dementedwombat wrote: I'm not entirely sure it's too bloated, more that there's no central source for a definitive list of rules and options.
That's the biggest issue. GW and Forgworld are still inexcusably bad about presenting all their rules supplements in one or two places - you have to hunt through 3rd party listings to even figure out where the most current rules are for the new hotness on forgeworld. I have no idea how casual players are ever expected to figure out where to find all this stuff - it's scattered about in White Dwarf articles, the GW store, Black Library, and Forgeworld exclusive books (and the occasional PDF).
If there were a million rules and one central index it would still be bloated.
The game doesn't need half the rules it has got now, and GW's need to split them into more and more sources doesn't help.
Yup. Too many rules, too many special snowflake exceptions, too many random tables, too many unit types, too many rules sources. You name it, GW has too many of it. It slows the game down, makes it impossible to fix/patch/FAQ just one thing without an avalanche of unintended consequences, and it's just plain lazy and sloppy rules design.
It's bloated, but honestly, the bloat isn't as bad as the 'kitchen sink' syndrome. So much of the detail and choices could be retained if GW didn't present options in such a disorganized manner. Rules show up all over the place, get updated and revised in different places, and units and models pop up all over the place as well.
If you had a "core set' of rules, with compiled, organized rules for squad level games...with no fliers, giant beasties, superheavies, etc, that could serve as a base.
Then you could introduce rules for things like Fliers (and anti-aircraft options) and specifically call out how the base game changes with the introduction of flyers (things like assuming largely open battlefields, instead of dense, multilevel ruins or claustrophobic space hulks, etc).
You could have rules for superheavy weapons and discuss changes to the base game for those options.
You could have rules for massive battles and cover the different assumptions that those types of battles require.
Instead, you have a confusion of rules all over the place, and NO discussion at all of how to integrate these disparate elements into coherent games. I don't think most people playing even question the assumptions that govern how most games are played now, because so much of the structure of the game is now shaped by the assumption of superheavies, enormous models like Knights and Gorkanauts, and flying vehicles and monsters. Because all of this stuff is just tossed into the mix, every game and every army and every board has to be assumed to be compatible with huge walkers and flyers and all this stuff, when there's no particular reason to think or play that way.
Think of it like a cafeteria. If you walk in and pick up an entree, a side dish, a salad, and maybe a dessert, your meal is sensible and cohesive. If you walk in and they hand you a tray with a spoonful of every single option, all glopped on top of each other, your meal is going to suck. Even though there's nothing wrong with each of the food choices, and there's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.
I suppose you could call it bloat, because in the current GW rules structure, there's no way to organize choices or army selection or unit selection or force composition (other than knowing how the games will turn out and agreeing with each other individually when you get together). The guy who picks up an army of all Knights is just picking an army he wants to play in the exact same way that a guy who picks up a IG infantry platoons army is. GW acts like there are no implicit assumptions about the type of game you might be playing, whether you field a troop heavy ork army or Wave Serpent spam. All of the dials are on, all the time.
adamsouza wrote: D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.
You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.
gonna agree with this. compared to the rules books that where published for D&D 3rd edition, 40k right now's not TOO bad.
GW's mentality for 7th edition is very much a "Wargame that wants to be RPGish" if you look at it from that standpoint a lot of what they're doing makes considerably more sense
I do think it's too bloated. One or two big Astartes books, an inquisition/GK/assassins book and an IK/AM would work. It's the imperium stuff that's just silly.
D&D didn't require players to buy all those rules. I guess 40k doesn't either, but in 40k owning all of the books is a much higher priority than in D&D.
For D&D, half the books were for specific D&D universes, campaigns, or other special factors like level. A 1st level party would have no use for an Epic level handbook. A Dark Suns supplement was of no use to somebody running a Forgotten Realms campaign.
In 40k, there's far fewer books like that. It's always useful to have books for armies you don't run because it's likely you'll play against them, relatively few things are as "superfluous" or circumstantial.
7th is way too bloated. I used to need rules and a codex. Now, I need a rule book, 2 codexes and 2 supplements when running allies, fortifications book, a couple white dwarfs, some PDFs for FAQs and an imperial armor book for a regular 3000 point game. It makes it impossible to keep up with what your opponent will be bringing and what to expect from a certain army. It also creates more rules contradictions from unplanned rules interactions between a codex written 4 years ago for one army and a dataslate that came out last week for another army. The poor rules writing by itself creates plenty of those (can a psyker cast as many powers as he knows or as many as his mastery level? Is a power fist TWC S9 or S10? What's the actual firing arc of a serpent shield? If you fire scatter lasers at one target and then split fire with your other weapon, is the other weapon still TL? Is Helfrost template shot AP2 or AP3 because it's listed as one thing in the weapon profile and another on the reference page?) Those are all issues on their own without worrying about rules interactions from 27 different sources that 2 opponents used to choose their armies. We need all the rules condensed into one book for each army (even FW units for that army), and then play tested as a whole and released. It will never happen because GW realized they can squeeze more pennies out of their dwindling customer base by splitting the rules into 8 different pieces and making us pay for each piece.
it'll also never happen because from a busniess pov it's inefficant to sit on your stuff until you have everything and release everyone in one volume. every gaming company needs to produce expansions to stay afloat. Honestly I'd rather GW produce expansions and supplements rather then the constant "new edition, new codex" cycle. I'd rather spend money on new product then repeated re-dos of the same thing
I would too, but it would be nice if, for example, the 8th edition codexes contained not just an updated codex but also the other rules that have been published for that army since the previous codex.
Toofast wrote: I would too, but it would be nice if, for example, the 8th edition codexes contained not just an updated codex but also the other rules that have been published for that army since the previous codex.
if I was a betting man I'd be betting, for the most part, that's whats gonna happen. so rather then be where GW introduces new stuff, new codexes will be where they bring the various stuff they've introduced over the past few years into one source and bring it up to date etc. it's honestly a more elegent approuch rather then trying to cram all the new things you wanna put into the dex in one release window.
I like the current format. I hope they come out with more formation books in a more standard rotation so we can see something new for each army at least once a year.
Vaktathi wrote: D&D didn't require players to buy all those rules. I guess 40k doesn't either, but in 40k owning all of the books is a much higher priority than in D&D.
For D&D, half the books were for specific D&D universes, campaigns, or other special factors like level. A 1st level party would have no use for an Epic level handbook. A Dark Suns supplement was of no use to somebody running a Forgotten Realms campaign.
In 40k, there's far fewer books like that. It's always useful to have books for armies you don't run because it's likely you'll play against them, relatively few things are as "superfluous" or circumstantial.
I see things as ecactly the oposite tbh. Both systems ofc require you to have the books for what you play. In 40k that's BRB, codex and eventual supplements, dataslates and FW books, probably no more tham 4-5 books total. In d&d it was not that uncommon to have a character with options drawn from a dozen or more books. Even most setting specific books contained a fair amount of non setting specific materials. Add to that the fact that it's much easier to change characters in d&d than change armies in 40k and the need to own books becomes much greater.
Also, in 40k it's much easier to find out stuff about armies you don't own. IMO there's very lillte Battlescribe+Google+skimming through the book once or twice at the store can't tell you about the rules of an army.
oh jesus I don't think I ever recall a D&D character that many sources in actual practice, especially anything under Epic levels. A dozen sources was possible, but not something I recall ever being common. At least in 3E/3.5E. 4E was easier with the online character builder.
Vaktathi wrote: oh jesus I don't think I ever recall a D&D character that many sources in actual practice, especially anything under Epic levels. A dozen sources was possible, but not something I recall ever being common. At least in 3E/3.5E. 4E was easier with the online character builder.
Take a Druid for example (using it as it's my favorite class):
At minimum you'd use: PHB for class and race, DMG and Magic Item Compendium for items, Spell Compendium for spells and Monster Mamual since your class abilities often require monster stats. That's 5 books.
Add to that a book for race, a book for alternate class features, 1-2 books for feats and 1-2 additional books for monsters and you've reached a dozen.
adamsouza wrote: D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.
You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.
I disagree entirely. A year ago when I got into the game that might of been true, but since then I've had to read the Imperial Knight codex, all the Horus Heresy books, and all re-released Apoc books... and I play Tau. That's just from irl friends getting into stupid gak like 30k, tons of Forgeworld models, and Knights popping up in literally everyone's armies. If I want to play just a regular game, I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists. It's extremely tedious, and I rarely even go to the FLGS anymore because it's too much of a hassle to deal with people who have 2 codexes, 2 supplements for each, 1-3 Apoc books, or god forbid they want to play with their really awesome, supremely cool looking 30k models..
Don't get me wrong, variety is the spice of life. I just resent that I'm obligated to either own or read a bookshelf's worth of books just to play a game with my thousand dollars worth of plastic models..
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
Think of it like a cafeteria. If you walk in and pick up an entree, a side dish, a salad, and maybe a dessert, your meal is sensible and cohesive. If you walk in and they hand you a tray with a spoonful of every single option, all glopped on top of each other, your meal is going to suck. Even though there's nothing wrong with each of the food choices, and there's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.
Preposterous ! There do not even exist eight different types of fish !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: It will never happen because GW realized they can squeeze more pennies out of their dwindling customer base by splitting the rules into 8 different pieces and making us pay for each piece.
Wrong, it's happening and people even whine about it, saying it makes codexes bland.
GW is centralizing rules more and more in order to minimize the special snowflakes and the feth-you-factor when you hear about yet another unexpected-and-powerful ability from your opponent's army.
Sure, they're not there yet, but pretending that they're not trying is just being blind.
I believe we're going to have the best example of that with the new Codex:Necrons.
The old one is the best example of how GW used to special snowflake everything and hide a ton of weird rules in a codex.
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
Peregrine wrote: "Getting" would imply that it isn't well past that point already.
This.
40k is, rather impressively, suffering from bloat on multiple levels.
- The core rules are bloated, convoluted mess because the designers insist on endlessly packing more crap onto a system that was never solid to begin with. So, now we have the endless list of rules, special rules, unit types and special unit types with their pages of exceptions and special special rules because GW wants us to just use apocalypse units in regular games so we have to have a ton of ridiculous rules for them in the main book.
- Codices are bloated by having multiple "different" expansion books, with maybe a handful of pages that are actually relevant to the game and which could easily have been combined into the main codex. Not to mention all the other for crap that should be in Apocalypse.
- Gameplay is bloated by several factors - most notably a neverending stream of random - random wound allocation, random tables, random missions, random objectives etc., then we have snapshots - which would be used as a case-study into time-wasting, and finally the delights of wound allocation - because obviously a game with apocalypse units also requires you to micromanage every single sodding guardsman model.
It's gotten bloated to the point I started a spreadsheet to collect all the special rules I need for the various units in my army - and I just run Space Marines!
It's bloated enough that ForgeWorld, noted for solid rules, can't keep track of the wording for their rules (IA2E2 - three different wordings for Armoured Ceremite)
The bloat that bothers me the most is the 1 unit “codexes”. Scions, LotD, Knights. I know they might have more then one actual unit in there, but those do not need to be their own books.
All the formations/dataslates don’t bother me that much. GW has always been doing this sort of thing, we got new rules and options with in White Dwarfs. If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. What bugs me the most about them is the price. I’m OK with a micro-transaction business model, where you pay a few extra bucks and get some new rules/options/characters/units/whatever. But GW has adopted the micro/DLC mindset, but not the pricing. I’d gladly hand over $1-2 a pop for anything vaguely related to my army. But when they are charging $10-15 for a page worth of rules and a few of fluff, I’m not buying. Even for things directly targeted at me.
Nevelon wrote: If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. .
I agree with your point but am I not right in thinking that the only available subscription is still just WD Visions?
I'd happily subscribe to a weekly newsletter if it was the right price and kept me up to date with the hobby..
Kavish wrote: Things are pretty crazy these days with supplements everywhere and forgeworld units, not to mention new units being released constantly. It's virtually impossible (or really expensive) to keep up with it all. It's also a lot for GW to print, FAQ, and cast. With so many units available many of them must be just taking up shelf space, and costing the company money. Is 40k going the way of WFB? Is it inevitable because of GW's model of constantly expanding the range and continuing to support the old models (as not to invalidate players previous purchases). If it was a private company they could just sit on the range they have now and fill the gaps (eg: Sisters), work on improving the rules, and make modest profits. Being a corporation however, forces them (or should I say "it") to chase higher profits. Is GW strangling itself and therefore the games we love? What would GW do when even 40k, their flagship game, is costing more than it's making? (Don't say raise prices, it's not funny.) Liquidate?
Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos
Imperial Knights should also either be removed or expanded into a Mechanicum codex (One Unit In The Entire Codex?! Seriously GW?)
Tau should also be removed, since they don't fit the theme of 40k (Sci-Fi Instead Of Sci-Fantasy). Also, they're extremely cheesy and are almost universally hated by everyone who doesn't play them. Eliminating them would also...progress the storyline! I was thinking of the entire Empire and all who reside in it being completely exterminated by the Imperium.
"Let's remove an army because I lost to it and don't think its fair."
Tau are fine, I don't play them on tabletop but I enjoy their models and they fit just fine in the universe especially now that their lore is getting a lot more grimdark.
I don't like 1 unit codices, but I don't think a merger of codices is the answer. I really enjoy the Tempestus for instance and I'm livid they only got one unit (that could've been a really cool supplement). If GW is going to put out a $50 book it better damn well be a full army and not this one unit bullcrap.
I would be pretty unhappy if they merged BA/DA back into SM as well. I think all the core legions deserve their own supplement with new units/models. There's tons of room for each one to be fleshed out massively with their own rules, relics, etc. then leave the core Codex Astartes for Ultramarines.
I definitely like the idea of more codices/rulebooks, but I figured that with smaller rulebooks would come a smaller pricetag but that's definitely not the case. I was fine with the $50 hardcover upgrade, but they need to provide paperback alternatives without fluff/art and just rules for much, much cheaper.
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
If you're even mildly interested in competative play, that's not an option. You can't show up to a tournament and ask your opponent what literally every aspect of their army is, that slows things down and annoys moderators. Yes, it's physically possible to just play your army with only two books. No, it's not feasible or wise to compete at this game at even the most basic level with only two books.
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
If you're even mildly interested in competative play, that's not an option. You can't show up to a tournament and ask your opponent what literally every aspect of their army is, that slows things down and annoys moderators. Yes, it's physically possible to just play your army with only two books. No, it's not feasible or wise to compete at this game at even the most basic level with only two books.
I honestly blame rules bloat here, each army has way, way too many little things you need to keep track of. I think an overall simplification would go miles towards helping this. What I'd like to see is a card system ala Warmachine, but I doubt they'd ever do that.
No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.
You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?
I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.
Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos
I don't think we even need to go that far - the game has functioned fine in the past with most of those book being separate.
But, stuff like Militarum Tempestus should definitely be in the same book as AM. Same goes for Coven and DE and all such books.
Also, we need a separate rulebook for units like Fliers, super-heavies and such. And, I don't just mean an expansion - I mean a separate rulebook. 40k is trying to be an RPG, a skirmish game and a giant battle simulator all at once. What we actually need are multiple versions - a skirmish game (along the lines of 5th), and a rulebook for apocalypse and large-scale games (with fliers, super-heavies, knights etc.). The former would focus more on models, whilst the latter would focus on units. i.e. in an apocalypse game, it shouldn't matter which guardsman is carrying the melta or where the sergeant is - just whether or not the squad has one.
Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos
I don't think we even need to go that far - the game has functioned fine in the past with most of those book being separate.
But, stuff like Militarum Tempestus should definitely be in the same book as AM. Same goes for Coven and DE and all such books.
Also, we need a separate rulebook for units like Fliers, super-heavies and such. And, I don't just mean an expansion - I mean a separate rulebook. 40k is trying to be an RPG, a skirmish game and a giant battle simulator all at once. What we actually need are multiple versions - a skirmish game (along the lines of 5th), and a rulebook for apocalypse and large-scale games (with fliers, super-heavies, knights etc.). The former would focus more on models, whilst the latter would focus on units. i.e. in an apocalypse game, it shouldn't matter which guardsman is carrying the melta or where the sergeant is - just whether or not the squad has one.
This, I agree with 100%. I would enjoy the game far, far more if it was broken down into Skirmish and then larger game modes. I think it would also help with the huge barrier of entry in this game for newbies if they felt like they could buy two squads and a commander and play skirmishes instead of feeling like they have to have flyers, anti-flyers, anti-super heavies, etc. just to play a basic game.
There are times I'd love to just break out a commander and a couple squads and just play tactically.
Nevelon wrote: If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. .
I agree with your point but am I not right in thinking that the only available subscription is still just WD Visions?
I'd happily subscribe to a weekly newsletter if it was the right price and kept me up to date with the hobby..
These day there are far more avenues then just WD to keep track off if you want to stay on top of things. In 3rd, if you wanted to play, you needed the (mostly outdated) rulebook, and a stack of WDs with updates, options, etc. IIRC most of these were compiled into Chapter Approved books, so if you bought those one a year, you were good to go. These days, rules are splattered all over the place. Not just WDs, but included in box sets, campaign books, and direct DLC.
In the good old days there was just as much bloat, but it was easy to find and keep track of. Not the case now.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.
You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?
I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.
It's not like it's that hard to memorize rules. You bring the BRB, army list, and then a note card of anything you don't remember. I'm not great at memorizing junk, but it's a lot easier than you're letting on to believe.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.
You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?
I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.
It's not like it's that hard to memorize rules. You bring the BRB, army list, and then a note card of anything you don't remember. I'm not great at memorizing junk, but it's a lot easier than you're letting on to believe.
Warlord Table, character "auras and traits", formation bonuses, and then a list of other random passive things SC's bring to the table.
The issue isn't remembering just your army, its your opponent's as well. "Hand me the card for SpecialCharacterMcGuy" is far easier than "can you show me page X of your codex".
I'm a newer player, been modeling/painting for awhile, but having to consult rulebooks to figure out what each trait/keyword/whateverthehellthey'recalled does and such constantly is a pain until I learn them. Might be different for some of you that have been playing this game for awhile, but its quite annoying for me.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.
You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?
I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.
You could just bring a note pad. I managed to keep 14+ mastery levels worth of daemons organized on a single 5"x8" page last night along with all of their rewards. A second page is used to record D66 rolls for Maelstrom missions including mysterious objectives and victory points. If you need to remind yourself of special rules, write references on the back of one of those pages.
Nevelon wrote: The bloat that bothers me the most is the 1 unit “codexes”. Scions, LotD, Knights. I know they might have more then one actual unit in there, but those do not need to be their own books.
All the formations/dataslates don’t bother me that much. GW has always been doing this sort of thing, we got new rules and options with in White Dwarfs. If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. What bugs me the most about them is the price. I’m OK with a micro-transaction business model, where you pay a few extra bucks and get some new rules/options/characters/units/whatever. But GW has adopted the micro/DLC mindset, but not the pricing. I’d gladly hand over $1-2 a pop for anything vaguely related to my army. But when they are charging $10-15 for a page worth of rules and a few of fluff, I’m not buying. Even for things directly targeted at me.
I think the price is definitely a factor. I wouldn't be as annoyed by the constant add ons and new crap to organize if it didn't feel like an intentional rip off/cash grab.
Think of it like a cafeteria. If you walk in and pick up an entree, a side dish, a salad, and maybe a dessert, your meal is sensible and cohesive. If you walk in and they hand you a tray with a spoonful of every single option, all glopped on top of each other, your meal is going to suck. Even though there's nothing wrong with each of the food choices, and there's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.
Preposterous ! There do not even exist eight different types of fish !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: It will never happen because GW realized they can squeeze more pennies out of their dwindling customer base by splitting the rules into 8 different pieces and making us pay for each piece.
Wrong, it's happening and people even whine about it, saying it makes codexes bland.
GW is centralizing rules more and more in order to minimize the special snowflakes and the feth-you-factor when you hear about yet another unexpected-and-powerful ability from your opponent's army.
Sure, they're not there yet, but pretending that they're not trying is just being blind.
I believe we're going to have the best example of that with the new Codex:Necrons.
The old one is the best example of how GW used to special snowflake everything and hide a ton of weird rules in a codex.
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
Here, have an exalt my good man.
"It's happening"?! I can't even take anything you say seriously any more. 4 years ago, all the rules for GK were in 1 book. Now you need 2 books and a dataslate for the same information. Please enlighten me as to how GW is centralizing rules. Just give me one example. Every single release this year has had rules spread into more different sources than ever before. I played a tyranid player yesterday who had the codex, baal book, a white dwarf and a dataslate to play everything in his army. In 6th edition he would've needed a tyranid codex and that's it. I played space wolves and needed the codex, supplement, a book from stormfang and the fortifications book. In 5th I just needed my codex. Just because you say something doesn't make it true so please just cite one example of how rules are more centralized than they were 2-3 years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What makes codexes bland is when they chop half the flavor out so they can sell it to you separately (which is the exact opposite of more centralized rules).
I definetly think the bloat is bad. Theres been a call for a 3rd ed reboot for a while, and i only seeing i becoming stronger. GWs solution to problems associated with bloat has been of late, more releases. Any real FAQ resolutions are poorly worded.
IMHO the real problem is the huge disparity in power between codexes and the ridiculous number of exceptions to the core rules each codex has. They need to have an edition where all codexes come out in one book, then release proper codexes at a rapid pace. Im more likely to win the Lottery the day im elected pope, but one can hope.
Very well said toofast, I could not agree more with you.
I had a thought a few weeks back when setting up a larger game, I thought "hey, they haven't even attempted to update apocalypse for 7th" then I realized we were all already being forced to basically play apoc. But yeah, the psychic phase does not work gracefully at high point levels.
As the question of if the game is too bloated, absolutely. The one size fits all approach of 7th means no size really fits anyone too well. They need a baseline, a simple starting point where it's like it used to be, rulebook + codex. That could be as simple as indexing all the crazy crap to higher point levels and use like 1250-1500 as a baseline with no silly crap, 1 foc and so on. It feels like they've dumbed it all down so their employees really don't have to know anything, because you can literally do or buy almost anything and slap it on the table.
What I see the majority of players referring to as bloat, I see more as A la Carte. Are there a lot of references and expansions to keep track of to be able to have all the rules? You bet your life on it. Only a hard core collector is going to fork out the cash to collect it all. But that little point right borders on obsession. And GW is banking on those types of people to make them rich.
For the rest of us normal thinking people. We take only what we want or truly need. One BRB per table is needed, no more. A codex for your primary detachment. If you choose to field an ally detachment, then you need ally codex. But remember you choose to field those allies. You did not have to.
I can agree that not including the separate subsections into the main codexes and spinning them off into their own mini/partial codexes is a dick move to say the least. Especially, when the respective codexes are released within a month of each other. That is price gouging and a waste of paper materials.
I have no issues with the scope of today's rules and army lists.
It combines all the benefits of nostalgia with better design. The game used to be full of rules/units with weirdness about them, but it's much better designed and easier to use now.
It combines all the benefits of nostalgia with better design. The game used to be full of rules/units with weirdness about them, but it's much better designed and easier to use now.
This is a golden age of 40k.
Can you give me some examples of better design? Can you give some examples of something that was more complicated before that is now "easier to use" ?
SYKOJAK wrote: Only a hard core collector is going to fork out the cash to collect it all.
You're right. But a lot more people are going to pirate the rules, and then you're dealing with the exact same rules bloat as the guy who buys a copy of everything with "40k" on the cover.
For the rest of us normal thinking people. We take only what we want or truly need. One BRB per table is needed, no more. A codex for your primary detachment. If you choose to field an ally detachment, then you need ally codex. But remember you choose to field those allies. You did not have to.
IOW, "if you only use part of the full potential of your army and always pair up with someone who bought the core rules you don't have to buy very much". Meanwhile back in the real world you have to buy the core rules, your codex, your supplement(s), your FW rules, the fortification book, the LoW book, your single-unit dataslates, etc. And then you have to repeat all of that if you want to play with allies, which is something you have to have available if you want to win.
Eh, I just have my IG 6th ed codex and the 7th edition rules. All my friends have 1 latest codex and thats it.
I think one person downloaded assassins but it has never been used and im not even sure it was purchased.
But in saying that, there are so many rules out there I actually dont know about many of them. GW doesnt have a decent index of all the rules available and what they are for.
So yes I would say its pretty overflowing simply because there is no real way of finding everything in a few simple clicks. This is made worse by limited edition stuff as well.
adamsouza wrote: D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.
You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.
There is a big difference however. In D&D you essentially buy extra classes or enemies. Scenarios are entirely written around what players have access to. Also, when 3 moved to 3.5, everything was updated at once, so you didn't have multiple versions of rules interacting together, requiring more and more supplements and errata.
In 40k, simply to stay competitive you need to keep buying more and more.
Is the game bloated? Probably. But I suppose it doesn't bother me all that much. I wouldn't be opposed to GW cracking down and making a much tighter set of rules, especially breaking the game up into Skirmish and War sized. Different sets of rules/allowed units for each.
Right now, they leave it up to us to decide if we want to play Skirmish or War. I don't think that's necessarily bad though. As the rules sit now, you and your opponent play the way you want to play. It makes for enjoyable games. (As long as your both like minded. If your not...why are you playing? You'll both have a bad time).
I like that the game is very lenient. It lets you do what you want while still giving you the guidelines needed. The game doesn't outright deny you the ability to use your cool stuff. Like in Heroclix, I could buy a really cool figure. But the rules then tell me that the piece isn't even legal. Why the feth did I buy it if I can't use it in anything except with only my best buddy? Though I am an advocate for the dislike of Super Heavy shoehorning, people bought the models. They should be able to play them. (Albeit, conservatively, not flood the board with them and make the game unfun for all but themselves)
I dunno. There is so much what is and what if. The game is what it is. All we can really do is wait and see what GW does next, because they clearly don't take our suggestions into consideration. For better or for worse.
adamsouza wrote: D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.
You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.
There is a big difference however. In D&D you essentially buy extra classes or enemies. Scenarios are entirely written around what players have access to. Also, when 3 moved to 3.5, everything was updated at once, so you didn't have multiple versions of rules interacting together, requiring more and more supplements and errata.
In 40k, simply to stay competitive you need to keep buying more and more.
I don't think D&D and 40k rule release strategies can really be compared. Both are such different beasts. With D&D, the investment is just your books, and not much else. With 40k, you need books, models, paint, glue, time. Warhammer would also get highly stale if all the releases happened at once. The bloat would still exist, because they would still release supplements as time went on for all armies, which would continue to further provide more and more resources for rules. Even D&D has a spaced out release time with supplements. They don't release every book they have planned at the start of the edition. It wouldn't really work, and over exposes/whelms/saturates their intended market.
Kavish wrote: Things are pretty crazy these days with supplements everywhere and forgeworld units, not to mention new units being released constantly. It's virtually impossible (or really expensive) to keep up with it all. It's also a lot for GW to print, FAQ, and cast. With so many units available many of them must be just taking up shelf space, and costing the company money. Is 40k going the way of WFB? Is it inevitable because of GW's model of constantly expanding the range and continuing to support the old models (as not to invalidate players previous purchases). If it was a private company they could just sit on the range they have now and fill the gaps (eg: Sisters), work on improving the rules, and make modest profits. Being a corporation however, forces them (or should I say "it") to chase higher profits. Is GW strangling itself and therefore the games we love? What would GW do when even 40k, their flagship game, is costing more than it's making? (Don't say raise prices, it's not funny.) Liquidate?
Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch) Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos
Imperial Knights should also either be removed or expanded into a Mechanicum codex (One Unit In The Entire Codex?! Seriously GW?) Tau should also be removed, since they don't fit the theme of 40k (Sci-Fi Instead Of Sci-Fantasy). Also, they're extremely cheesy and are almost universally hated by everyone who doesn't play them. Eliminating them would also...progress the storyline! I was thinking of the entire Empire and all who reside in it being completely exterminated by the Imperium.
I very much agree with this. Chapter tactics and/or supplemental codices was a good idea, but then they went ahead with full blown codices for BA, DA, and SW anyway. SM could easily be one codex, just give each chapter 2-3 unique units and unique chapter tactics. Sisters and Inquisition don't really stand up as individual armies, and I hate the fluff violation of fielding a Grey Knights army (they belong in the fluff, not on the tabletop). IG used to have doctrines (i.e. chapter tactics) that allowed for players to make their own pseudo Tempestus army. Having their own 5-unit codex is such a cop out, it would've been so easy to add some interesting units or just wrap them into IG/AM with one page explaining their WL traits and orders.
And to reference OP, the game is definitely getting too bloated. I've posted in the Proposed Rules forum a bunch of ways that I think the game could be much more efficient with the rules and time. Basically, there are way too many distinctions without real differences: - Many rules just add extra player actions without adding player agency: difficult terrain (just make it -2"), pile in moves (unnecessary), consolidation rolls (just make it 3"), run rolls (just combine it with movement), etc. - Look at the charging summary reference page, there are 13 different kinds of non-vehicle charge that you need to memorize (do we really need different rules for beasts, cavalry, and chariots?) - Every SM codex has its own deep strike special rule that makes it confusing but ultimately makes little difference. Plenty of codices have extensive blurbs explaining special rules that shouldn't exist in the first place, for IG case-in-point: lasgun arrays, heavy weapons teams. Both of those have over a hundred words describing what amounts to "3 dudes can shoot lasguns out the top of a chimera" and "one guardsman replaces his lasgun with a heavy weapon". - Many of the USRs just confuse things and could easily be removed (blind, concussive, crusader, anything with a re-roll). Many of them are so rare that there's nothing universal about them, and should just be described in the codex or unit entry.
I don't think 40k is bloated, at least not in terms of content.
Nobody is saying you need to "keep up". You don't need to own everything.
The more choice, the better.
Rules on the other hand could do with some simplification.
I disagree with this whole, "oh I have to memorise every one of the 5 trillion rules and buy everything" crap that fills this thread.
I own the BRB, the tau codex and the AM codex, the armies I play. I literally need nothing else. I just have picked up the basics of the other armies and if there is something I don't know, my opponent simply does the simple action of pointing out what he is doing and what allows him to do it.
I know most of the BRB from heart simply from playing lots, so while there are those situations where you spend 5 minutes trying to work something out, they don't happen often.
There is one guy in my local GW community that uses all 30k stuff, and he just shows us the relevant page whenever we have a question.
I will admit that it does have a slight bloat of weird special rules (one special rule actually isn't used in any codex) and it would be very simple to have a £50 Imperium codex that covers about half the current codexes without having it all so spread out when it really isn't necessary.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I disagree with this whole, "oh I have to memorise every one of the 5 trillion rules and buy everything" crap that fills this thread.
I own the BRB, the tau codex and the AM codex, the armies I play. I literally need nothing else. I just have picked up the basics of the other armies and if there is something I don't know, my opponent simply does the simple action of pointing out what he is doing and what allows him to do it.
I know most of the BRB from heart simply from playing lots, so while there are those situations where you spend 5 minutes trying to work something out, they don't happen often.
There is one guy in my local GW community that uses all 30k stuff, and he just shows us the relevant page whenever we have a question.
I will admit that it does have a slight bloat of weird special rules (one special rule actually isn't used in any codex) and it would be very simple to have a £50 Imperium codex that covers about half the current codexes without having it all so spread out when it really isn't necessary.
I know most of my codex by heart as well. But I run into those "hold on let me check that" situations far more often than you it seems. I play mostly with casual folks who play about once a month. But even when playing with weekly players at my FLGS there are still a plethora of "let me check that" "how do these rules interact" "does x apply in y situation" which are mostly borne out of the myriad charts and the use of randomness instead of modifiers.
There are plenty of simple improvements that would drastically reduce the amount of rules bloat (though not necessarily content bloat):
- Simplify all d6 charts into d3 charts (e.g. vehicle damage, perils)
- Make all re-rolls into +1 or -1 (e.g. shred becomes +1 strength, fortune improves armor save by 1, etc.)
- Make cover modify BS - Any d6" is just 3" (e.g. difficult terrain, consolidation, run, etc.), and all movement is done at once in the movement phase (not in 3+ separate phases).
- Eliminate look out sir <- this is seriously the worst waste of everyone's time and patience, it discourages strategy and rewards sloppy play.
The key is to make things more easily remembered and to reduce unnecessary player actions. Seriously, what is the point of having a fleet, move through cover unit roll 3d6 pick the highest with a re-roll just to determine whether they get to move 5" or 6" through cover? Just allow that unit to ignore difficult terrain. What is the point of having 6+ different outcomes for a perils of the warp attack? Just make the psyker suffer one wound. What is the point of having a weapon that is twin-linked, with shred? Just give it +1 BS and +1 S.
I actually like the adoption of USR instead of individually worded special rules and abilities. It's easier to tell your opponent "oh he has rage and furious charge than read out a paragraph describing the units unique special rule that nothing else in the game has.
I too believe that 40k has become far too bloated for a reasonable level of enjoyment.
Full disclosure: I don't have the 7th edition, I only have up to 6th. 7th turned me off for being dropped on us not barely even two years after 6th and without a great amount of armies being updated to 6th.
The sixth edition rulebook has 82 special rules, I just counted. In contrast the special rules section of the fifth edition only has 22. Now I do concede that many of those rules which take up so much space in 6th edition were seeded throughout previous editions under their respective sections, however it is a daunting list and adds nothing to the rules; whereas previously it seems those rules were referred to in the sections where they would make sense.
Ex: Armourbane v. Melta, or Rending v. Shred. Why can't we just call melta-bombs a melta weapon that fires off in the melee phase, or any other melee weapon with a melta-like effect should just have keyword 'Melta'. Rending used to be terrifying, now Shred takes the spotlight, seriously it sounds like a 12 year-old boy wrote some of this stuff just to out-do his mate.
When we say "bloated" we mean overstuffed with rules and options that slow down gameplay, complicate things, and cause confusion.
Especially so with what I like to call the 'almost-rules' in which a rule is like another rule but only slightly different when the original rule would have sufficed. Sometimes this is due to bad writing and it was intended to be just like the original rule but with a fancy blood or wolf in front of it but the translation from brain to page wasn't as clear as it should have been. Other times it really was intended to be different, but it is so close to the original that it causes confusion and frustration.
Think of bloat as extra software that runs in th background of your tablet or smartphone. It doesn't hurt, but its not really necessary for your device and your device would probably be faster without it.
xraytango wrote: When we say "bloated" we mean overstuffed with rules and options that slow down gameplay, complicate things, and cause confusion.
Especially so with what I like to call the 'almost-rules' in which a rule is like another rule but only slightly different when the original rule would have sufficed. Sometimes this is due to bad writing and it was intended to be just like the original rule but with a fancy blood or wolf in front of it but the translation from brain to page wasn't as clear as it should have been. Other times it really was intended to be different, but it is so close to the original that it causes confusion and frustration.
Think of bloat as extra software that runs in th background of your tablet or smartphone. It doesn't hurt, but its not really necessary for your device and your device would probably be faster without it.
Can you provide an example of stuff you're talking about?
I was just about to agree that the game was bloated, but when I think about it, I don't really mind it all that much. I mean, yeah, if you strive to know everthing and have everything it's a bit much, but you don't need to - If you're playing with friends in a non-competetive envoirment, it isn't that much of a problem, because you can inform people of what you are using beforehand.
In fact, I like that there's always something new to read about or to try. I don't get that many games in a month, so it's nice to have something else (besides 1d4chan and Dakkdakka) to put my mind to, to keep me in the hobby... I guess it hurts my long-term memory, though. "You know what paper we were to do tomorrow?" "Ah, well, not really... But I can tell you have Furious Charge changed from 5th Edition to 6th Edition?..."
Besides that, my feelings on the subject of bloat can be found in the top part of my signature.
My solution to the bloat can be found in the bottom.
"It's happening"?! I can't even take anything you say seriously any more. 4 years ago, all the rules for GK were in 1 book. Now you need 2 books and a dataslate for the same information. Please enlighten me as to how GW is centralizing rules. Just give me one example. Every single release this year has had rules spread into more different sources than ever before. I played a tyranid player yesterday who had the codex, baal book, a white dwarf and a dataslate to play everything in his army. In 6th edition he would've needed a tyranid codex and that's it. I played space wolves and needed the codex, supplement, a book from stormfang and the fortifications book. In 5th I just needed my codex. Just because you say something doesn't make it true so please just cite one example of how rules are more centralized than they were 2-3 years ago.
Yes it is happening.
Many rules have been normalized under USRs, and the newer books have far less unique rules and a lot more USRs in them, which centralizes rules and gives more impact to new BRB releases, and thus helps balance.
Are there more books ? Sure. But now, most of what you should know is in the BRB (not all, not yet), when before a majority of obscure rules were in someone else's codex.
So yes I would say its pretty overflowing simply because there is no real way of finding everything in a few simple clicks. This is made worse by limited edition stuff as well.
On the contrary, if you have everything in epub/mobi, it's way easier than it has ever been.
Way too expensive too, but hey.
40K definitely has a larger volume of content than it used to, but I don't think it's "too" large.
I enjoy having a very wide variety of units and armies to choose from, as well as being able to mix it up with allies. I especially enjoy armies or rules which do "weird" things without being overpowering. For example, the Assassins are fairly unique in how they work, so I like them, and Inquisitors have a very high level of customisability, so I like them. Mostly I stick to a core army, and mix and match appropriate allies on a whim.
Having said that, I think there should be a trend to representing special snowflakes with different combinations of USRs rather than codex specific special rules where possible.
Having a very large number of codexes and smaller downloads is a benefit, I think, since players can more highly customise their army to suit their taste and switch between armies so as to keep the game fresh. Overall: no reason to slim down the number of codexes (why take away other people's fun just because you can't afford to buy them all and keep track of competitive counter-strategies?) but the rules would benefit from a serious slimming.
As regarding having to reference multiple sources to play an army: it's a problem that what used to be in a single book has been separated (e.g. Grek Knights) but in other examples, such as Tyranids, all the additional dataslates and expansions are entirely optional and were never represented before at all. You aren't forced to use them.
This I can get behind. I've never understood why cover is a save, surely it makes the guy harder to hit than wound?
But GW doesn't make logical decisions all the time.
Well, surely you'd have to recost a lot of units?
I mean, guardsmen would get a whole lot worse and units with good saves would get a whole lot better.
I dread to even contemplate trying to take down a Riptide.
I'd just make it so that MCs and FMCs are so large that you cannot not hit them in some way or another, unless of course you simply cannot see the thing, meaning that they never get Cover, neither Hard or Soft (I suspect there will be a difference - Area Terrain and Bushes are Soft e.g -1, while Ruins and stuff are Hard, e.g -2)
And I wouldn't mind that infantry switch. I mean, right now Guardsmen are some of the best Troops there is, while Tacs are left behind (Anyone remember that fun thread? Ah, those were the times).
I should try that with some mates, sometime. Sounds like fun.
And I wouldn't mind that infantry switch. I mean, right now Guardsmen are some of the best Troops there is, while Tacs are left behind
So, instead you want Guardsmen to be useless while Tacs zoom ahead?
Yeah, sure.
No, of course not - But Guardsmen wouldn't be useless either way. What kills Guardsmen are loads of strong shots and blasts, and with a reduced BS, one of those will be pretty good for them. I don't know the math, but I rememeber pitting a 10 Tac squad against a 30 Ork Shoota mob in a thread once, and it showed that it was favourable for the Tacs... But only slightly, though
Also, orders. And tanks. Combined warfare and stuff.
On the cover issue, everyone should benefit (unless you're a vehicle or MC that is less than 25% covered).
It's silly to think that Space Marines get no benefit from cover even when they're standing chin deep in a trench. Cover is the most dominant aspect of a battlefield, it shouldn't just be irrelevant for half the armies.
This fix has the benefit of reducing all the extra save rolling and working around all the crazy exceptions, template and blast weapons are hardly affected (these are weapons specifically meant to drive enemies from cover irl).
I also like the idea of cover making units completely immune to snap shots (if you're in a trench and you get hit by some grunt firing from the hip, it's your own damn fault).
P.s. Of course it would necessitate points adjustments, so would any rules change. I don't think that's a great excuse for perpetuating bad rules.
To cover the current game play of 7th ed 40k, with well written modern intuitive rules should not take more than 50 pages of rules.
Its only when you try to make 40k battle game backward compatible to WHFB skirmish core rues, does the list of additional /special rules skyrocket.
TheSilo wrote: On the cover issue, everyone should benefit (unless you're a vehicle or MC that is less than 25% covered).
It's silly to think that Space Marines get no benefit from cover even when they're standing chin deep in a trench. Cover is the most dominant aspect of a battlefield, it shouldn't just be irrelevant for half the armies.
This fix has the benefit of reducing all the extra save rolling and working around all the crazy exceptions, template and blast weapons are hardly affected (these are weapons specifically meant to drive enemies from cover irl).
P.s. Of course it would necessitate points adjustments, so would any rules change. I don't think that's a great excuse for perpetuating bad rules.
Assuming points were adjusted to balance it, I'd be happy with this change.
I also like the idea of cover making units completely immune to snap shots (if you're in a trench and you get hit by some grunt firing from the hip, it's your own damn fault).
Honestly, I'd like to see Snapshots either removed or changed to BS-2 or something. Having everything hit on 6s is just wasting everyone's time.
The only player-friendly solution would be a unified and completely digital regularly updated codex/ruleset library. It's 2014, relying on printed media for game rules is archaic (though no doubt profitable).
I know gw has to make money and stay in business because that's what companies do, but I wish they could find a more agreeable business model for their *rules*. The pricing of their minis doesn't bother me at all really.
TheSilo wrote: On the cover issue, everyone should benefit (unless you're a vehicle or MC that is less than 25% covered).
It's silly to think that Space Marines get no benefit from cover even when they're standing chin deep in a trench. Cover is the most dominant aspect of a battlefield, it shouldn't just be irrelevant for half the armies.
This fix has the benefit of reducing all the extra save rolling and working around all the crazy exceptions, template and blast weapons are hardly affected (these are weapons specifically meant to drive enemies from cover irl).
P.s. Of course it would necessitate points adjustments, so would any rules change. I don't think that's a great excuse for perpetuating bad rules.
Assuming points were adjusted to balance it, I'd be happy with this change.
I also like the idea of cover making units completely immune to snap shots (if you're in a trench and you get hit by some grunt firing from the hip, it's your own damn fault).
Honestly, I'd like to see Snapshots either removed or changed to BS-2 or something. Having everything hit on 6s is just wasting everyone's time.
Removing snap shots is my preferred solution, but people go bonkers whenever I suggest it.
Well, in former editions up to the fifth I had quite a good overview about all 40k factions.
This changed with all the data slates and supplements.
Another issue is to keep the armies updated and playable at a competitive level.
This is really hard due all the new stuff.
I know a guy who bought 3 Helldrakes and 3 Maulerfiends in the 6th Ed and was quite successful with them.
Now the Helldrakes are less useful and he just fields one of them.
The consequence for me is to shrink the number of armies.
I already got rid off my CSM army and think about dropping my DA successor chapter as well.
xraytango wrote: When we say "bloated" we mean overstuffed with rules and options that slow down gameplay, complicate things, and cause confusion.
Especially so with what I like to call the 'almost-rules' in which a rule is like another rule but only slightly different when the original rule would have sufficed. Sometimes this is due to bad writing and it was intended to be just like the original rule but with a fancy blood or wolf in front of it but the translation from brain to page wasn't as clear as it should have been. Other times it really was intended to be different, but it is so close to the original that it causes confusion and frustration.
Think of bloat as extra software that runs in th background of your tablet or smartphone. It doesn't hurt, but its not really necessary for your device and your device would probably be faster without it.
Can you provide an example of stuff you're talking about?
xraytango wrote: When we say "bloated" we mean overstuffed with rules and options that slow down gameplay, complicate things, and cause confusion.
Especially so with what I like to call the 'almost-rules' in which a rule is like another rule but only slightly different when the original rule would have sufficed. Sometimes this is due to bad writing and it was intended to be just like the original rule but with a fancy blood or wolf in front of it but the translation from brain to page wasn't as clear as it should have been. Other times it really was intended to be different, but it is so close to the original that it causes confusion and frustration.
Think of bloat as extra software that runs in th background of your tablet or smartphone. It doesn't hurt, but its not really necessary for your device and your device would probably be faster without it.
Can you provide an example of stuff you're talking about?
40K 7th edition.
Bad way of making a point dude, just chose an actual example.
Fearless vs ATSKNF is a decent example. Another example is having 15 different kinds of leadership tests. Is all that really necessary in a mass battle game with 100 models per side?
This I can get behind. I've never understood why cover is a save, surely it makes the guy harder to hit than wound?
But GW doesn't make logical decisions all the time.
I guess the way I saw it, despite it making little sense, was you roll to hit, but your rolls to wound determine WHAT you hit. So every save I made were actually you hitting the wall/tree/broken tank, and not my dudes. I spose it just made sense for one player to roll all their dice (to hits, to wounds) instead of having your opponent cut you off in between to roll cover saves?
I can foresee negitive mods making my Ork shooting suck all the worse :p
This I can get behind. I've never understood why cover is a save, surely it makes the guy harder to hit than wound?
But GW doesn't make logical decisions all the time.
I guess the way I saw it, despite it making little sense, was you roll to hit, but your rolls to wound determine WHAT you hit. So every save I made were actually you hitting the wall/tree/broken tank, and not my dudes. I spose it just made sense for one player to roll all their dice (to hits, to wounds) instead of having your opponent cut you off in between to roll cover saves?
I can foresee negitive mods making my Ork shooting suck all the worse :p
But then again, we have Burnas and Sluggas to take out entrenched people - I'd really like it if 40K get the same kind of strategy as Fantasy, where you don't go "Okay, I need something killy, so I fill out my entire roster with that thing", but rather go "I need something to defend my Objectives, and someone to remove enemy defenders from their" or "I need something that hits hard, something that will protect the hard thing, someone to hold up the ones the hard thing needs to kill, something fast to deny flanking and properbly a Wizard."
Perhaps part of the problem is that there aren't many real options in terms of gameplay.
Sure, there are a lot of options in terms of list building (even if a good chunk are false-options), but in-game what can infantry really do?
- Move
- Shoot
- Charge
- Go to Ground
That's about it. But, for all the endless dice-rolling, could there not be more in the way of options?
e.g. what if, instead of just diving for cover, infantry could choose to entrench themselves - maybe sacrificing a turn of shooting to gain +1 cover until they move.
Similarly, why does splitting a unit's fire require a special rule? Especially since we're now firing one weapon type at a time anyway. It just seems like something squads should be able to do anyway. Hell, I'm confused about why it required a Ld test. I mean, let's say you have a unit of guardsmen with some Lascannon HWTs. There is a mob of orks bearing down on you, but your commander decides that destroying a battlewagon in the distance is more important - and so orders the lascannons to open fire on it. So, why wouldn't the rest of the guardsmen shoot the oncoming orks? Their weapons can't hurt the battlewagon, but they can certainly hurt the orks. And, really, I think it would require a passed Ld test to *not* shoot those orks.
And, on that note, why is combat a black-hole that warps time and space? Units that shoot and then stop to fight move several times the distance of those that just run. You can't shoot into combat for fear if hitting a friendly unit - even though a) the opponent is a Wraithknight and the squad doesn't even reach its ankles, b) this is done all the time in the fluff and c) hitting your own unit is often still better than the fate which would otherwise await it. Which is kinder - potentially shooting friendly guardsmen with lasguns in a bid to save them, or leaving them at the mercy of a Haemonculus and his pet Grotesques?
*shrugs*
It just feels to me like this game is padded in the wrong places. in particular, it has a ton of dice-rolling in place of any actual options (or even logic).
vipoid wrote: Perhaps part of the problem is that there aren't many real options in terms of gameplay.
Sure, there are a lot of options in terms of list building (even if a good chunk are false-options), but in-game what can infantry really do?
- Move
- Shoot
- Charge
- Go to Ground
That's about it. But, for all the endless dice-rolling, could there not be more in the way of options?
e.g. what if, instead of just diving for cover, infantry could choose to entrench themselves - maybe sacrificing a turn of shooting to gain +1 cover until they move.
Similarly, why does splitting a unit's fire require a special rule? Especially since we're now firing one weapon type at a time anyway. It just seems like something squads should be able to do anyway. Hell, I'm confused about why it required a Ld test. I mean, let's say you have a unit of guardsmen with some Lascannon HWTs. There is a mob of orks bearing down on you, but your commander decides that destroying a battlewagon in the distance is more important - and so orders the lascannons to open fire on it. So, why wouldn't the rest of the guardsmen shoot the oncoming orks? Their weapons can't hurt the battlewagon, but they can certainly hurt the orks. And, really, I think it would require a passed Ld test to *not* shoot those orks.
And, on that note, why is combat a black-hole that warps time and space? Units that shoot and then stop to fight move several times the distance of those that just run. You can't shoot into combat for fear if hitting a friendly unit - even though a) the opponent is a Wraithknight and the squad doesn't even reach its ankles, b) this is done all the time in the fluff and c) hitting your own unit is often still better than the fate which would otherwise await it. Which is kinder - potentially shooting friendly guardsmen with lasguns in a bid to save them, or leaving them at the mercy of a Haemonculus and his pet Grotesques?
*shrugs*
It just feels to me like this game is padded in the wrong places. in particular, it has a ton of dice-rolling in place of any actual options (or even logic).
I'm in this camp, but I think the idea of Infantry having specialities that make them a ton more worthwhile than other units in the same situation wouldn't sit well with GW, and a good portion of the hobby... Because, you know, Riptides.
I mostly just dislike the combat rules. It's the same thing that I describe in my sig - It's just another rule for something that didn't need to be like that. Just have the rules for combat be "You can attack and hit enemies within 2'' of your squad, regardless of the placement of the models" and "Recieving unit takes casulties from the back, the fartherst enemy being removed first, representing models moving into close combat over their dead comrades"... Or at least just make WS use the BS table. I freaking HATE the WS system, just for being convoluted where it shouldn't be. I mean, we don't test for enemy units in the Shooting Phase being able to fire back, then hitting each other at the same time?!
Or, at the very least just make Charging 8'', 10'' for Fleet and Crusaders and call it a freaking day.
MWHistorian wrote: The game is complex in all the wrong ways yet is still shallow game-wise.
That's the core of the problem. List building, balance, plethora of armies aside, once you hit the table the player's choices don't make enough difference. Positioning is almost irrelevant since EW missions only score on the final turn and most Maelstrom objectives are just "kill x" or "kill with y". Most heavy weapons have enough range to hit everything on the entire table, and most models are just as durable in the open as they are in cover. And warlord traits and psychic powers, which should be a good way for a player's personality to shine on the table, are generated randomly, making it impossible to build a list that makes good use of the traits and powers.
Yet there's so much complexity about trivial issues, and this is where most of the rules questions/disputes pop up:
- Transport disembarkation (we have to look up the rules every single time).
- Unit type distinctions (jump versus jet troops, seriously?) that could be avoided by just using movement stats and profile changes.
- Rules that add complexity/time without adding meaningful content (lasgun arrays, heavy weapons teams, snapshots, most overwatch)
Yet there's so much complexity about trivial issues, and this is where most of the rules questions/disputes pop up:
- Transport disembarkation (we have to look up the rules every single time).
- Unit type distinctions (jump versus jet troops, seriously?) that could be avoided by just using movement stats and profile changes.
- Rules that add complexity/time without adding meaningful content (lasgun arrays, heavy weapons teams, snapshots, most overwatch)
Seriously, all disembarkation is is move 6" from the door, why you have to look this up I do not know.
Overwatch makes sense and adds to the game.
That is all.
It adds a lot of *time* to the game, that's for sure.
Yes and it can make the difference in a charge going off, or them making the charge but not winning the combat, and having a big impact on the game
My fix for overwatch:
- Rapid fire, salvo, and heavy weapons cannot overwatch.
- Pistols and Assault weapons fire overwatch at -1 BS.
No more buckets of rapid fire shots wasting everyone's time. 40k's absurdly overpriced pistols now have a function in defending against assaults (seriously why do plasma pistols and plasma guns both cost 15 points?). And I like the picture of a commissar shooting down charging enemies with his bolt pistol. And the game's short-range assault weapons now get more action than the melta gun's 1-shot and then you're dead next turn. It's presumed that assault weapons are more easily brought to bear (hence why they can move and shoot and assault) so it only makes sense that they're easier to use in a defensive capacity.
It adds a lot of *time* to the game, that's for sure.
Yes and it can make the difference in a charge going off, or them making the charge but not winning the combat, and having a big impact on the game
My fix for overwatch:
- Rapid fire, salvo, and heavy weapons cannot overwatch.
- Pistols and Assault weapons fire overwatch at -1 BS.
No more buckets of rapid fire shots wasting everyone's time. 40k's absurdly overpriced pistols now have a function in defending against assaults (seriously why do plasma pistols and plasma guns both cost 15 points?). And I like the picture of a commissar shooting down charging enemies with his bolt pistol. And the game's short-range assault weapons now get more action than the melta gun's 1-shot and then you're dead next turn. It's presumed that assault weapons are more easily brought to bear (hence why they can move and shoot and assault) so it only makes sense that they're easier to use in a defensive capacity.
Heavy? Fine. But Salvo and Rapid Fire? Why? Guess what, if you charge a bunch of troops with M-16's? They're gonna rapid fire the hell out of you. Why the hell would you get rid of Rapid Fire and Salvo?
It adds a lot of *time* to the game, that's for sure.
Yes and it can make the difference in a charge going off, or them making the charge but not winning the combat, and having a big impact on the game
My fix for overwatch:
- Rapid fire, salvo, and heavy weapons cannot overwatch.
- Pistols and Assault weapons fire overwatch at -1 BS.
No more buckets of rapid fire shots wasting everyone's time. 40k's absurdly overpriced pistols now have a function in defending against assaults (seriously why do plasma pistols and plasma guns both cost 15 points?). And I like the picture of a commissar shooting down charging enemies with his bolt pistol. And the game's short-range assault weapons now get more action than the melta gun's 1-shot and then you're dead next turn. It's presumed that assault weapons are more easily brought to bear (hence why they can move and shoot and assault) so it only makes sense that they're easier to use in a defensive capacity.
Heavy? Fine. But Salvo and Rapid Fire? Why? Guess what, if you charge a bunch of troops with M-16's? They're gonna rapid fire the hell out of you. Why the hell would you get rid of Rapid Fire and Salvo?
Simply because rolling overwatch with a million rapid fire weapons at BS1 is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. Again, it's not like getting charged is a big surprise. Your opportunity to shoot the approaching enemy is already in the game, it's called the "shooting phase". Overwatch should simply be the last minute swing of your gun to face down a charging foe, primarily for the short ranged pistols and assault weapons that don't often have the chance to shoot at long range.
It adds a lot of *time* to the game, that's for sure.
Yes and it can make the difference in a charge going off, or them making the charge but not winning the combat, and having a big impact on the game
My fix for overwatch:
- Rapid fire, salvo, and heavy weapons cannot overwatch.
- Pistols and Assault weapons fire overwatch at -1 BS.
No more buckets of rapid fire shots wasting everyone's time. 40k's absurdly overpriced pistols now have a function in defending against assaults (seriously why do plasma pistols and plasma guns both cost 15 points?). And I like the picture of a commissar shooting down charging enemies with his bolt pistol. And the game's short-range assault weapons now get more action than the melta gun's 1-shot and then you're dead next turn. It's presumed that assault weapons are more easily brought to bear (hence why they can move and shoot and assault) so it only makes sense that they're easier to use in a defensive capacity.
Heavy? Fine. But Salvo and Rapid Fire? Why? Guess what, if you charge a bunch of troops with M-16's? They're gonna rapid fire the hell out of you. Why the hell would you get rid of Rapid Fire and Salvo?
Simply because rolling overwatch with a million rapid fire weapons at BS1 is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. Again, it's not like getting charged is a big surprise. Your opportunity to shoot the approaching enemy is already in the game, it's called the "shooting phase". Overwatch should simply be the last minute swing of your gun to face down a charging foe, primarily for the short ranged pistols and assault weapons that don't often have the chance to shoot at long range.
Overwatch is BS1 and it's meant to simulate that last minute spray of fire. I've had charges denied and denied others because of Overwatch; its a key mechanic of the game. Tau especially use it.
Also, how does it add up time? It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Done.
Also, how does it add up time? It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Done.
It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Than it takes weeks of lamenting on the forums. So, it IS time consuming.
Also, how does it add up time? It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Done.
It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Than it takes weeks of lamenting on the forums. So, it IS time consuming.
Also, how does it add up time? It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Done.
It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Than it takes weeks of lamenting on the forums. So, it IS time consuming.
Got me, I laughed. Bravo
Is the concept of a shooting phase too complicated? Why do you get to shoot at assaulting models when there are already restrictions against reserves or disembarking models from assaulting? Have you tried gathering/rolling/keeping-track-off 100 dice for your 50-man guard blob shooting overwatch?
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
Also, how does it add up time? It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Done.
It takes maybe 5-15 seconds. Roll for 6's, pick up 1 or 2, roll for wounds, armor save. Than it takes weeks of lamenting on the forums. So, it IS time consuming.
Got me, I laughed. Bravo
Is the concept of a shooting phase too complicated? Why do you get to shoot at assaulting models when there are already restrictions against reserves or disembarking models from assaulting? Have you tried gathering/rolling/keeping-track-off 100 dice for your 50-man guard blob shooting overwatch?
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
Awesome CC armies existed because you could assault after deep strike, disembark after vehicles moved 12", assault after disembarking, and there were no shooting restrictions before assaulting. Overwatch is not why assault armies are weak.
In overwatch: - A guardsman will only kill another guardsman with 6% of his shots - A marine will only kill a guardsman with 11% of his shots - A guardsman will kill a marine with 2% of his shots. - A marine will kill a marine with 3% of his shots.
Even when you take one of the most elite troops in the game against one of the weakest, it's an utterly meaningless mechanic. Seriously, marine players gripe about marines being 14 point bolters, well in overwatch they're literally 75% worse. Outside of special weapons overwatch is just a waste of time.
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
I have to say, I much prefer a game favoring shooting over assault than the opposite.
It seems that 40K was less tactical in the CC editions.
Of course, having both balanced would be interesting as well.
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
I have to say, I much prefer a game favoring shooting over assault than the opposite.
It seems that 40K was less tactical in the CC editions.
Of course, having both balanced would be interesting as well.
40k isn't any more tactical now. It's not a tactical game, once you get past list building. Choices on the table do not effect the game enough.
Warmahordes, Infinity, they're tactical games. 40k is most certainly not.
And as said, overwatch isn't what's making combat armies crap. Not being able to assault from transports, after deep strike etc, having a lack of grenades for assault units, etc, that's why combat armies suck now.
- Rapid fire, salvo, and heavy weapons cannot overwatch.
- Pistols and Assault weapons fire overwatch at -1 BS.
No more buckets of rapid fire shots wasting everyone's time. 40k's absurdly overpriced pistols now have a function in defending against assaults (seriously why do plasma pistols and plasma guns both cost 15 points?). And I like the picture of a commissar shooting down charging enemies with his bolt pistol. And the game's short-range assault weapons now get more action than the melta gun's 1-shot and then you're dead next turn. It's presumed that assault weapons are more easily brought to bear (hence why they can move and shoot and assault) so it only makes sense that they're easier to use in a defensive capacity.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
I play shooty armies and I still want overwatch gone.
Trust me - Overwatch is not the only thing keeping assault armies from dominating the game.
On the thing about Overwatch, I'd rather not change Overwatch, or remove it at all for that matter, but rather give Troops options, a la the different stands the Infantry can do in Fantasy. Now I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, you can Stand and Shoot (Basically overwatch I believe), Flee (RUN, RUN FOR THE LOVE OF SIGMAR) and some others I don't remember...
So, we could have the following options when charged:
Overwatch: The unit shoots at the charging enemy like usual, only with -2 BS. The unit hits at I 1 in the following Fight Sub-phase.
Brace for Impact!: The unit prepares for melee combat and ready their weapons. The unit can make one attack per model at I10 (Alternatively just use ASF from Fantasy)
Fall Back!: The unit flees the charging foe in a great hurry. The unit must take an Ld test - If succesful, the unit flees 3d6'' towards the Table Edge like had it lost a battle, and must make a Ld test to recover next turn. If failed, the unit also suffers a Sweeping Advance test. Either way, the charging squad(s) may Consolidate. Fearless and Stubborn models cannot do this maneuver.
Last Stand: The unit gathers its faith and courage, and charges the foe in a last defying act. The unit must take a Ld check - If failed, the unit falls back like had it lost a combat, suffering a Sweeping Advance test. If succesful, the unit gains the Counter-Charge, Fearless and Furious Charge USRs for the following fight sub-phase, but automatically loses 1d6 models per 10 models originally in the unit after the Fight Sub-phase. (Alternatively simply removes the entire squad instead of 1d6 per 10 models)
Anyone have other ideas for more bloat? I mean, the game is already so bloated, anything more won't be noticed
I like 40k and most of the mechanics are fine for me in the games we play...........
There are the problem areas - balance with units like the Wave Serpent and Riptide and now in 7th powers like Invisibility but on the whole we enjoy it.
There are many tweeks I'd like to see included and which we play around with as House Rules:
Assaulting from stationary vehicles
Vehicles allowed to overwatch with flamers etc
Drop the 7th ed Psychic Phase
Combine the Move and Run movements
I don't really have any issue with core mechanics.
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
I have to say, I much prefer a game favoring shooting over assault than the opposite.
It seems that 40K was less tactical in the CC editions.
Of course, having both balanced would be interesting as well.
40k isn't any more tactical now. It's not a tactical game, once you get past list building. Choices on the table do not effect the game enough.
Warmahordes, Infinity, they're tactical games. 40k is most certainly not.
And as said, overwatch isn't what's making combat armies crap. Not being able to assault from transports, after deep strike etc, having a lack of grenades for assault units, etc, that's why combat armies suck now.
The game was fine before overwatch, it's not a key mechanic, it's a cop-out for poor planning and shooty armies.
So you want to return to the era of awesome CC armies? Overwatch is a fine mechanic and adds flavor to the game. Trust me, removing would have a pretty big impact and I think a lot of armies would suffer for it.
I have to say, I much prefer a game favoring shooting over assault than the opposite.
It seems that 40K was less tactical in the CC editions.
Of course, having both balanced would be interesting as well.
40k isn't any more tactical now. It's not a tactical game, once you get past list building. Choices on the table do not effect the game enough.
Warmahordes, Infinity, they're tactical games. 40k is most certainly not.
And as said, overwatch isn't what's making combat armies crap. Not being able to assault from transports, after deep strike etc, having a lack of grenades for assault units, etc, that's why combat armies suck now.
I would suggest you dig deeper into 40K.
Choices on the table dictate the game.
To me at least, the game was never tactical. It's been a Narrativist game, focusing on telling stories and creating narratives between factions. Warmahordes is a Gaming game, focusing on a wholly balanced game, but sacrificing Narrative (The Iron Kingdoms universe usually have battles that make the Battle for Verdun blush, with maybe one to five 'Jacks per warzone). When you make your table, I do it balanced and with friends, so we get what would fit withour armies the most. We have a narrative in a ruined city, so a lot of ruins and rubble is due. Stuff like that won't be in Warmahordes - Or at least not in the competetive scene-
I don't mind the game not focusing on being a competetive tournament game, because I use it for fun and for narrative purposes - I like how 7th takes away some of the stuff that made some units overly complicated ad unique, while still keeping the factions fairly unique themselves in function. It's a bit of Gaming in a mostly Narrativistic game, and I likes it a lots
The Wise Dane wrote: On the thing about Overwatch, I'd rather not change Overwatch, or remove it at all for that matter, but rather give Troops options, a la the different stands the Infantry can do in Fantasy. Now I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, you can Stand and Shoot (Basically overwatch I believe), Flee (RUN, RUN FOR THE LOVE OF SIGMAR) and some others I don't remember...
So, we could have the following options when charged:
Overwatch: The unit shoots at the charging enemy like usual, only with -2 BS. The unit hits at I 1 in the following Fight Sub-phase.
Brace for Impact!: The unit prepares for melee combat and ready their weapons. The unit can make one attack per model at I10 (Alternatively just use ASF from Fantasy)
Fall Back!: The unit flees the charging foe in a great hurry. The unit must take an Ld test - If succesful, the unit flees 3d6'' towards the Table Edge like had it lost a battle, and must make a Ld test to recover next turn. If failed, the unit also suffers a Sweeping Advance test. Either way, the charging squad(s) may Consolidate. Fearless and Stubborn models cannot do this maneuver.
Last Stand: The unit gathers its faith and courage, and charges the foe in a last defying act. The unit must take a Ld check - If failed, the unit falls back like had it lost a combat, suffering a Sweeping Advance test. If succesful, the unit gains the Counter-Charge, Fearless and Furious Charge USRs for the following fight sub-phase, but automatically loses 1d6 models per 10 models originally in the unit after the Fight Sub-phase. (Alternatively simply removes the entire squad instead of 1d6 per 10 models)
I like the idea, however, I'd change Overwatch to a different penalty. If Overwatch is meant to be an exchange, then it should be an exchange for *all* units - not just high-initiative ones.
I mean, why should my DE sacrifice their main advantage in order to Overwatch, whilst my IG can Overwatch without noticing any difference in combat about 99% of the time?
Also, with regard to Last Stand, how would it work with Fearless units? In any case, with regard to the wounds at the end, maybe each surviving model could suffer a S7 AP1 hit? Or something along those lines?
The Wise Dane wrote: Anyone have other ideas for more bloat? I mean, the game is already so bloated, anything more won't be noticed
Yes, actually.
- Models can fire weapons in combat, instead of attacking normally. Heavy weapons, flamers and blasts cannot fire this way. I was considering compare a model's BS to the enemy WS, but just using the model's BS with a -1 penalty might be easier. I wasn't sure about rate of fire - whether models should be able to fire just a single shot
(Bear in mind, in my rules Overwatch doesn't exist - so this could be considered an exchange in that regard)
- Pistols can fire in combat, but are in addition to a model's other attacks and do not suffer the -1 BS penalty (if it's being used). Obviously though, they do not grant the model additional attacks with his other melee weapon.
- Models can fire into combats, but with a chance of hitting their own men. They must first take a Ld test (if failed, they cannot stomach shooting their own men - and must shoot elsewhere this turn). Ideally, models would receive penalties or bonuses, depending on whether their own men are outnumbered and on base sizes (e.g. it should be a lot easier to avoid hitting guardsmen fighting a wraithknight, compared with guardsmen fighting marines). However, I haven't worked out a proper system for this yet.
- Models in combat can attempt to disengage in the movement phase with a Morale test. If passed, they suffer free attacks but escape and can act normally, if failed they flee and the enemy can attempt to sweep them.
- In line with the above, I'd make it easier for units to get into assault - allowing assault from outflanking and from stationary vehicles, and perhaps make assault moves d6+4 or somesuch.
The Wise Dane wrote: On the thing about Overwatch, I'd rather not change Overwatch, or remove it at all for that matter, but rather give Troops options, a la the different stands the Infantry can do in Fantasy. Now I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, you can Stand and Shoot (Basically overwatch I believe), Flee (RUN, RUN FOR THE LOVE OF SIGMAR) and some others I don't remember...
So, we could have the following options when charged:
Overwatch: The unit shoots at the charging enemy like usual, only with -2 BS. The unit hits at I 1 in the following Fight Sub-phase.
Brace for Impact!: The unit prepares for melee combat and ready their weapons. The unit can make one attack per model at I10 (Alternatively just use ASF from Fantasy)
Fall Back!: The unit flees the charging foe in a great hurry. The unit must take an Ld test - If succesful, the unit flees 3d6'' towards the Table Edge like had it lost a battle, and must make a Ld test to recover next turn. If failed, the unit also suffers a Sweeping Advance test. Either way, the charging squad(s) may Consolidate. Fearless and Stubborn models cannot do this maneuver.
Last Stand: The unit gathers its faith and courage, and charges the foe in a last defying act. The unit must take a Ld check - If failed, the unit falls back like had it lost a combat, suffering a Sweeping Advance test. If succesful, the unit gains the Counter-Charge, Fearless and Furious Charge USRs for the following fight sub-phase, but automatically loses 1d6 models per 10 models originally in the unit after the Fight Sub-phase. (Alternatively simply removes the entire squad instead of 1d6 per 10 models)
I like the idea, however, I'd change Overwatch to a different penalty. If Overwatch is meant to be an exchange, then it should be an exchange for *all* units - not just high-initiative ones.
I mean, why should my DE sacrifice their main advantage in order to Overwatch, whilst my IG can Overwatch without noticing any difference in combat about 99% of the time?
Also, with regard to Last Stand, how would it work with Fearless units? In any case, with regard to the wounds at the end, maybe each surviving model could suffer a S7 AP1 hit? Or something along those lines?
The Wise Dane wrote: Anyone have other ideas for more bloat? I mean, the game is already so bloated, anything more won't be noticed
Yes, actually.
- Models can fire weapons in combat, instead of attacking normally. Heavy weapons, flamers and blasts cannot fire this way. I was considering compare a model's BS to the enemy WS, but just using the model's BS with a -1 penalty might be easier. I wasn't sure about rate of fire - whether models should be able to fire just a single shot
(Bear in mind, in my rules Overwatch doesn't exist - so this could be considered an exchange in that regard)
- Pistols can fire in combat, but are in addition to a model's other attacks and do not suffer the -1 BS penalty (if it's being used). Obviously though, they do not grant the model additional attacks with his other melee weapon.
- Models can fire into combats, but with a chance of hitting their own men. They must first take a Ld test (if failed, they cannot stomach shooting their own men - and must shoot elsewhere this turn). Ideally, models would receive penalties or bonuses, depending on whether their own men are outnumbered and on base sizes (e.g. it should be a lot easier to avoid hitting guardsmen fighting a wraithknight, compared with guardsmen fighting marines). However, I haven't worked out a proper system for this yet.
- Models in combat can attempt to disengage in the movement phase with a Morale test. If passed, they suffer free attacks but escape and can act normally, if failed they flee and the enemy can attempt to sweep them.
- In line with the above, I'd make it easier for units to get into assault - allowing assault from outflanking and from stationary vehicles, and perhaps make assault moves d6+4 or somesuch.
Imma just go through these as they come, okay?
Shooting in combat isn't really a thing we should do. I mean, one thing is adding things to make the game seem more like 40K, but adding things that aren't even a coherent part of the universe isn't really great... Also, if people could do as you state, they'll just use Sternguards in melee because of the relative strength of the weapons invovled. Don't like it... Though I would be fine with Pistols shooting in close combat.
I've never understood why people want to shoot into combats. It doesn't add something to the game, but takes away from it by removing one of the only way a melee unit can be safe. I mean, it makes sense, but unless you make it a part of that particular faction (Like Skaven having Skavenslaves), I wouldn't.
Disengaging from combat is fair, but also screws over melee lists, which I don't really want to do. The thing about melee combat being messy and hard to control is nice, so your guys can't just flee before they are scared out of their minds An Order would be fine I guess.
On assualt I agree with you completely. I'd rather just have a 6'' Run move and 8'' Charge move, and then add 2'' to each for Fleet or Crusader. It's simpler that way. Charging from stationary vehicles and from Outflank would be nice, and, within reason, charging from Deep Strike... But we were talking about adding, not changing
Shooting in combat isn't really a thing we should do. I mean, one thing is adding things to make the game seem more like 40K, but adding things that aren't even a coherent part of the universe isn't really great... Also, if people could do as you state, they'll just use Sternguards in melee because of the relative strength of the weapons invovled. Don't like it... Though I would be fine with Pistols shooting in close combat.
I see your point gameplaywise, but I don't see why it isn't a coherent part of the universe - you see it all the time in the art and fluff.
I've never understood why people want to shoot into combats. It doesn't add something to the game, but takes away from it by removing one of the only way a melee unit can be safe. I mean, it makes sense, but unless you make it a part of that particular faction (Like Skaven having Skavenslaves), I wouldn't.
I'm the other way round - I don't see why combats should ignore all logic and sense. Why, when guardsmen are engaged with a wraithknight, can others no longer shoot it?
Disengaging from combat is fair, but also screws over melee lists, which I don't really want to do. The thing about melee combat being messy and hard to control is nice, so your guys can't just flee before they are scared out of their minds An Order would be fine I guess.
Well, probably not for all the races who can't issue orders.
On assualt I agree with you completely. I'd rather just have a 6'' Run move and 8'' Charge move, and then add 2'' to each for Fleet or Crusader. It's simpler that way. Charging from stationary vehicles and from Outflank would be nice, and, within reason, charging from Deep Strike... But we were talking about adding, not changing
But that's the thing - I'm aware that my suggestions hurt melee, so I wanted to add that I wanted to buff melee in other ways.
Basically, I'd just like to see melee become less of a rules-black-hole. Where all logic and normal gameplay have to be suspended.
Yes and it can make the difference in a charge going off, or them making the charge but not winning the combat, and having a big impact on the game
And, the vast majority of the time, it just has no effect whatsoever and you might as well have spent the time making yourself a sandwich.
How about a mechanic that rewards tactics - not getting lucky.
They're essentially free shots. It's not supposed to be a reward, it's a built in game mechanic. Also, if you can do make a sandwich in that time, wanna mail me one while I'm doing my Overwatch?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheSilo wrote: Awesome CC armies existed because you could assault after deep strike, disembark after vehicles moved 12", assault after disembarking, and there were no shooting restrictions before assaulting. Overwatch is not why assault armies are weak.
In overwatch:
- A guardsman will only kill another guardsman with 6% of his shots
- A marine will only kill a guardsman with 11% of his shots
- A guardsman will kill a marine with 2% of his shots.
- A marine will kill a marine with 3% of his shots.
Even when you take one of the most elite troops in the game against one of the weakest, it's an utterly meaningless mechanic. Seriously, marine players gripe about marines being 14 point bolters, well in overwatch they're literally 75% worse. Outside of special weapons overwatch is just a waste of time.
Rarely could you ever assault after deep strike. And Overwatch would help CC armies. If I can, I have a Tau player I'd love to play a no-Overwatch game against.
I still do not get the "waste of time". It takes maybe 15 seconds.
Overwatch isn't meant to kill a ton of things, it's meant to be reaction shots.
Also, Tau using improved BS on Overwatch but it does nothing? Sure. Tau take advantage of Overwatch pretty often. And how do special weapons matter in Overwatch? Other than the Flamer, they're the same as bolters, hitting on 6s.
Why not use a more interactive game turn , then you dont need over watch or any charge reactions.
If you allow shooting to do more than just kill stuff. EG block L.O.S with smoke/blind shells, and cause units to go to ground/pinned/ shaken.(Suppression.)
It can add far more tactical options without adding complication.
(Epic Armageddon has far fewer pages of rules , but delivers much more tactical play and better game balance than 40k.)
In fact just base the game play on warfare with an equal blend of mobility, firepower and assault.
Rather than use WHFB rules, which are all about mobility and assault.(With shooting firmly in the supporting role.)
This leaves 40k with over simplified core rules, that are massively restricting in terms of game play.And so rely on lots of additional rules to cover the rest of the game play , the WHFB core rules cant cope with.
Funny how Tau was used as an example for over-watch, fine un-intended example for bloat.
They have that "Special Rule" that not only the unit receiving the charge can fire as well, which makes them "special".
I was pretty excited that the special rules were being better defined in the main rule book.
To have one place were we all could literally be on the same page.
But no, GW still feels the need to make more special rules in further publications since where would we be without codex creep?
There was a time to get a reasonable handle on things buying the main rule book and a few codex's would be about all you need.
The variety of documents are a bit much to keep up with even with a somewhat reasonable disposable income of an adult.
"Too bloated" is a matter of perspective, I am sure many would rise to the challenge and find no problem at all keeping up to it.
I think the better question is "40k becoming more work than fun to play", rolling dice rather than making decisions, looking up rules in some 3+ documents for "special case" events, the larger armies to get ready and transport... it takes a certain kind of love for it to not view it as work.
X-wing has been a rather painful contrast for quick gaming gratification.
Battletech has a similar feel of being much less work but with tons of detail for every situation (Alphastrike as well...).
I LIKE my 40k models and keep plugging away at different groups of them, get games in and scratch my head at the next strange rule / army exploit, laugh at the 40k madness and roll buckets of dice. It is not for everyone and not to be taken on lightly as a new player.
Talizvar wrote: Funny how Tau was used as an example for over-watch, fine un-intended example for bloat.
They have that "Special Rule" that not only the unit receiving the charge can fire as well, which makes them "special".
The problem with 40k bloat is they've just been building on the same system for the past 4 editions instead of doing a rewrite to simplify. Games have gotten larger AND have also gotten more complicated... but not complicated in a good way, complicated in a completely unnecessary way.
Complex game play is good. (Lots of meaningful player choices in game.)
Over complicated rules is bad.(Lots of different ways to cover a single in game interaction.)
40k has very little game play complexity, but far too much complication in the rules compared to any other war game in the top 20.
I have been a fan of the IP since forever, but i must say - for a new player, it's waaaaay overly bloated.
I got back into it briefly at 6th ed, and now 7th ed (getting more serious). I got the basics down, but watching a few demo games with other new players, it's still painful.
It's a combination of rules being overly complicated, and the information being strewn all over the place. You still have to flip around to find some rule, or even dig around on the internet to get some basic stuff answered. So many different layers to it (which is good, for the advanced players -- not so good for everyone else).
ncshooter426 wrote: I have been a fan of the IP since forever, but i must say - for a new player, it's waaaaay overly bloated.
I got back into it briefly at 6th ed, and now 7th ed (getting more serious). I got the basics down, but watching a few demo games with other new players, it's still painful.
It's a combination of rules being overly complicated, and the information being strewn all over the place. You still have to flip around to find some rule, or even dig around on the internet to get some basic stuff answered. So many different layers to it (which is good, for the advanced players -- not so good for everyone else).
It's not good for the advanced player if the complications don't actually add anything to the game.
I think any game that's been around as long as 40K, or WFB runs the risk of becoming 'bloated'.
I found this to be incredibly apparent as I played collectible card games like Magic The Gathering, where eventually the only means of adding to the game is making bigger badder monsters, or new crazy rules. The problem with this (which is much the reason I don't play much of MTG anymore) is that if you don't have the newest set, you're outmatched, can't compete. I'm not a competitive gamer, and certainly not a competitive shopper which is where I think the emphasis lies.
I feel that (for me) this thread ties into some rumors I saw posted recently about the newest Chaos Codex. Rumor has it that the new codex will get away from devoted factions. No more Plague Marines, or Berzerkers, or the like. I'm a devoted Nurgle player, so this news upset me right away. But then I got to thinking to myself...
...self I said...
Maybe this is the reboot that the army, and indeed the game needs. By wiping the slate clean they are poised to build everything better than before. Is it wishful thinking? Perhaps.
But just like in comic books, sometimes the only way to right the wrongs made by multiple creative teams is to break everything down and start over.
That seems like a long winded answer (I'm guilty of ranting at times).
In short, I guess my response is. Yes. 40K is becoming bloated, but I am holding on to hopes that the remedy is in the works already.
It's not good for the advanced player if the complications don't actually add anything to the game.
Agreed, although some folks just like complication for the sake of being complicated.
I really like Infinity's rules, although it's a much smaller scale warfare than 40K. Hell, I actually like the WHFB rules more than 40K too, but that's just me.
I first started playing 40K in 3rd edition, and I was actually pretty pleased with 6th edition. I have not picked up 7th, so I can't speak to how the rules have changed but as I understand there is no MAJOR shift here. I don't think all of the supplements are necessary to throw down a game at all. I prefer to spend my time learning the ins and outs of my own army, not so much every opposing army I may face. I understand why some do that, but for me it takes away from valuable painting and modelling time. lol.
Apocalypse, Cities of Death, and so on, are not mandatory components of 40K so I don't think they should be a factor in determining whats necessary to get started at all.
Hmmmm.... valid point.
Say GW thinks "Reboot! good idea!".
Then everyone will have to buy new stuff!!
I wonder if they would survive the round of rage-quit.
I am unsure logistically that could even be considered an option.
Without being able to make prior publications work with a new system it would take too long or run the risk of others not able to play the new system.
I know some game systems have come up with a "converter" algorithm to make a model work under old rules (thinking Battletech :Alphastrike).
I dunno, a rulebook and a reference source like some stat-card or codex should be all you need to play your end of a game.
Cards are handy for your opponent to review what your unit can do so I think of it as a best practice.
I think GW has a whole lot wrong if you need more than the above reference documents in order to get a game in.
I agree that it's a gamble they're taking. Particularly with how close 6th and 7th were to one another. It's just proof that there were glaring issues or oversights with 6th. Again, I'm not a competitive gamer so these oversights were clearly lost to me.
That said however, FAQ's are typically released to help convert older codeces into newer rules.
Point being whether or not the game rules are bloated, I think it's a necesary factor in developing such a far spanning game. A better question to be presented would perhaps be; Are there too many factions involved in the 40k universe? This is why many of the funky rules originate, no?
gotbugs wrote: I agree that it's a gamble they're taking. Particularly with how close 6th and 7th were to one another. It's just proof that there were glaring issues or oversights with 6th. Again, I'm not a competitive gamer so these oversights were clearly lost to me.
That said however, FAQ's are typically released to help convert older codeces into newer rules.
Point being whether or not the game rules are bloated, I think it's a necesary factor in developing such a far spanning game. A better question to be presented would perhaps be; Are there too many factions involved in the 40k universe? This is why many of the funky rules originate, no?
I don't think it has to do with just factions, but with the various amounts of unit types too, all of which combine into a mixture of chaos that doesn't even appease the Chaos Gods themselves. I mean, we have So many different variants of just the same thing. Infantry (Jump, Jet Pack, Bike, Jet Bike) and many of those subtypes apply to Monstrous Creatures as well, but with small tweaks. Then there are Walkers and Super Heavy Walkers. Tanks and Super Heavy Tanks. Fliers. Vehicles (Fast, normal, open topped, assault) and it creates so much mess.
Normally, I am a man who loves variety. I really do. But a lot of the choices in the game are not even really variety. There are blatantly good or bad options, which means there aren't really that many options or variety at all. I'd prefer them to condense some things, or if they HAVE to have this many different things, really MAKE each one have a valid use and not just a waste. But then we get special upon special. Just an example is how Tau's jump infantry are far superior and they have a reason to take them. My Ork jump infantry are usually only OK options and for most Marine players, they are better than OK but still often not taken due to just...better options. You'd think jet pack dudes of any kind would be superior...but the game doesn't ALLOW them to be.
I dunno. I rant. I don't think it's just the amount of factions. The general rules themselves need a real overhaul. I feel factions SHOULD have their special snowflake rules, as it gives you an incentive to use that army, and those special snowflake rules should be a bit more flavorful.
kodi wrote: The only player-friendly solution would be a unified and completely digital regularly updated codex/ruleset library. It's 2014, relying on printed media for game rules is archaic (though no doubt profitable).
I know gw has to make money and stay in business because that's what companies do, but I wish they could find a more agreeable business model for their *rules*. The pricing of their minis doesn't bother me at all really.
No thanks. I don't want to have to stare at a bright screen to read fluff or rules in my spare time and I don't want to have to buy a tablet or bring my laptop to games to not have to find rules on my phone. Digital books have no appeal for me.
This is perhaps something of a minor point in terms of bloat, but things like the Eversor Assassin annoy me.
One of his weapons has Fleshbane and Shred. Why? Why not just say 'hits from this weapon wound automatically'? Do we really need to faff around with dice just for that 1/36 chance that he won't wound?
vipoid wrote: This is perhaps something of a minor point in terms of bloat, but things like the Eversor Assassin annoy me.
One of his weapons has Fleshbane and Shred. Why? Why not just say 'hits from this weapon wound automatically'? Do we really need to faff around with dice just for that 1/36 chance that he won't wound?
But think of all the joy you will miss out on flipping through different books to figure out what he does and then rolling all those extra almost pointless dice during the game.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But think of all the joy you will miss out on flipping through different books to figure out what he does and then rolling all those extra almost pointless dice during the game.
Well quite.
Also, I love it when people say 7th is streamlined, when Assassins are single models with up to 13 rules apiece. Many of them unique to assassins.
Within the realm of this topic, I've been looking at the Necron release with some confusion.
There appears to be an entirely new detachment system for players to use to build up their armies. Something that has frustrated me is the level of complication that has gone into the process of building an army. Obviously, there is Unbound, but it appears to be rarely used (since it would often be utilized for cheesy builds), but all of the formations/CADs/detachments stuff that 7th has brought has really complicated a process that I don't think needed to be complicated: the army-building process.
I wanted to see what everyone else thinks about this. I personally don't understand complicating something that has so little to do with actually playing the game.
vipoid wrote: This is perhaps something of a minor point in terms of bloat, but things like the Eversor Assassin annoy me.
One of his weapons has Fleshbane and Shred. Why? Why not just say 'hits from this weapon wound automatically'? Do we really need to faff around with dice just for that 1/36 chance that he won't wound?
But think of all the joy you will miss out on flipping through different books to figure out what he does and then rolling all those extra almost pointless dice during the game.
Don't forget the culexus who can only be hit at WS1 but also causes fear, which requires a ld test before wait for it...requiring the enemy to hit at WS1.
I agree on the Eversor, it's not a huge problem on him specifically but there are a lot of high probability and low probability rolls that we have to take, when they simply waste time. In a game with a hundred or more models on the table, there shouldn't be rolls for things that are above 95% probability or below 5% IMO. Or rolls for things like move through cover where you're almost always rolling a 5" or 6" move.
Accolade wrote: Within the realm of this topic, I've been looking at the Necron release with some confusion.
There appears to be an entirely new detachment system for players to use to build up their armies. Something that has frustrated me is the level of complication that has gone into the process of building an army. Obviously, there is Unbound, but it appears to be rarely used (since it would often be utilized for cheesy builds), but all of the formations/CADs/detachments stuff that 7th has brought has really complicated a process that I don't think needed to be complicated: the army-building process.
I wanted to see what everyone else thinks about this. I personally don't understand complicating something that has so little to do with actually playing the game.
I know what you mean. When I wanted to try a Formation, I had to ask on this forum what on Earth the army-building rules were. The rulebook description of detachments confused the hell out of me.
Don't forget the culexus who can only be hit at WS1 but also causes fear, which requires a ld test before wait for it...requiring the enemy to hit at WS1.
I agree on the Eversor, it's not a huge problem on him specifically but there are a lot of high probability and low probability rolls that we have to take, when they simply waste time. In a game with a hundred or more models on the table, there shouldn't be rolls for things that are above 95% probability or below 5% IMO. Or rolls for things like move through cover where you're almost always rolling a 5" or 6" move.
Agreed.
It's a little weird, because GW has no issue with making weapons auto-hit or auto-wound in Fantasy, or with making terrain a non-random movement penalty. Yet, in 40k, we have to have all this 2+ rerollable nonsense.
Telmenari wrote: I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.
Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.
You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".
You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.
And then you find out that army is BS 3 not 4 and al those special rules he quoted weren't quite right either.
Orkhead wrote: And then you find out that army is BS 3 not 4 and al those special rules he quoted weren't quite right either.
Ah, the perfect game for the WAAC player who can BS his way along and few would know any different.
Bloat is a matter of perspective: yes the GW models can be expensive but at least I can use them in newer additions of the game, codexes, BRB and supplements I cannot = bad investment of $$ because they go out of date and cost far more than they are worth, I feel no need to be a completionist at that expense.
yes the GW models can be expensive but at least I can use them in newer additions of the game
yeah am looking at my special characters, tanks, vets and valks I can't use anymore. I don't think this can always use thing fits all armies.
They can typically be rolled into the "counts as" realm of models.
Some tanks you are referring to may be covered by Forgeworld rules which are allowable in 40k right?
I got a little upset a long while back when Whirlwinds were written out of the Black Templar codex, but they are now back again so all is forgiven.
My 1" base qty 3 obliterators still confuse the heck out of people, I just say they get bigger over time.
Not many models get completely shelved unless you had a Squat army.
The bloat is keeping the old and adding new so the game only gets bigger.
