Back when we heard that GW were trimming 40k down from the colossal rules bloat it had become during 7th edition, there was almost universally rejoicing from the community.

8 months into 8th edition, and I think GW are encroaching upon their old addiction to adding in rules. Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Artifacts, faction and sub faction rules. These have all added a lot of extra moving parts that it becomes hard to keep track of what is what. Never mind any additional rules brought to the table from the mission being played.

We were promised that 8th edition would be quicker, and honestly I am not seeing it. There may be no more Universal Special Rules, but special rules still exist, and are scattered in so many different areas, that trying to find them, or keep track becomes clunky and slows the game down. With so many rules scattered around it is only natural that rules will be missed during a game, which can lead to players feeling cheated or/and annoyed.

What puzzles me is why there is a need for special rules? Surely a system should exist that allows a stat line to help demonstrate how good, average, or poor a model is?

Ultimately, there is far too much having to flick through books to find scattered information for casual play, for those who play just 40k I can imagine it is fine, for those who play a wide variety of game systems it has become a nightmare.

I really like the setting, and the models are wonderfully imaginative, however I am still finding their rules to be needlessly convoluted and I've been playing since 2nd edition.
Am I alone in this line of thought, or are there others who are coming to the same conclusion?

I 100% agree that a proper statline would be more than enough for an interesting game. I do think there are way too many special rules, auras/bubbles...but that stuff sells models.

We had a discussion on this the other week and the general consensus is that 8th is only slightly faster than 7th, if at all. Indexhammer was faster, easily, but with the reintroduction of layer upon layer of rules the game is definitely back to the chunk.

I think, terrible editing/writing aside, the flow of the game is fine, and I can appreciate that the majority of special rules do mimic each other. I do believe tournaments will need to consider reducing army size from 2000 points though, that seems to be hindering a lot of tournaments.

Its not that they are clunky, is that GW keeps forgetting what they made as rules, and then makes new rules for new stuff that screws everything over.

Case and point, Daemon codex letting Daemons deep strike, then forgetting the Magnus and Mort, both have the daemon key word. Or things like giving tzaangors heretic astartes, and forgetting there is a power that lets you zip them across the board turn one.

IMO 8th is more a rule bloat then 7th ever was, back in 7th i needed 1 book, 2 books max. My codex, and My Brb. Now i need the BrB, my codex for half my army, the other codex for the other half, the Chapter approved, and like 3 or 4 FAQs in order to keep up on the rules. 8th is fun, but its a mess, and its full of ambiguity.

Using something like Battlescribe can help. Special rules add flavour, further internal and external differentiation, synergies, tactical variety etc but do come with what may be construed as costs such as increased complexity, balance difficulties, demographic appeal etc. It is a trade off and who knows if there is anyone at GW with a really strong grasp of the overall picture.

Ix_Tab wrote:
Using something like Battlescribe can help. Special rules add, flavour, further internal and external differentiation, synergies, tactical variety etc which does come with what may be constued as costs such as increased complexity, balance difficulties, demographic appeal etc. It is a trade off and who knows if there is anyone at GW with a really strong grasp of the overall picture.

It helps yes, but with how crap Battle scribe has been lately its faster to flip through a dex. Where all the real slowness comes down is trying to memorize stratagems, and on top of that, needing to pause every so often to agree on when something happens because of the loose wording GW uses in 8th.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


IMO 8th is more a rule bloat then 7th ever was, back in 7th i needed 1 book, 2 books max. My codex, and My Brb. Now i need the BrB, my codex for half my army, the other codex for the other half, the Chapter approved, and like 3 or 4 FAQs in order to keep up on the rules. 8th is fun, but its a mess, and its full of ambiguity.

Can we please stop with this myth. It is not true. 7th was just as ambiguous and far more bloated.

Almost every army in 7th used a codex and usually a supplement. Not to mention your basic rules for 1 unit could be spread out over as much as 10 pages even without FAQ.

 Earth127 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


IMO 8th is more a rule bloat then 7th ever was, back in 7th i needed 1 book, 2 books max. My codex, and My Brb. Now i need the BrB, my codex for half my army, the other codex for the other half, the Chapter approved, and like 3 or 4 FAQs in order to keep up on the rules. 8th is fun, but its a mess, and its full of ambiguity.

Can we please stop with this myth. It is not true. 7th was just as ambiguous and far more bloated.

Almost every army in 7th used a codex and usually a supplement. Not to mention your basic rules for 1 unit could be spread out over as much as 10 pages even without FAQ.

Its not a myth tho, i ran dark angels, i needed 2 books, my codex and the BrB. Its not a myth because it was how i actually played. Thats how everyone in my store played, we just needed a codex and the BrB.

Wanted a break from 8th so I went back to play some HH which is just modified 7th thinking it would just fit like an old glove. Oh boy was a wrong.

So much more clunky. Vehicle facings, closest model removal, USRs, templates and on and on. I wouldn't have any nostalgia glasses about 7th. I'm not saying 8th is perfect because it's not but I do not want to go back at this point.

 buddha wrote:
Wanted a break from 8th so I went back to play some HH which is just modified 7th thinking it would just fit like an old glove. Oh boy was a wrong.

So much more clunky. Vehicle facings, closest model removal, USRs, templates and on and on. I wouldn't have any nostalgia glasses about 7th. I'm not saying 8th is perfect because it's not but I do not want to go back at this point.

This truly sums up how i feel.

Well, GW is doing the same as they ever do. Adding more and more rules to the game. Not just rules but also strategems.
Do we need all those strategems? No, I think not.
Now Guardian Defenders can ''deep strike'' into position with the right strategem.
Different armies get similar strategems so that nobody will be left behind. This makes the game a mess as a whole.
How about units with their stats and special rules, and army wide rules? No toppings on top. GW cannot stop this...

The requirement that you always use the latest version of a unit entry can be a pain with cross codex units. As I don't play Space Marines, CSM are the nearest thing; if you play Death Guard, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons or Daemons, certain units in your codex will become superceded by versions in a newer codex, so you really should be collecting all 4.

Nice way to sell rulebooks, which is what GW are really pushing at the moment. It makes sense - models are expensive to develop and you always worry about competitors putting out "counts as" similar models which is hard to stop. Also, eventually people get all the models they want or ebay becomes saturated with cheap second hand ones. Rulebooks have much tighter copyright protection, standardised mass production methods, you can re-use artwork and even text from previous editions and everyone has to get the new one when it comes out.

I think eventually their main market will move to Digital Subscription - get all the rules updates and new codices for your favourite armies in digital right-managed format for a monthly fee...

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Its not a myth tho, i ran dark angels, i needed 2 books, my codex and the BrB. Its not a myth because it was how i actually played. Thats how everyone in my store played, we just needed a codex and the BrB.

It varied from army to army, the worst offenders were I believe orks who were so bad you needed every supplement you could get to have a chance and that consisted of four or so? In addition to the BRB.

Personally I always needed at least three books total for my CSM, usually the codex, BRB, and a supplement. Often an allied codex as well. My admech army was literally spread across two codices.

The BRB+codex was certainly not the norm at least, way too many exceptions.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


IMO 8th is more a rule bloat then 7th ever was, back in 7th i needed 1 book, 2 books max. My codex, and My Brb. Now i need the BrB, my codex for half my army, the other codex for the other half, the Chapter approved, and like 3 or 4 FAQs in order to keep up on the rules. 8th is fun, but its a mess, and its full of ambiguity.

Can we please stop with this myth. It is not true. 7th was just as ambiguous and far more bloated.

Almost every army in 7th used a codex and usually a supplement. Not to mention your basic rules for 1 unit could be spread out over as much as 10 pages even without FAQ.

Its not a myth tho, i ran dark angels, i needed 2 books, my codex and the BrB. Its not a myth because it was how i actually played. Thats how everyone in my store played, we just needed a codex and the BrB.

But the fact that you need to carry two codices around with you has nothing to do with rules bloat, it has to do with you choosing to run a soup army. That's not GW's fault. I run a pure BA army in 8th, I carry the BRB and the Blood Angels codex and that's it.

I personally feel like I don't need to bring the BRB these days. Using CA missions and the Rule Pamphlet I have enough for the core game. Then my phone has the FAQs(Thank the Omnissiah for the internet) and I bring my codex. To be fair I don't soup different factions so I am usually just a single codex gal.

So for me I am bringing CA, a Codex, and a pamphlet(the rules)- which technically I can just keep on my phone as well - and nothing more.

Regarding speed I find it dependent on the army being played. IG is super slow to play while something like Aeldari or Dark Angels tend to go much faster. Even my Tyranids are faster than IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to add that it would be awesome if GW would release unit cards like they have done for AOS. It would make the page flippin' less of an issue as you only keep the unit cards relevant to your current list.

GW is just clunky, no matter whether they use "universal" rules or "unique" rules. A lot of it deals with the fact that they love to use informal/vernacular English in writing their rules (my favorite RAW/RAI debates deal with "out of phase" actions that are treated "exactly as though it were said phase"), as well as to mix fluff and crunch in the same sentence, to sneak rule-changes into FAQs, or to have FAQs directly contradict each other (Keywords and Faction Keywords are the same, but only Faction Daemons can use Daemon Stratagems. You can use Stratagems from another detachment as long as you have the correct Keywords...unless you're Genestealer Cults because screw you).

YMMV, but I did also find it easier to track my opponent's bonuses in 7th. Were formations problematic? Sure, but you knew that the Canoptek Harvest specifically let the Spyder in its formation grant buffs to the Scarabs/Wraiths in its appropriate formation. By contrast, 8th has a shellgame where you can bring (and face) an entire codex's worth of Stratagems, and you have to remember "Oh yes, one of these units can get +1 to wound, another one of these units can fight twice, another one of these units can autohit if this other unit is within 6" of said unit," and the mental focus moves less away from the maneuver and positioning and more towards "how do I use my +1s while avoiding my opponent's +1s."

And of course, this entire process is an IGOUGO structure so unless you have some "you activated my Trap Card" abilities that work in your opponent's turn, you mostly get to sit and wait while your opponent takes awhile to run through the whole gamut of options.

I feel the core of the game is good. Definitely my favorite edition.

However, all the Stratagems, traits and attributes are mucking things up quite a bit.
They certainly add nice flavor to the game, but when you can take a CWE detachment just to unlock stratagems for an otherwise Ynnari army, of which the units are all CWE and still have <Craftworld> keywords, I feel it just gets too easily abused.
I mean, if you have to have a pregame discussion with your opponents saying this units gets X, but not this other identical unit because they don't share the same detachment, you know something is a bit off.

-

PS: Maybe it's also personal bias speaking but the good folks on /tg/ had, back in the day, compiled the big reference chart of special rules and other tables from 7th into a 4-page master-sheet. Although it was obvious there were certain examples of USR redundancy (Stealth vs Shrouded, Rage and Furious Charge should have been folded into Charge Bonus[X], Missile Lock went completely unused in the first half of 7th), it did make cross-referencing/understanding my opponent easier. Furious Charge was Furious Charge after all, whether it was from Genestealer Cultists, Flesh Hounds, Dark Eldar (or Harlequins now and then) or Traitor Legion World Eaters.

So far I think everything is okay. I need the BRB and a Codex to play, under some circumstances also the indices from GW and FW, but since I only need 1 entry of those battlescribe is enough.

In 7th I needed BRB, Codex CSM, TraitorsHate/Traitor Legions, the Helbrute Dataslate and maybe Imperial Armour for FW. So quite the same or a bit more.

And the rules... I don't want to look back to 7th rules, after one game of 8th I had the feeling that I had a better grasp of the rules than after playing 7th for 3 years

I think that this is somewhat true. 8th edition has certainly exploded with rules, revisions, and an ever expanding list of books that is very quickly made obsolete by the release of FAQs that are not actual FAQs anymore.

Compared to the insane abomination that was 7th edition it is still pure bliss. But not for long.

After leaving the broken peak of gak behind, we are now slowly finding the way back to the foot of bloat mountain. And GW is steadily guiding us up the lower foothills. We are nowhere near the summit of bloat yet, but the day will surely come.....

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Its not a myth tho, i ran dark angels, i needed 2 books, my codex and the BrB. Its not a myth because it was how i actually played. Thats how everyone in my store played, we just needed a codex and the BrB.

So, what's your store preventing from just using BRB and codex in 8th?

You ignored like 50% of the existing rules in 7th, why bother with them in this edition?

One thing I fear might happen (because it just makes sense) is for GW to reverse the decision to allow Index rules to be used once all Factions get updated to Codices.

Why would they continue to support books that have rules (mostly) updated elsewhere.
This would cut down a little clutter, even though it will mean some options become invalid.

-

 MagicJuggler wrote:
PS: Maybe it's also personal bias speaking but the good folks on /tg/ had, back in the day, compiled the big reference chart of special rules and other tables from 7th into a 4-page master-sheet. Although it was obvious there were certain examples of USR redundancy (Stealth vs Shrouded, Rage and Furious Charge should have been folded into Charge Bonus[X], Missile Lock went completely unused in the first half of 7th), it did make cross-referencing/understanding my opponent easier. Furious Charge was Furious Charge after all, whether it was from Genestealer Cultists, Flesh Hounds, Dark Eldar (or Harlequins now and then) or Traitor Legion World Eaters.

Today, furious charge is +1 strength all the time. Please explain how that is less simple.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Its not a myth tho, i ran dark angels, i needed 2 books, my codex and the BrB. Its not a myth because it was how i actually played. Thats how everyone in my store played, we just needed a codex and the BrB.

So, what's your store preventing from just using BRB and codex in 8th?

You ignored like 50% of the existing rules in 7th, why bother with them in this edition?

How is that ignoring rules? I only ever used a codex and BRB because all my rules were in them.

What army did not have a supplement, formations that were sold separately, campaign books with formations in them or FW models?

Edit: Oh, right. Sisters.

What army needed all those? You're acting like to play my Eldar I needed the BRB, Codex, Iyanden and Mymeara books.

I needed the Codex and BRB to play my army and that's it. It wasn't like I had a weird small army either.

pm713 wrote:
What army needed all those? You're acting like to play my Eldar I needed the BRB, Codex, Iyanden and Mymeara books.

I needed the Codex and BRB to play my army and that's it. It wasn't like I had a weird small army either.

I mean, that's all you need in 8th, too.

Complicated? No. It's kid's edition which has cost it tons of the little tactics 40k has had.

What it is is slow as hell. First need to game each model position carefully, then you roll tons of dices rerolls on all. And thn game takes turn or 2 and then over.

 Jidmah wrote:
What army did not have a supplement, formations that were sold separately, campaign books with formations in them or FW models?

Edit: Oh, right. Sisters.

Don't forget the little insert pamphlets that were the unit entry for stuff like fortifications, until they got superseded by an entire book themselves. And that was back when fortifications were actually worth taking.

So I think at one point I had Stronghold Assault, Tempestus Scions (I had the hardback), Imperial Guard, and a Forgeworld book or two in addition to da roolbook.

You could get that complicated still if you wanted to, but most of the codexes have not been three entries wrapped around the bloat of a full size hardback book (Scions, I'm looking at you). In that sense, it's much better than it used to be.

8th is more complexity with less depth.

Yeah. Of course you could say that you NEED the index of GW and FW along with CA and BRB and Codex. But really, if your army has a codex there are very few entries in the Index you need and if you don't want to play a mission from CA you don't need it.

Pay a monthly fee to play GW?

Are you fething mad, man?

The rules are almost comically simple. They're just not organized in a remotely consumable way let alone one that facilitates gameplay.

 darkcloak wrote:
Pay a monthly fee to play GW?

Are you fething mad, man?

Seriously, I think it will come.

I also play D&D, and two of our group pay WOTC a yearly fee (something like £50) to use the 4th edition online tools for character creation. And it is no longer updated as they have moved on to 5th edition, but it's better than buying and carrying all the rulebooks.

Anyway, back on topic: I don't mind strategems, warlord traits and artefacts as they add to the depth of the game at a reasonable price of more rules to think about.

Things that still don't seem to work well for me:

Terrain: Never seem to be able to find the right rules, and the ones there are are silly and anti-intuitive.

Wargear and points values - they seem to write the codices to make army building (matched play) as hard as possible. Why do they hate us so? I hate looking up a unit entry to find the number of dudes in the unit and wargear options, then to the start of the unit entries to find what "chaos marine champion melee weapon" options actually are, then to the back to get the costs of everything (not forgetting to cross reference Chapter Approved in case any of these numbers got changed).

Mostly it's good though for actual battlefield playability.

Cheeslord wrote:

Terrain: Never seem to be able to find the right rules, and the ones there are are silly and anti-intuitive.

One thing I've learned hopping around game systems is that there's really no such thing as "generic" terrain. Whatever you play, terrain generally needs to be designed to support the terrain rules of the game first, because no one writes rules that fit any terrain after the fact.

The current 40k rules seem pretty limited area terrain. Basically, everything being a ruined building that units run inside for cover. There's not even really rules for hiding behind something from what I can tell. Definitely the weakest part of the system, but not unmanageable if terrain is designed to support it.

 LunarSol wrote:
The rules are almost comically simple. They're just not organized in a remotely consumable way let alone one that facilitates gameplay.

This. Fortykay attempts to be every game to every player, and it attempts to achieve this by creating rules that are discreet components that you can bolt on as many or as few as you'd like. The downside to that is that it turns into a convoluted mess really quickly.

If you handpicked the rules you used and then retyped them into a single document, you could probably make a decent rulebook that's only about 10-15 pages long, tops.

 daedalus wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The rules are almost comically simple. They're just not organized in a remotely consumable way let alone one that facilitates gameplay.

This. Fortykay attempts to be every game to every player, and it attempts to achieve this by creating rules that are discreet components that you can bolt on as many or as few as you'd like. The downside to that is that it turns into a convoluted mess really quickly.

If you handpicked the rules you used and then retyped them into a single document, you could probably make a decent rulebook that's only about 10-15 pages long, tops.

Like what?

Well, most of the rules are consolidated into one place in the big rulebook, but the order of them is horrible, since they're arranged into modular sections. I haven't exactly thought a ton about it, but something like this, I guess:

- Intro section
- Pick one: Open/Narrative/Matched (lets go Matched for the example)
- Matched Play intro as part of the game intro.
- Datasheets intro / Core Rules section / Terrain section / Stratagems section
- Choose Armies / Battle-forged
- Choose Mission / Deployment Maps / Missions (including expansion missions here)
- Campaign Rules

Of course, then your rulebook looks different for each group, because someone might not want Terrain rules, or something might want to add Battlezones, or something. Or (perish the thought) Open play. To me that's never been a huge issue though since I've never seen any two groups of people who play 40k exactly the same way, even at places like Adepticon.

The point is then it at least follows with a logical progression toward figuring out Matched Play instead of what should be "basic" rules like terrain being tucked away amidst "Advanced Rules", the detachment guidelines being tucked away pages away from where you're actually talking about detachments, and hidden little things like that.

 Desubot wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The rules are almost comically simple. They're just not organized in a remotely consumable way let alone one that facilitates gameplay.

This. Fortykay attempts to be every game to every player, and it attempts to achieve this by creating rules that are discreet components that you can bolt on as many or as few as you'd like. The downside to that is that it turns into a convoluted mess really quickly.

If you handpicked the rules you used and then retyped them into a single document, you could probably make a decent rulebook that's only about 10-15 pages long, tops.

Like what?

This is essentially what cards do for most games and what apps are increasingly doing for the rest. Right now you've got the data sheet and the weapons chart for every possible unit you could field in your faction in a book (or often, multiple books and FAQs). An app or digital list builder could pair that down to only the models in your actual list and match them up with the weapons they're actually carrying. Battlescribe kind of does this, but its not a very clean interface and its somewhat dubiously reliable. Something with GW's support would do a much better job.

The closest example to me is Infinity. That is a game with the least comprehensive rulebook out there, with model rules scattered across several large sections that makes it impossible to get a clear picture of what the model I'm holding in my hand actually "does". Scrap that and use their army builder though and the game's complexities are quickly focused down to what you need to know and models quickly become relatively simple. MayaNet takes it a step further and organizes rules down to an extremely intuitive layout. That app alone bumped the game from something I felt was clunky to one of my favorite games simply by organizing the rules in a way that keeps them from getting in the way of the game itself.

 daedalus wrote:
Well, most of the rules are consolidated into one place in the big rulebook, but the order of them is horrible, since they're arranged into modular sections. I haven't exactly thought a ton about it, but something like this, I guess:

- Intro section
- Pick one: Open/Narrative/Matched (lets go Matched for the example)
- Matched Play intro as part of the game intro.
- Datasheets intro / Core Rules section / Terrain section / Stratagems section
- Choose Armies / Battle-forged
- Choose Mission / Deployment Maps / Missions (including expansion missions here)
- Campaign Rules

Of course, then your rulebook looks different for each group, because someone might not want Terrain rules, or something might want to add Battlezones, or something. Or (perish the thought) Open play. To me that's never been a huge issue though since I've never seen any two groups of people who play 40k exactly the same way, even at places like Adepticon.

The point is then it at least follows with a logical progression toward figuring out Matched Play instead of what should be "basic" rules like terrain being tucked away amidst "Advanced Rules", the detachment guidelines being tucked away pages away from where you're actually talking about detachments, and hidden little things like that.

Yeah i can agree to this a bit. it seems to be a pretty common theme for rules writers from England to make their rules books as convoluted as possible. not that the base game it self is bad its just hard to read at times
(mostly based on the shenanigans that was dwars)

then again after the first few romps 8th wasnt all that hard to figure out.

EditL I seriously hope GW puts out an Azyr for 8th. Azyr makes life pretty fething easy for aos games and at 1$ a month i cannot even complain.

Well I play random pick up games so obviously I need to bring the BRB, CA, every codex and every FW book so I can know the rules of every possible match up I could encounter.

Not to mention that GW don't print the FAQs in a book so every few weeks I need to get them professionally printed and bound into a book with gold edged parchment and a hardcover made of spanish leather with "FAQs" embossed onto it in gold leaf and decorated with rubies and diamonds.

AND THEY KEEP RELEASING FAQS EVERY FEW WEEKS. How can GW think this is okay!?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well I play random pick up games so obviously I nee dti bring the BRB, CA, every codex and every FW book.

Not to mention that GW don't print the FAQs in a book so every few weeks I need to get them professionally printed and bound into a book with gold edged parchment and a hardcover made of spanish leather with "FAQs" embossed onto it in gold leaf and decorated with rubies and diamonds.

AND THEY KEEP RELEASING FAQS EVERY FEW WEEKS. How can GW think this is okay!?

Guys guys guys! I found the one guy who buys the Collector's Edition books!

 daedalus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well I play random pick up games so obviously I nee dti bring the BRB, CA, every codex and every FW book.

Not to mention that GW don't print the FAQs in a book so every few weeks I need to get them professionally printed and bound into a book with gold edged parchment and a hardcover made of spanish leather with "FAQs" embossed onto it in gold leaf and decorated with rubies and diamonds.

AND THEY KEEP RELEASING FAQS EVERY FEW WEEKS. How can GW think this is okay!?

Guys guys guys! I found the one guy who buys the Collector's Edition books!

I did say EVERY codex. So that includes a collectors edition, standard and digital in case there's a minor misprint in one of the versions I can use to take advantage of the rules.

I do find that the game flows quicker up to about 1500 points. Any more than that and games slow down to the old pace. But I don't object to that. I don't want a game that is over too soon.

I do find that there are too many stratagems even within a single codex. Even with the decks/cards I rarely remember more than a couple during the course of play. There are three in the rulebook. All each codex needed was 6 more for that army. Easier to keep track of.

As for the special rules, I don't see this as a problem. You only need to remember the ones in your codex or more importantly, the ones you have the table in front of you. If you want to know what your opponent's units have, just ask them.

As for the number of books, I tend to have 3 with me. Rulebook, codex and chapter approved. If I need the rules for my renegade knight or chaos daemons, I'll bring that book then too. Not really an issue. 7th was much worse, especially if you were using units from one of several FW books.

What I mean by clunky isn't that the rules are too complex, but rather are inelegant, for example Space Marines Intercessors have Leadership 7, with the Sergeant increasing this to 8 for the unit. They also have 'And They Shall Know No Fear'. This results in 3 different pieces of information to remember for something as simple as how a unit responds to morale. It would be more refined to have Loyal Space Marines at Leadership 10, and would cut down on the number of dice being re-rolled.

I could be wrong, but I do suspect that Space Marines in 8th edition have far more re-roll abilities than they ever did in 7th.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well I play random pick up games so obviously I nee dti bring the BRB, CA, every codex and every FW book.

Not to mention that GW don't print the FAQs in a book so every few weeks I need to get them professionally printed and bound into a book with gold edged parchment and a hardcover made of spanish leather with "FAQs" embossed onto it in gold leaf and decorated with rubies and diamonds.

AND THEY KEEP RELEASING FAQS EVERY FEW WEEKS. How can GW think this is okay!?

Guys guys guys! I found the one guy who buys the Collector's Edition books!

I did say EVERY codex. So that includes a collectors edition, standard and digital in case there's a minor misprint in one of the versions I can use to take advantage of the rules.

Hey I just said that you buy the collector's edition. Never said you didn't buy the others. I guess you'd have to buy them in each printed language too, just to be on the safest side.

So what do those look like in person? I can only imagine you've never opened them because you immediately put them in dust sleeves to keep up that notoriously high super high resale value.

(Mostly off topic: Years ago (but after D&D 4th ed dropped) I actually bought the 3.5 Collectors Edition leather bound core books new on amazon years ago... because they were CHEAPER than the regular ones! )

The big difference is that exactly what you need to know about a rule is described where that rule is listed. No more of the "X rule gives Y unit Z special ability, which ignores A rule" and having to have all of that memorized if you want to avoid flipping pages between at a minimum two different books. With stratagems the most "complicated" stuff you get is "X stratagem only works with Y keyword".

GW pulled a sleight of hand, moving the more complex rules interplay from the base book to the datasheets.

I really think they did too much of a hack job trimming down the base rules themselves as well so that there is a lot more room for misunderstanding rules interactions.

To me, it really feels like GW did all it could to move the rules out of the way so it wouldn't get in the way of their making "great models". The rules are just there to give you something to do with the models and encourage you to buy X copies of them. Not to game for game's sake.

Fortykay is now more a board game.
No more maneuvering of tanks for shooting purposes.
Just deploy your units and move them up the board if necessary.
Too simplistic for my liking.

I think it's faster/simpler than 7th overall.

However, 40k still has a big problem with rules that add complexity but no actual depth.

There's a load of stuff like rerolls, extra attacks/shots, extra saves, stuff that happens on a roll of 6+ etc., but they're not conditional. Or, I should say, they're not conditional on any actual tactics. Yes, inflicting a Mortal Wound on a to-wound roll of 6+ is technically conditional, but it's basically just conditional on random chance.

Put simply, very few of the rules have any meaningful impact on how a unit plays or open up new tactical possibilities/rewards.

 stonehorse wrote:
Back when we heard that GW were trimming 40k down from the colossal rules bloat it had become during 7th edition, there was almost universally rejoicing from the community.

8 months into 8th edition, and I think GW are encroaching upon their old addiction to adding in rules. Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Artifacts, faction and sub faction rules. These have all added a lot of extra moving parts that it becomes hard to keep track of what is what. Never mind any additional rules brought to the table from the mission being played.

We were promised that 8th edition would be quicker, and honestly I am not seeing it. There may be no more Universal Special Rules, but special rules still exist, and are scattered in so many different areas, that trying to find them, or keep track becomes clunky and slows the game down. With so many rules scattered around it is only natural that rules will be missed during a game, which can lead to players feeling cheated or/and annoyed.

What puzzles me is why there is a need for special rules? Surely a system should exist that allows a stat line to help demonstrate how good, average, or poor a model is?

Ultimately, there is far too much having to flick through books to find scattered information for casual play, for those who play just 40k I can imagine it is fine, for those who play a wide variety of game systems it has become a nightmare.

I really like the setting, and the models are wonderfully imaginative, however I am still finding their rules to be needlessly convoluted and I've been playing since 2nd edition.
Am I alone in this line of thought, or are there others who are coming to the same conclusion?

I agree. All the special rules providing rerolls and more layers of saves could have been represented in the stats. Examples:
Disgusting resiliance-> higher toughness or better armour saves
They shall know no fear-> higher ld stat
Reroll charge-> higher movement stat
in fact all rerolls could be replaced by to modifiers or better be removed (command points come to mind).

One offender of the bloat is in my oppinion all the different regiments doctrines/chapter tactics. GW or the community should just remove/ignore these rules. They don't add any flavour and rarely makes sense. Flavour comes from unique models, paintjobs, army composition. Not reroll 1's or whatever special rules.

Gitdakka wrote:

I agree. All the special rules providing rerolls and more layers of saves could have been represented in the stats. Examples:
Disgusting resiliance-> higher toughness or better armour saves
They shall know no fear-> higher ld stat
Reroll charge-> higher movement stat

I think this is where the single d6 system really causes issues. You just don't have enough scope for what the designers are trying to do.

It kinda worked okay in 5th, but trying to represent individual guardsmen and stuff from apocalypse in the same system just doesn't work.

I think Warmachine is a good example of this done well. Using 2d6 gives them a much wider range of values - so the vast majority of defensive stats can be represented by increases to Def or Arm. What's more, these can then be used for buffs and debuffs, whereas in 40k you've got stuff like Invulnerable saves, FNP and Mortal wounds, which act completely independently of other defensive/offensive mechanics.

Gitdakka wrote:
One offender of the bloat is in my oppinion all the different regiments doctrines/chapter tactics. GW or the community should just remove/ignore these rules. They don't add any flavour and rarely makes sense. Flavour comes from unique models, paintjobs, army composition. Not reroll 1's or whatever special rules.

I disagree. Unique models are nice to look at, but when they play exactly the same as any other model you'll just be left wondering why you bothered spending all that effort on them.

Indeed, I think stuff like chapter tactics is a great way to let subfactions play slightly differently from one another and to encourage tactics that resemble those of the subfaction in question.

The problem is that actual bonuses often don't work out that way. Instead, you end up with odd things like melee subfactions trying to stay away from the enemy to make use of their '-1 to hit when more than 12+" away' feature. You also have the same problem I mentioned in my previous post, with most abilities not being conditional on any tactical play. That's what really needs to change, but it's by no means limited to subfaction rules.

I forgot about the occasional awkward cases regarding hit / wound allocation. It fortunately doesn't come up too often, but sometimes if a unit has variable defenses you end up being forced to resolve attacks one at a time as each attack can change the defenses the next attack encounters.

2 examples off the top of my head: assault terminators (very rare as nobody takes them) with a mix of THSS and claws, and Plaguebearers (more common) when there are about 23 or so and you hit them with massed small arms fire. Potentially a few shots can make them much easier to hit, and since the rules state that they are based on resolving one attack at a time and rolling for all the shots at once is just "quick play", its clear you must keep resolving the attacks individually.

I'm sure there are other cases I just can't think of right now.
<edit> oh yes, if just a few of your unit are outside the area terrain so potentially then may become inside it after a few casualties, one save at a time, please...)

I do like how it makes the guys out of cover the first to die though. That plays out quite cleverly, IMO.

I think 8th started off lofty but they quickly detracted for some reason. I find AOS to be way less bloated (but still getting bloated) than 40k, and find 40k to quickly bloating with every new release. They did not need to give stratagems to everybody, it should have been a common set with maybe a small handful of specialized ones at max. They did not need to add different rules that are almost exactly the same; this is something Warmahordes learned in the Mk1 to Mk2 transition; you don't need to have 5 different variations of "This unit can fly" each with a different name and 1 of them is worded a little different, it should just be "Fly". Instead GW is continuing the trend of repeating rules across models, sometimes changing the wording from what should be a direct copy/paste/replace. There does not need to be a dozen variations of "<Keyword> within 6" can re-roll 1s to hit".

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Its not that they are clunky, is that GW keeps forgetting what they made as rules, and then makes new rules for new stuff that screws everything over.

Case and point, Daemon codex letting Daemons deep strike, then forgetting the Magnus and Mort, both have the daemon key word. Or things like giving tzaangors heretic astartes, and forgetting there is a power that lets you zip them across the board turn one.

IMO 8th is more a rule bloat then 7th ever was, back in 7th i needed 1 book, 2 books max. My codex, and My Brb. Now i need the BrB, my codex for half my army, the other codex for the other half, the Chapter approved, and like 3 or 4 FAQs in order to keep up on the rules. 8th is fun, but its a mess, and its full of ambiguity.

Baloney.

7th was a dumpster fire of epic proportions. With digital media you should not need all those documents, and no one should complain if you don't have them if you have them in digital form.

The biggest issue in 8th seems to be the free for all approach to games. (2000 points is too much now that we have cost reductions across the board.) More people need to embrace staggered deployment methods as well since playing eternal war every mission gets tedious.

Wayniac wrote:
I think 8th started off lofty but they quickly detracted for some reason.

I think people just had far greater expectations for it than reality could muster. People treat 7th like a D where it was probably a low C and felt like 8th would be GW's A+ when in reality its more like a B-.

Quite honestly I like 8th. I think part of where people are finding it difficult to parse is that basically everything dies. Even regular games end looking like the aftermath of an Apoc game. And that's hard to get used to, especially if you play an army like Marines who are fluffed as being hard to kill.

That said, I like 8th. It's not perfect but it's still really good and if the team behind it does a good job with the FAQs and future expansions/beta rules it can get even better.

you dont even need to lug around the BrB if you got that little pamphlet

 vipoid wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
One offender of the bloat is in my oppinion all the different regiments doctrines/chapter tactics. GW or the community should just remove/ignore these rules. They don't add any flavour and rarely makes sense. Flavour comes from unique models, paintjobs, army composition. Not reroll 1's or whatever special rules.

I disagree. Unique models are nice to look at, but when they play exactly the same as any other model you'll just be left wondering why you bothered spending all that effort on them.

Indeed, I think stuff like chapter tactics is a great way to let subfactions play slightly differently from one another and to encourage tactics that resemble those of the subfaction in question.

The problem is that actual bonuses often don't work out that way. Instead, you end up with odd things like melee subfactions trying to stay away from the enemy to make use of their '-1 to hit when more than 12+" away' feature. You also have the same problem I mentioned in my previous post, with most abilities not being conditional on any tactical play. That's what really needs to change, but it's by no means limited to subfaction rules.

To me nice thematic models are a reward in it self. I don't need them to get "free reroll ones" or other bonuses because of their paintjob to make me feel satisfied.

Very few of the faction bonuses feel fair or logical. Some examples I don't feel make sense:
-Catachans have the best tank gun loaders
-Cadians being most accurate guardsmen while static
-Ultramarines can disengage to shoot
How do you motivate any of those?
Catachans fight in jungles, they should not have tanks even
Cadians should be all about heroic infantry pushes, not static gunlines
Ultramarines are a hit and run chapter?

Then those free bonuses that break the game:
-factionwide ignore cover rules
-Factionwide - 1 to hit

Tell me one subfaction rule that is cool or necessary, I can't think of one. I'm good with marines being marines and guardsmen being guardsmen. Easier to game balance and less rules to remember for you and the opponent.

Gitdakka wrote:
To me nice thematic models are a reward in it self. I don't need them to get "free reroll ones" or other bonuses because of their paintjob to make me feel satisfied.

Maybe I'm biased because I play DE. "Yeah, this HQ's wings look great. Pity we don't have a single HQ with any movement abilities."

If the paintjob is enough for you, great. I take little pleasure in converting/painting stuff that does bugger-all on the field.

Gitdakka wrote:

Very few of the faction bonuses feel fair or logical. Some examples I don't feel make sense:
-Catachans have the best tank gun loaders
-Cadians being most accurate guardsmen while static
-Ultramarines can disengage to shoot
How do you motivate any of those?

Didn't I already say this? I agree that many of the faction abilities are poorly designed, but I don't think that's an argument for just scrapping them. I mean, 40k isn't a great ruleset - it doesn't mean we should scrap it.

All we need is faction powers that have been better designed.

Gitdakka wrote:
Catachans fight in jungles, they should not have tanks even

I expect the idea is that you use it for Hellhounds (which they do use).

The issue is that they didn't make it unique to Hellhounds, so everyone just uses it for Battlecannons and such.

Gitdakka wrote:

Cadians should be all about heroic infantry pushes, not static gunlines

I thought Cadians were about static gunlines? I'll admit to not being an expert in their fluff though.

Gitdakka wrote:
Tell me one faction rule that is cool or necessary, I can't think of one.

'Cool' and 'necessary' are both entirely subjective in this context, making this a pointless question.

[Rant]Catachan's have tanks in the fluff. Since they are huge fans of bigger and bigger guns it makes sense. People get confused because they assume only rambo stereotypes are allowed in catachan fluff[/Rant]

I think 8th edition is a huge step in the right direction, but it has several points of rules wonkiness. Close Combat is a big right turn versus shooting, Line of Sight and Auras are ripe for rules arguments. There's also the D6 problem, which won't be addressed any time soon, but eventually will need to be if we are going to have so many stat modifiers.

Some people are calling for the complete removal of special rules, but I don't think they've thought it through. Why have more than 2 factions if the only difference is a point or two in stats?

The problem with a lot of the bonuses is that they take the unique characteristics of the thematic models for that group and apply them to the army so the army "fights like" those models. Unfortunately, this means that the thematic models are at their worst in those groups because in other groups those models get rules that let them do things they're not supposed to. It's really noticeably in Space Marines, where White Scar bikers are the worst bikers and Raven Guard is the ultimate static gunline.

 Jidmah wrote:
What army did not have a supplement, formations that were sold separately, campaign books with formations in them or FW models?

Edit: Oh, right. Sisters.

Apart from the FW models Dark Eldar.
Which was really lovely considering how most of the rule tweaks between 6th and 7th kicked them in the and the 7th edition codex did so again

Not that i'm about only being really effective if fighting Tyranids or foot melee marines....

Edit: I'm not counting the Ynarii stuff because mixing with craftworlds is

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly I like 8th. I think part of where people are finding it difficult to parse is that basically everything dies. Even regular games end looking like the aftermath of an Apoc game. And that's hard to get used to, especially if you play an army like Marines who are fluffed as being hard to kill.

That said, I like 8th. It's not perfect but it's still really good and if the team behind it does a good job with the FAQs and future expansions/beta rules it can get even better.

This.

8th edition needs a complete change of play style and I feel that some players just don't want that change. Accepting that units are going to get swept off the table is a major thing to consider and it is one of those elements that speeds up the game.

The edition hasn't even been out a year yet. We have to see where GW can take it.

8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

With 40k, notable issues in the previous editions included include: idiosyncracy between universal versus snowflake rules. This usually was the result of USRs being designed in a non-atomic form, so that certain rules were just copy-pasted for a minor minute detail.

As an example, the Imperial Guard Camo Cloak granted Stealth. Since Stealth applied to a unit so long as at least one model in the unit had it, this meant a Lord Commissar with cloak could grant Stealth to a 50-Guardsman blob. When the 6th ed codex came out, the Camo Cloak copypasted the entirety of the Stealth rules except for stating that only the *model* with the cloak got the specific save.

Now, had there been a Grants Unit[another USR] USR, you could have Stealth versus Grants[Stealth] without the need for a snowflake rule.

Likewise, non-atomic rules like "Slow and Purposeful" were not usable when creating other units. For example, Kataphractons didn't have Slow and Purposeful (cannot run or overwatch), but "Heavy Battle Servitor" (cannot run, may fire 2 weapons). Again, a snowflake exception.

And of course, sloppy ruleswriting led to situations like the Yncarnae getting access to Sanctic Daemonology despite being a Daemon and thus not allowed to use it! Oops. Or RAW situations like being able to take the Triumvirate of the Imperium but nominate one of the Geminae Superiors as your Warlord.

Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ntin wrote:
Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

Sure, give people the option to go digital. That's fine. But the day GW says it's digital only then that's the day I quit buying models. I don't think I'm alone in this. GW is already enough of an elitist hobby, what with it being so bloody expensive, they don't need to add a $400 tablet to the list of required materials. I think people who push for this are either grossly misinformed about the realities of life or they are undercover GW Grots sent to spread propaganda.

I swear whenever this topic comes up, I think half of you should just learn to shoot craps

Here's a simplified Fourtykay ruleset: You and your opponent pick a faction from the game. Roll one dice each. If you chose Spesh Marns or Necrobois, add 2 to this roll. If you chose Eldar or or Guard, add 1 to this roll. If you chose Orkz, subtract 1 to this roll. Highest roll wins!

Simple, quick, and you don't even need to paint anything

Eldarsif wrote:]I'd like to add that it would be awesome if GW would release unit cards like they have done for AOS. It would make the page flippin' less of an issue as you only keep the unit cards relevant to your current list.

You can crop out the data cards you actually use from the Codex, compile them in the document editor of your choice, print, and put them in a binder. Then you can organize and use them how you see fit.

dosiere wrote:8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

Moving away from d6 will just confuse the playerbase, so that's never going to happen for the actual game rules. But, in the past I did experiment with mapping 40k to a few 3rd party rule sets, and one did play pretty quick - it used only one die roll per squad, though, which doesn't have the awe of buckets of dice. I might dust off those old rules and make a theoryhammer post on it sometime. They were rather simple, but had some cutomization type stuff like what we had in the 3.5e guard or marine codex.

darkcloak wrote:Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

I have a tablet sitting around I bought some four years back for all of $150 that worked perfectly well for various PDF rulebooks and whatnot. 8" screen I think - not used it in ages.

I actually think 8th generally plays slower/seems clunkier for 3 reasons:
1. You don’t know everything anymore. Meaning that stuff like intuitively knowing what a plasma gun did is gone, cause every profile changed. So you look up more stuff, and you can’t just scan your opponent’s models and know what they do.
2. Tournament missions. The ITC missions have almost nothing in common with the book missions, and with the push to 100% progressive scoring with multiple primary and secondary objectives scored 3 times each turn the game slows down a lot.
3. Alternating deployment and 9” deepstrike. It’s significantly slower to deploy when a) you have to alternate rather than just laying all your models down at once and b) screens are a very real thing with danger close deepstrike/droppods no longer being allowed. So you have a lot more precise measuring and set up both in deployment and when stuff comes in.

 greyknight12 wrote:
3. Alternating deployment

That's a good point, actually.

Yeah, alternating deployment is a real pain in terms of time.

I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

Traditionally yes, but this was supposed to be "new" GW and a new direction for the game. It's just very quickly becoming unmanageable, and I fear the underlying reason is because GW's designers just are not capable enough to write a solid game.

Wayniac wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:
I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

Traditionally yes, but this was supposed to be "new" GW and a new direction for the game. It's just very quickly becoming unmanageable, and I fear the underlying reason is because GW's designers just are not capable enough to write a solid game.

It's not really anything to do with the game design and everything to do with codexes. As long as the game sticks to them it will get dragged down as they are one of the clunkiest ways to release rules.

I think the need for special rules comes from the limitations of the stat line, and have heard people refer to this as the Eldar problem: Eldar are not tough, nor should they be, but they are fast and as a result hard to hit. However the rules have no way to represent this, so a special rule that breaks or alters the core game rules is added to help reflect this.

That is all well and good till a force comes along who are meant to be the best at hitting, so another special rule is made to combat the one given to the Eldar.

This cycle continues, up until the game system breaks under the weight and interplay of Special rules.

There really aught to be more reliance upon stat line, and also a small pool of USR's, a few army wide special abilities, and the 3 stratagems that are the core. Half of them seem useless any way.

The problem with a reliance on stat-line is the d6 system.

There's only so much variance you can have with that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with a reliance on stat-line is the d6 system.

There's only so much variance you can have with that.

Most systems can't tolerate a ton of variance, even with more variable systems. This is largely because you get scenarios where a guy with lower stats vs a guy with higher stats stretches the bounds of the dice curve with a modifier either way breaking it. 1D6 is bad though; about as bad as you can get. The only really viable result is 3/4/5 with 2's and 6's being such a huge swing on the curve to break it pretty hard.

I did admire Warmachines 2d6 system, but that would be too slow to translate over into 40k. Shame as the 6 characteristics stat line was pretty damn good.

I am a strong advocate that 40k should have kept Initiative stat, but used it as a defense layer instead.

Something like the initiative value is what you need to hit, but add your BS modifier value to the hit roll, 6's always hit, 1's always fail.

Would mean changing the BS some what. Orks might have a negative for example.

 Infantryman wrote:
I swear whenever this topic comes up, I think half of you should just learn to shoot craps

Here's a simplified Fourtykay ruleset: You and your opponent pick a faction from the game. Roll one dice each. If you chose Spesh Marns or Necrobois, add 2 to this roll. If you chose Eldar or or Guard, add 1 to this roll. If you chose Orkz, subtract 1 to this roll. Highest roll wins!

Simple, quick, and you don't even need to paint anything

Eldarsif wrote:]I'd like to add that it would be awesome if GW would release unit cards like they have done for AOS. It would make the page flippin' less of an issue as you only keep the unit cards relevant to your current list.

You can crop out the data cards you actually use from the Codex, compile them in the document editor of your choice, print, and put them in a binder. Then you can organize and use them how you see fit.

dosiere wrote:8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

Moving away from d6 will just confuse the playerbase, so that's never going to happen for the actual game rules. But, in the past I did experiment with mapping 40k to a few 3rd party rule sets, and one did play pretty quick - it used only one die roll per squad, though, which doesn't have the awe of buckets of dice. I might dust off those old rules and make a theoryhammer post on it sometime. They were rather simple, but had some cutomization type stuff like what we had in the 3.5e guard or marine codex.

darkcloak wrote:Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

I have a tablet sitting around I bought some four years back for all of $150 that worked perfectly well for various PDF rulebooks and whatnot. 8" screen I think - not used it in ages.

I'll bet that rulebook is pretty clunky too! Don't test it out though...

ntin wrote:Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

Smart use of USRs would be nice as we could have clean and easy mechanics without having the melta rule explained for 20 different weapon profiles. MtG has lots of unique game mechanics on cards but it doesn't have to waste text on explaining your universal rules like First Strike or Rampage on every card its printed on. No reason why deepstrike, melta, relentless, rage, reroll charge, fearless, etc can't be USRs in the main rules.
Codex quantity bloat is another big problem but i think GW is in love with filling the calander with "releases" even though a lot of the small subfaction books feel more like checking boxes off than having any real effort put into them. Supplements are almost guaranteed to be rolling out once the dexes are gone through it won't surprise me if the book count need to play the "complete" game goes up.

greyknight12 wrote:I actually think 8th generally plays slower/seems clunkier for 3 reasons:
1. You don’t know everything anymore. Meaning that stuff like intuitively knowing what a plasma gun did is gone, cause every profile changed. So you look up more stuff, and you can’t just scan your opponent’s models and know what they do.
2. Tournament missions. The ITC missions have almost nothing in common with the book missions, and with the push to 100% progressive scoring with multiple primary and secondary objectives scored 3 times each turn the game slows down a lot.
3. Alternating deployment and 9” deepstrike. It’s significantly slower to deploy when a) you have to alternate rather than just laying all your models down at once and b) screens are a very real thing with danger close deepstrike/droppods no longer being allowed. So you have a lot more precise measuring and set up both in deployment and when stuff comes in.

Add to that the amount of auras in the game so making sure everyone is getting those aura buffs adds tedium to movement. In addition melee is easier to get into which is generally a slower paced process as you need to pile in, count the number of attacks into each unit they are locked in combat with, roll your hits, wounds, saves, etc and then remove casualties but each side does that for each round of combat. Blobs are effective these days so blob melee fights really drag on and aren't as simple to calculate as it is to roll for smaller elite units. More multi wound models also bog things down as you have to figure the number of damage done per attack and making sure you don't have multiple damage from a single attack spill over to another model (unless mortal wounds).

With increasing time, the entropy of the rule set (incl. codices, pt costs, special rules) will increase and make the game more and more confusing.
Then it might be hard to keep the overview has a whole.
In particular, when you play more than one army.

Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

The rules are fine, barring a few small things like terrain. The game works really well for casual play. Because of that, it seems that some competitive players who had a field day under the last three editions are trying to break the game and doing too well at doing so. So rather than not do that they blame GW and decry a rather good rules set for the rest of us.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

The rules are fine, barring a few small things like terrain. The game works really well for casual play. Because of that, it seems that some competitive players who had a field day under the last three editions are trying to break the game and doing too well at doing so. So rather than not do that they blame GW and decry a rather good rules set for the rest of us.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I feel they're fine too. I was more commenting that the supposed superiority I was seeing here about how "bad" GW is at rules is pretty unfounded considering the rather....slipshod attempts at rule changes I've seen.

The 40k fanbase is huge and fragmented however, and so fan rules can refer to anything from houserules as minor as "re-draw an impossible Maelstrom Objective" to tournament/mission-packs (ITCHammer versus Novahammer versus ETChammer), willfully ignoring a specific rule (Go To Ground in 5th edition required you to RAW turn models on their sides, which in theory could affect if you could see a unit via TLOS, but most players used a 'marker' instead due to not wanting to mess up their paintjob), to attempts to infer/resolve ambiguously-defined rules ("Does the Doom of Malan'tai count "Can a Manticore with Power of the Machine Spirit fire two Storm Eagle Rockets at once?" "When does a 40k battle actually start?", "Do abilities that resolve 'exactly like X phase' allow you to use Stratagems exclusive to that phase?", etc), to wanting to port the 40k setting to another system (Bolthammer/Beyond the Gates of 40k), to wanting to add an army from another setting (Codex: Covenant, Codex: Terrans, etc), to fan-wishlisting about one favorite faction, to an alternate proposal for a trouble mechanic (numerous variants of "No Soup For 40k!" abound) or flat-out core rewrites.

So Sturgeon's Law will apply given the sheer breadth of how many changes to the rules are out there.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The 40k fanbase is huge and fragmented however, and so fan rules can refer to anything from houserules as minor as "re-draw an impossible Maelstrom Objective" to tournament/mission-packs (ITCHammer versus Novahammer versus ETChammer), willfully ignoring a specific rule (Go To Ground in 5th edition required you to RAW turn models on their sides, which in theory could affect if you could see a unit via TLOS, but most players used a 'marker' instead due to not wanting to mess up their paintjob), to attempts to infer/resolve ambiguously-defined rules ("Does the Doom of Malan'tai count "Can a Manticore with Power of the Machine Spirit fire two Storm Eagle Rockets at once?" "When does a 40k battle actually start?", "Do abilities that resolve 'exactly like X phase' allow you to use Stratagems exclusive to that phase?", etc), to wanting to port the 40k setting to another system (Bolthammer/Beyond the Gates of 40k), to wanting to add an army from another setting (Codex: Covenant, Codex: Terrans, etc), to fan-wishlisting about one favorite faction, to an alternate proposal for a trouble mechanic (numerous variants of "No Soup For 40k!" abound) or flat-out core rewrites.

So Sturgeon's Law will apply given the sheer breadth of how many changes to the rules are out there.

Very true, but considering how bad the rules posted on here can be, I'm going to say GW has this down a lot better than the community as a whole does. Sure, there are parts that crop up that do get good house rules that everyone adopts, but those are far rarer than the amount of drek you can see.

Different fans want different things, and 40k does have a lot of fanboyism. Stuff like redrawing "impossible" Maelstrom objectives were common, while ITC Invisibility (WS/BS 1 instead of "Hit on 6s in melee/snapshots) was a fairly popular one even outside of ITCHammer. Since people generally dislike "Rerollable 2+ Invulnerable" or other systems that make it where a unit requires "roulette luck" to actually kill, there were different ways to handle it. Nova made it so that the "reroll" for an invulnerable save could not be better than a 4++, but I personally preferred that an Invulnerable Save could not be "improved" to better than a 3++ anyway.

And of course, the whole "Plasma explodes more at nighttime" is a base-breaker in its own right.

I've always felt that nothing damages a game as permanently as fans trying to balance the game in place of the developers. Even when they do a better job, it fragments the playerbase and puts the game in a state where the developers aren't designing for the game players are playing.

It's certainly beneficial in the short term, but when developers wise up and try to take back the reigns the loss of trust creates huge issues. Even if prior balance issues are resolved (see: LOWs and FW) entrenched assumptions that the game needs to be changed leads to players breaking the game from the start, then forcing new fixes on it to compensate for their own house rules.

It has its flaws but I'm not looking in my codex at "monstrous creature" grabbing my BrB, looking at the section then looking at the 5 Special rules which results in me flipping back and forth a couple times lol

 LunarSol wrote:
I've always felt that nothing damages a game as permanently as fans trying to balance the game in place of the developers. Even when they do a better job, it fragments the playerbase and puts the game in a state where the developers aren't designing for the game players are playing.

It's certainly beneficial in the short term, but when developers wise up and try to take back the reigns the loss of trust creates huge issues. Even if prior balance issues are resolved (see: LOWs and FW) entrenched assumptions that the game needs to be changed leads to players breaking the game from the start, then forcing new fixes on it to compensate for their own house rules.

To be fair though, part of the initial problem is that GW doesn't design the game for the game players are playing in the first place. GW designs the game so it fundamentally works for the type of games they do in the studio, it seems (this has been the case since at least 2nd edition): Very low-key and laid back, nobody really trying to powergame the other, not using any sort of metagame things like daisy-chaining/conga-lining or bubblewrapping.

The players, at least the most vocal, want something with the rules of Warmachine/MtG/X-wing where listbulding is the pinnacle of skill, and finding combos is what wins you the game, and want something suitable for high-level tournament play reminiscent of an e-sport with large cash rewards so you can show that you are the "best player in the world".

There is a fundamental disconnect there, and while catering to the latter would ensure better rules for the former, GW doesn't seem to care (or ever cared). I often wonder if it really that they don't care, or just don't see it as an issue because the idea is well that's not how you are supposed to play; you can, but then it's on you to balance it. I'm really not sure and I have been involved in this game since 1996. I don't think it's absolute incompetence like some people here say all the time. I'm not sure if it's laziness. I think it's just not caring to design a game that really caters to everybody. I mean after all GW seems to think their matched play rules are perfectly suitable for tournaments without much, if any, adjustment (see GT Heat although I think even those were modified a bit). Just people want more, so you have ITC trying to take the mantle of balancing the game in the style the vocal minority want, so there can be "world championships" and other things that IMHO do not belong in Warhammer because they miss the point of what the game is about and are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 fraser1191 wrote:
you dont even need to lug around the BrB if you got that little pamphlet

Except if you want to use missions, FOCs, strategems and various other rules that only come in the big book...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
you dont even need to lug around the BrB if you got that little pamphlet

Except if you want to use missions, FOCs, strategems and various other rules that only come in the big book...

The BRB missions are garbage compared to the CA2017 ones, there are literally 3 stratagems in the big book ("command re-roll, the interrupt one, and the auto-pass morale one, the latter two costing 2cp"), and the FOCs are easy as hell to remember. The only one I can't quite pick up off the top of my head is the Fortification one but I'm still fairly certain it's one fort for +0 CP like the Super-Heavy Auxiliary.

The strategems are also repeated in every datacard set.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
you dont even need to lug around the BrB if you got that little pamphlet

Except if you want to use missions, FOCs, strategems and various other rules that only come in the big book...

The BRB missions are garbage compared to the CA2017 ones, there are literally 3 stratagems in the big book ("command re-roll, the interrupt one, and the auto-pass morale one, the latter two costing 2cp"), and the FOCs are easy as hell to remember. The only one I can't quite pick up off the top of my head is the Fortification one but I'm still fairly certain it's one fort for +0 CP like the Super-Heavy Auxiliary.

Irrelevant. Just because you can remember them doesn't make my point any less valid. Many places will require you to have a rulebook. You can't just turn up and go "Honest guv, this is what comprises a Vanguard detachment.".

GW desperately need to release a mini rulebook, yes technically they have, but in typical GW fashion it was only in the super limited edition copy that cost like £300.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
you dont even need to lug around the BrB if you got that little pamphlet

Except if you want to use missions, FOCs, strategems and various other rules that only come in the big book...

The BRB missions are garbage compared to the CA2017 ones, there are literally 3 stratagems in the big book ("command re-roll, the interrupt one, and the auto-pass morale one, the latter two costing 2cp"), and the FOCs are easy as hell to remember. The only one I can't quite pick up off the top of my head is the Fortification one but I'm still fairly certain it's one fort for +0 CP like the Super-Heavy Auxiliary.

That's all well and good until someone remembers one of those rules differently.

Or when you need to know the exact words and not just the gist of the rule.

I mean, I can usually remember the rules for my entire codex (or at least the bits of it I actually use), but I still bring it along. Because if my opponent disputes something, I need to have the actual rule to show him. I can't just rely on 'I've got a good memory, just take my word for it, okay?'

If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

 LunarSol wrote:
If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

Are are TFG out there who will refuse to share, and if you're in a tourney you probably should have your own copy anyways. That said, having a BRB on hand isn't exactly a new thing. We've had to have one around as far back as I can remember.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

Are are TFG out there who will refuse to share.

Unless they are literally the only person you can play against why would you play someone like that?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

Are are TFG out there who will refuse to share.

Unless they are literally the only person you can play against why would you play someone like that?

Tournaments.

 LunarSol wrote:
If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

What if neither of you have them because you were both going with the pamphlet idea and relying on memory for the rulebook strategies and detachments?

Or is the plan to avoid taking your own BRB and just hoping that your opponent brought one even though you couldn't be bothered?

I mean, I'm fairly certain you can literally google the detachment contents, though not sure that flys at a tournament.

I feel silly saying it, but people seem to forget: every day gaming != tournaments.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, I'm fairly certain you can literally google the detachment contents, though not sure that flys at a tournament.

I feel silly saying it, but people seem to forget: every day gaming != tournaments.

While true that not every game is a tournament, I've always found it to be a good practice to bring every book I need or might need for my army. That includes the BRB because who know who actually bothers bringing one when you need it otherwise.

I'm no boy scout but being prepared is never a bad motto.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, I'm fairly certain you can literally google the detachment contents, though not sure that flys at a tournament.

I feel silly saying it, but people seem to forget: every day gaming != tournaments.

Not on Dakka me ol' son. In these parts people ONLY play tournaments. Casual play doesn't exist here.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, I'm fairly certain you can literally google the detachment contents, though not sure that flys at a tournament.

I feel silly saying it, but people seem to forget: every day gaming != tournaments.

While true that not every game is a tournament, I've always found it to be a good practice to bring every book I need or might need for my army. That includes the BRB because who know who actually bothers bringing one when you need it otherwise.

I'm no boy scout but being prepared is never a bad motto.

Me too, actually, and I used to bring my BRB to every game...

...before I lost it. And I don't know when I lost it, because I haven't needed or looked for it for months, until yesterday. Yesterday was when I looked for it in my 40k stuff bag, and couldn't find it. I think I may have lost it at the store's 40k Christmas Party, way back in December. It's been almost two months since, and before I've even noticed it was gone, and I play at least twice a week. And the reason I was looking for it? To remove it from my 40k stuff bag because I thought it'd lighten the load, because I haven't needed it.

I literally didn't notice it was gone, playing twice weekly. The BRB is utterly unnecessary to play the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, I'm fairly certain you can literally google the detachment contents, though not sure that flys at a tournament.

Are you talking about googleing it beforehand or when the disagreement comes up? If the former, I'm not seeing how it solves anything. Knowing you're right doesn't help unless you can actually back it up (since you're opponent is liable to be equally sure that he's the one remembering it correctly).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel silly saying it, but people seem to forget: every day gaming != tournaments.

Surprising as this might sound, disagreements aren't confined to tournaments.


Also, maybe I'm just old fashioned, but just trying to use the internet on my current phone is a nightmare. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to have to rely on it to solve a rules query in a reasonable time frame.

 vipoid wrote:

Also, maybe I'm just old fashioned, but just trying to use the internet on my current phone is a nightmare. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to have to rely on it to solve a rules query in a reasonable time frame.

You're old fashioned. I literally hold the phone up to my face, and then it comes on. I then say "Okay, google, show me the warhammer 40k detachments" and it shows me the warhammer 40k detachments.

My phone is a flip phone because it was super cheap and I could spend more money on my 40k projects. >_>

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My phone is a flip phone because it was super cheap and I could spend more money on my 40k projects. >_>

Jesus, lol. The company I work for dropped support for flip phones from it's IT department altogether. You're behind corporate bureaucracy lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My phone is a flip phone because it was super cheap and I could spend more money on my 40k projects. >_>

Jesus, lol. The company I work for dropped support for flip phones from it's IT department altogether. You're behind corporate bureaucracy lol.

Nah. I just wanted my phone to be cheap because all I use it for is to make calls. I buy minutes once a year and spent a whole $15 on the phone itself. I use it to make calls and prefer to use real books for rules because it's easier to flip back and forth through them as needed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My phone is a flip phone because it was super cheap and I could spend more money on my 40k projects. >_>

Jesus, lol. The company I work for dropped support for flip phones from it's IT department altogether. You're behind corporate bureaucracy lol.

Nah. I just wanted my phone to be cheap because all I use it for is to make calls. I buy minutes once a year and spent a whole $15 on the phone itself. I use it to make calls and prefer to use real books for rules because it's easier to flip back and forth through them as needed.

I prefer to use real books too but holy hell I need my phone. My workplace uses different phone apps to schedule meetings and communicate, my girlfriend video-calls me regularly, and I use it as VOIP with the discord app over the data so I don't have to use my home wireless for VOIP while gaming.

This all gets easier if you just switch to ebooks. I had a little tray with wheels I put my army on top of. I put a tablet on the middle shelf. Someone wants to know a rule, tablet and ebook come up and theeeere you go.

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
If your opponent is disputing BRB detachments and insisting you have the rulebook on hand to show them.... can't you just ask to borrow theirs?

What if neither of you have them because you were both going with the pamphlet idea and relying on memory for the rulebook strategies and detachments?

Or is the plan to avoid taking your own BRB and just hoping that your opponent brought one even though you couldn't be bothered?

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind. Frankly if the community is that ridiculously toxic its not worth my time to participate anyway. There are far better games to play in tournaments and far better ways to spend 3 hours than arguing with someone intent on winning via technicality. I expect better of my opponents and the rest of the community should too.

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

You can google those stratagems too. Let me try:

"okay google, show me the 40k default stratagems" gives you a link to the warhammer community article with a photograph of all 3 stratagems, their cost, and explains how to use them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

You can google those stratagems too. Let me try:

"okay google, show me the 40k default stratagems" gives you a link to the warhammer community article with a photograph of all 3 stratagems, their cost, and explains how to use them.

We've already had a conversation on how not everyone can just do that with their phone so let's not keep going down that rabbit trail.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

You can google those stratagems too. Let me try:

"okay google, show me the 40k default stratagems" gives you a link to the warhammer community article with a photograph of all 3 stratagems, their cost, and explains how to use them.

We've already had a conversation on how not everyone can just do that with their phone so let's not keep going down that rabbit trail.

Yes, yes, I know. There's a whole 5% of people out there that don't have google on their phones. But it shouldn't be crippling, it really shouldn't. The 40k community isn't going to come crumbling down over it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

You can google those stratagems too. Let me try:

"okay google, show me the 40k default stratagems" gives you a link to the warhammer community article with a photograph of all 3 stratagems, their cost, and explains how to use them.

We've already had a conversation on how not everyone can just do that with their phone so let's not keep going down that rabbit trail.

Yes, yes, I know. There's a whole 5% of people out there that don't have google on their phones. But it shouldn't be crippling, it really shouldn't. The 40k community isn't going to come crumbling down over it.

Your whole post is just ridiculous. Not everyone has a smart phone (some people don't get them because they don't need them or want to be locked into expensive plans) just like not everyone has a tablet. What works for you isn't a universal solution for everyone.

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

Okay, so my opponent gets to play without rerolls too. Cool beans.

Edit: The point is if someone is going to demand I have the book on hand to use a common knowledge feature they’d better have the book on hand to do the same. If someone honestly has the book on hand and won’t use it to resolve a dispute over something nobody really doesn’t understand, they are almost certainly TFG.

I play casual, burnt out my competitive nature playing tournaments from 3rd edition up until 5th. Now I just want to push models around making pew pew noises while rolling dice. The rules are scattered around too many places, and layed out in a fashion that is far from user friendly.

The main rule book also has a lot more than just 3 stratagems, a lot more. I think each of the narrative missions have 6 unique ones. So the BRB is needed, not everyone plays Matched play exclusively.

I don't even own a phone.
Not even a flip phone.

Yay for being part of the 5%...? Unless you want me to look the rules up on my landline, or something.

 stonehorse wrote:
I play casual, burnt out my competitive nature playing tournaments from 3rd edition up until 5th. Now I just want to push models around making pew pew noises while rolling dice. The rules are scattered around too many places, and layed out in a fashion that is far from user friendly.

The main rule book also has a lot more than just 3 stratagems, a lot more. I think each of the narrative missions have 6 unique ones. So the BRB is needed, not everyone plays Matched play exclusively.

I wouldn't call that needed anymore than I'd call the BRB worthless. There's definitely value in the content available, but if someone has set up a casual game looking to play a narrative mission and somehow neither has the BRB.... well, something went horribly wrong in the setup of a casual game.

 vipoid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If my opponent is going to be TFG and argue he doesn't know off hand the rules for "take 3 of a thing and an HQ for +1 CP" to try and get me DQ'd for not having a rulebook, I'll sure demand to see their rulebook that explains how battalion works in kind.

You keep bringing up detachments, but I never actually mentioned those.

If anything, it seems that you're far more likely to get into a rules disagreement relating to stratagems. I know there are only a few in the rulebook, but the reroll one is popular and the combat one is pretty easy to misread/misinterpret. Not to mention one of you could misremember the cost of a given stratagem.

But apparently any disagreement whatsoever makes your opponent TFG... even if you're the one who's wrong and you couldn't be bothered bringing the necessary rulebook.

The three stratagems are found in every set of data cards, the army specific ones and the general one. Therefore, missions and detachments are the only thing you actually need to bring the BRB for.

Considering that most events have pre-defined missions (ITC/campaigns) or use the CA missions or the eternal war cards, you don't need to bring the BRB for that either.

For detachments, you usually build your list before going to games and/or are using some sort of software to do so. The last time I saw someone build a list with pen&paper just before playing is 5+ years ago, so that's out as well.

The only reason to bring the BRB are narrative missions because they have bunch of additional rules that are both hard to remember and only found in the BRB.

So basically, you don't need the BRB at all unless you are specifically looking to play narrative missions, even if you phone is a pair of cans with a chord between them.

I also think that anyone who rejects new media has no right to complain about the number of books he needs to carry around. If you prefer to have your rules engraved on stone tablets, don't whine about needing a forklift to carry them around.
It's 2018 people, there are people starting the hobby now that have been born after smart phones became a normal thing. You are literally the old man refusing to get into an elevator because he prefers stairs.
You're free to take the stairs, but don't complain about them taking longer than the elevator.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I don't even own a phone.
Not even a flip phone.

Yay for being part of the 5%...? Unless you want me to look the rules up on my landline, or something.

Print out the battle primer and the warhammer community article with the 3 strategems. Done in 10 pages.