So i get the main rules are short and overly small. That's not my issue. The fact general rules in 4th and 5th kept most of the rules in the main rulebook and you could read through them and get what you were facing was nice. In 8th we don't have that.
There's a bunch of unit special rules for some units, psychic abilities (i don't have these sadly), crap ton of stratagems (a good 30 maybe in my army), sub-faction rules (10 in my army alone), wargear (2 full pages), warlord traits (2 pages), command abilities, auras, etc., etc. My issue is it feels like a lot to take in all at once and you have to read each codex just to know what your enemies can hit you with. This doesn't even take into the fact soup lists where people can mix the dumbest of each army with each other.
My issue is a lot of this feels very bloated. I wouldn't mind a big rulebook if 70%-80% of what the enemy could do was represented in some way in the main rulebook rather than needing to read like 16 codexes or at least 8 for a store meta just to see all the special rules each army can do. Not to mention some of the codexes don't seem to have the best layout.
I dunno maybe it's just me. What do you guys think?
Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.
I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.
No, its no where near as complicated. The only complicated thing is all the FAQ's etc, the actual game isn't. I just wish the rule book was more thought through, its terribly organised, the solved that problem with the codex's but not the rule book, the main rules book needs re-done.
Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.
40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
phydaux wrote: Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.
I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.
A thousand times this. If GW would commit to hiring proper people to write the rulebooks instead of badgers, 8th would be fixed in a week.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.
40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
phydaux wrote: Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.
I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.
A thousand times this. If GW would commit to hiring proper people to write the rulebooks instead of badgers, 8th would be fixed in a week.
If you have played 2nd edition, nothing is complicated lol They do need to bring back more of the special rules, rules for terrain stuff like that and they need to bring back templates. I like the rules for charging now but I think they need to bring back Initiatives, like if the enemy charges you they go first unless you have double their Initiative something like that would be cool as its stupid that an ork can out strike an eldar. Also the need to go back to the moral we had before, this new moral is total bs, the penalty for failing moral is far too devastating, especially when you sink so many points into multi-wound models.
My point is that it needs more Universal Special Rules in the main rulebook rather than spreading a million different things in each codex. It just feels like a layout issue to me.
Let's not start the USR argument in another thread
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.
This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.
jcd386 wrote: Let's not start the USR argument in another thread
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.
This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.
I'd like to see a 8.5 for Christmas at the latest.
meleti wrote: We need to get back to simple, uncomplicated rules sets, like 7th edition.
Well played!
I really think that Chapter Approved should contain an updated set of the core rules. Because if the last one was anything to go off of, I have ZERO reason to buy it, besides taking a picture of the updated points costs and throwing it into my Codex after printing it out. CA: 2017 had nothing in it I cared about except for a few "almost-ITC" missions.
That, or make a rules digest like what comes in the AoS 2.0 starter that is packaged with future Chapter Approved books. With how quickly 8th is changing, a yearly update is mandatory.
8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.
Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.
Thargrim wrote: 8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.
Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.
Its got a long way to go, but I agree so far its going well. There are big issues that need fixing, however.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.
I do prefer the days of 20-25$ softback codex books, back then I bought codexes for armies I didn't play...I just bought them for the artwork and lore (40$ is too much for me). Digital however...for tabletop gaming...I hate it. I can't count on my phone or whatever to stay charged long enough for a full gaming session. To me it's no less clunky, it might save storage space, but honestly I like buying physical things and items...thats what this hobby is about anyways using physical components on the table, otherwise we'd be playing digital versions of these games entirely, like BB2 which is a good game...but a totally different experience than handling the rules in person.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.
Couldn't agree more, selling them a 5-10 quid a go, I'd be happy to pay that. Free pdf's though I think, they can make their money on the codex's.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.
I do prefer the days of 20-25$ softback codex books, back then I bought codexes for armies I didn't play...I just bought them for the artwork and lore (40$ is too much for me). Digital however...for tabletop gaming...I hate it. I can't count on my phone or whatever to stay charged long enough for a full gaming session. To me it's no less clunky, it might save storage space, but honestly I like buying physical things and items...thats what this hobby is about anyways using physical components on the table, otherwise we'd be playing digital versions of these games entirely, like BB2 which is a good game...but a totally different experience than handling the rules in person.
I think options is the key, they should cater to everyone, so if people want to spend more then they can have the hardbacks. Softbacks are so much better, you don't need a hard back I don't see the point of them.
I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.
I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.
Thargrim wrote: 8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.
Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.
Warmaster was really good too. There was also no subfactions in that game, you could paint minis however you wanted and they still had the same rules. Even though warmaster had a lot more than 8 pages of rules it still felt way more streamlined as a game than 40k 8th ed.
Karol wrote: I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.
I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.
Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.
Karol wrote: I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.
I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.
Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.
@delvarius lol are you kidding? Rules does not equal fluff. Even if the rules would be changed all the fluff books about factions, conflicts, characters and anything else would remain unchanged. The armies are currently absolutely not as streamlined you could make them. Gw has made their design choice to add hundreds of special aura rules, subfactions in most codex, strategems etc. You can agree or disagree with that design, but to claim a more streamlined design is impossible is just silly.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.
40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.
You're confusing "complicated" and "deep". 40k is a very shallow game that seldom involves more a contest to see who can bring the most powerful list and roll the best dice, but it's also a very complicated game. It's a bloated mess of rolling to see how many dice you roll, obsessing over tiny details like the difference between a sword and an axe in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit in one shot, utter failure to use the USR concept to cover all of the countless versions of the same rule, pointless clutter like the stratagem mechanic, units full of special snowflake rules that don't really matter, etc. It's a textbook example of never using a single elegant rule when a half-page pile of incoherent nonsense will do the job. And it makes 40k an awful game to try to learn as a new player, you have to be incredibly dedicated to the idea to slog through learning all of the rules to finally be able to play a game.
I'd love to be able to pop into my local store and try a reintoductory game, but honestly, given how much the rules for everything have changed since any material was printed I'm very apprehensive that I've got half the rules wrong. I get the reasons for all the FAQs. But they don't make it easy to jump in.
Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.
It's when people feel like they HAVE to pile on Codex, Chapter Approved, Errata, etc. that things start to get clunky and unwieldy. If the game feels like it's getting to burdensome, chat with your friends and see if all the extra baggage is REALLY adding to the game or just dragging it down.
Likewise, I find having the rules on the datasheet a lot less confusing and time-consuming that having to consult the BRB or various parts of a Codex/Index midgame. (I'd like more standardization than the 100 forms of Deepstrike, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). It's a lot better than it has been in many an edition (since at least 3rd).
My son and I play with the rules pamphlet & indexes, and have been enjoying it very much (only keeping the points & datasheets current via Battlescribe). We avoid using Stratagems and don't keep up with the likes of CA or the Errata. That makes the game go a lot faster and more enjoyably than I've seen at the local FLGS.
Stormonu wrote: Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.
Or playing narratively, or playing casually. The idea that you can play 40k with just the free starter rules and an index is just laughably out of touch with reality. Even the casual/narrative players are going to want to use their fluffy chapter tactics rules and such. You are in a tiny minority here, probably because you play with your kid and get to choose how everything goes instead of playing at a store where your opponents will have bought more of the rules and not be amused if you try to tell them they're only allowed to use the index.
Karol wrote: I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.
I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.
Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.
@delvarius lol are you kidding? Rules does not equal fluff. Even if the rules would be changed all the fluff books about factions, conflicts, characters and anything else would remain unchanged. The armies are currently absolutely not as streamlined you could make them. Gw has made their design choice to add hundreds of special aura rules, subfactions in most codex, strategems etc. You can agree or disagree with that design, but to claim a more streamlined design is impossible is just silly.
They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies. They are as streamlined as you can make them, GW have streamlined enough.
You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
Stormonu wrote: Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.
It's when people feel like they HAVE to pile on Codex, Chapter Approved, Errata, etc. that things start to get clunky and unwieldy. If the game feels like it's getting to burdensome, chat with your friends and see if all the extra baggage is REALLY adding to the game or just dragging it down.
Likewise, I find having the rules on the datasheet a lot less confusing and time-consuming that having to consult the BRB or various parts of a Codex/Index midgame. (I'd like more standardization than the 100 forms of Deepstrike, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). It's a lot better than it has been in many an edition (since at least 3rd).
My son and I play with the rules pamphlet & indexes, and have been enjoying it very much (only keeping the points & datasheets current via Battlescribe). We avoid using Stratagems and don't keep up with the likes of CA or the Errata. That makes the game go a lot faster and more enjoyably than I've seen at the local FLGS.
Yeah its SOOOOOOOOOOOO simple and easy to play now, I hardly have to look at the rule book now, in 7th you had to have the rule book glued to your hand.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies.
What does exclusivity have to do with fluff? If you paint your models as Ultramarines, write up a bunch of fluff for your army, and always use themed lists appropriate for Ultramarines are you really going to say that the fluff isn't there and they aren't Ultramarines unless they get a special rule with the word "Ultramarines" in the title? There is plenty of room for streamlining, you just have to lose the unimaginative assumption that anything which doesn't have a specific rule named after it doesn't exist in the fluff.
I feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.
I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.
quentra wrote: it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe
Except when Battlescribe makes mistakes, as they have been known to do. There is no substitute for having a copy of your rules with you, and TBH I'm not going to play a game against you if you don't.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies.
What does exclusivity have to do with fluff? If you paint your models as Ultramarines, write up a bunch of fluff for your army, and always use themed lists appropriate for Ultramarines are you really going to say that the fluff isn't there and they aren't Ultramarines unless they get a special rule with the word "Ultramarines" in the title? There is plenty of room for streamlining, you just have to lose the unimaginative assumption that anything which doesn't have a specific rule named after it doesn't exist in the fluff.
Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay.
Streamlined =/= boring. In fact, a game with more elegant rules can be less boring because it allows the designer to focus on the core of what makes the game interesting and cut out all of the clutter. For example, X-Wing is much simpler than 40k in terms of word count for its rules, but it's also a much deeper game with much more interesting battles of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that if GW simplifies the rules than the fluff will be damaged. That requires a belief that anything not explicitly given a rule no longer exists. So, if GW removes the <CHAPTER> keyword and associated chapter tactics and goes back to having all marines have the same rules your Ultramarines will no longer be Ultramarines. Without that belief there is plenty of room for improving the game by removing rules, as those rules are not essential for having the fluff.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
FUR? Whoa, let's not give PETA another opportunity to have a go at the hobby. SWs were bad enough.
quentra wrote: I feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.
I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.
Tournament? 10h is nothing for current age.
Besides BS isn't replacement for rules seeing all the errors it has. If somebody relies only on BS then I won't play vs them. Simple as that.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
FUR? Whoa, let's not give PETA another opportunity to have a go at the hobby. SWs were bad enough.
10/10 name , do you need a hearing assist?
But no seriously, an online free availabilty for the rules that actually get updated would seriously make the game way more approachable and would make for a great service for their fans.
On the other hand GW can't sell you the same min. 3 books sooooo there will be happening nothing in that regard, even tough it would greatly help the game and it's community.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay.
Streamlined =/= boring. In fact, a game with more elegant rules can be less boring because it allows the designer to focus on the core of what makes the game interesting and cut out all of the clutter. For example, X-Wing is much simpler than 40k in terms of word count for its rules, but it's also a much deeper game with much more interesting battles of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...
That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that if GW simplifies the rules than the fluff will be damaged. That requires a belief that anything not explicitly given a rule no longer exists. So, if GW removes the <CHAPTER> keyword and associated chapter tactics and goes back to having all marines have the same rules your Ultramarines will no longer be Ultramarines. Without that belief there is plenty of room for improving the game by removing rules, as those rules are not essential for having the fluff.
It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.
jcd386 wrote: Let's not start the USR argument in another thread
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.
This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.
I'd like to see a 8.5 for Christmas at the latest.
we'll see chapter approved 2018, not a 8.5 rulebook
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.
I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.
Stormonu wrote: Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.
Or playing narratively, or playing casually. The idea that you can play 40k with just the free starter rules and an index is just laughably out of touch with reality. Even the casual/narrative players are going to want to use their fluffy chapter tactics rules and such. You are in a tiny minority here, probably because you play with your kid and get to choose how everything goes instead of playing at a store where your opponents will have bought more of the rules and not be amused if you try to tell them they're only allowed to use the index.
No, he’s right. You can absolutely play Indexhammer and have fun. We did for ages. Works just fine. Because fewer people do it doesn’t invalidate it... same as with your other favourite, using Power Level. Do stop telling other people how they’re allowed to play their games.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.
I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.
I highly doubt that. Imagination isn't a good substitute for a bare bones, boring gakky game. Plus you can't do that with 40k. X-wing is a few fighter ships shooting at each other, it can't have the minutia of an army vs army. X-wing is move and shoot, there are not where near the same amount of dynamics. Same with fluff, how much fluff can you really incorporate in ship to ship fighting Imperials vs rebels, even 40k space battles would be a 1000 times better.
Given your statement that "you couldn't pay me to play X-Wing" what exactly is your reason for holding this belief? How can you know enough about a game you have never played to say that it isn't a deeper and more interesting game? It sure seems like the only possible reason is blind faith in GW and assuming out of ignorance that nobody else could possibly do better.
Given your statement that "you couldn't pay me to play X-Wing" what exactly is your reason for holding this belief? How can you know enough about a game you have never played to say that it isn't a deeper and more interesting game? It sure seems like the only possible reason is blind faith in GW and assuming out of ignorance that nobody else could possibly do better.
I've seen it played, looks gak. I have no blind faith in GW.
X-Wing is not better because of imagination, it's deeper and more interesting because its rules are better. The tactical decisions made by the players are much more complicated and involve much more interaction compared to 40k's superficial "line up your models and roll dice" gameplay. In fact, it's 40k that depends on imagination to cover up its poor gameplay. X-Wing would be an interesting game even if it was just cardboard tokens and abstract stat lines, with no fluff at all. 40k without its fluff and pretty models would be a complete waste of time and nobody would ever play it.
X-Wing is not better because of imagination, it's deeper and more interesting because its rules are better. The tactical decisions made by the players are much more complicated and involve much more interaction compared to 40k's superficial "line up your models and roll dice" gameplay. In fact, it's 40k that depends on imagination to cover up its poor gameplay. X-Wing would be an interesting game even if it was just cardboard tokens and abstract stat lines, with no fluff at all. 40k without its fluff and pretty models would be a complete waste of time and nobody would ever play it.
I do. But that's hardly an impressive response to my argument. Do you actually have any substance to offer to the discussion, or just increasingly desperate attempts to shut it down and reject any possibility that 40k isn't a good game?
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.
I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.
Totally agree with this.
The fluff of an army in game can 100% come from what you run in your army, and not the special Chapter rules tacked on that are not balanced between each other and make your fluff based Imperial Fists army or Black Templars a dang joke.
Stratagems are cool I guess, or, you could have had a far less gimmicky system than Command Points that rewards some armies far more than others. And the Stratagems? They feel like a "Get out of jail free" card for incompetent rules writing by trying to boost a unit(s), but the issue is that the Stratagems are just as poorly worded as the rest of the rules, so mess that up too.
If they had spent less time on making gimmick game additions like Stratagems, special snowflake Chapter (Sept, Regiment, and so on...) rules, and trying to come up with new ways to call the same rule different things across every book.... Than they could have just made a game that has good rules from the start instead of tacking on additional crap rules through the dozens of FAQs and Chapter Approved: 2017.
If the Marine book didn't have any Chapter traits, and was just well written instead, with more than just Guilliman and some Forgeworld Dreads holding up the Codex, you could build a fluff based army for almost any Chapter and play it without being ashamed or auto losing.
-Imperial Fists: Bring an extra Devastator squad, and a Vindicator or two. There's your siege experts.
-Ultramarines: Build an army that strictly follows the Codex. Too easy.
Salamanders: Bring mainly Flamers and Melta weaponry in your army. Also too easy.
-Iron Hands: Bring a few more Dreads than the Codex would normally have you field by using basic Dreads and Venerable Dreads, and vehicles. Also too easy.
The fluff for ANY army can be reproduced by just the army composition you take and doesn't require silly special rules that are not balanced against each other, creating vastly superior Chapters. Same with the weapon options, if there were not clear losers with the weapon options, running a Flamer or Melta heavy Marine army wouldn't be such a liability.
I do. But that's hardly an impressive response to my argument. Do you actually have any substance to offer to the discussion, or just increasingly desperate attempts to shut it down and reject any possibility that 40k isn't a good game?
I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol. I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.
I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol.
You're again showing your ignorance of game design. Simplification does not mean tastelessness, nor does it prevent the game from being deeper. Depth comes from good design and multi-layered strategic interactions, not from word count in the rules. Simplifying the rules allows the designer to focus on the core interactions that make the game deep and interesting without getting lost in clutter like having different rules for swords and axes in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit with a single shot regardless of which melee weapon it has. What GW is doing is compensating for a lack of depth by adding tons of word count to the rules. It makes it seem deeper because you have to learn all those rules and you're rolling tons of dice for different things, but once you get out of that learning stage there isn't much to the game and a lot of the rules do very little besides adding word count.
I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.
Yes, you are clearly more knowledgeable about the game than I am. Seeing it played is clearly giving you a better understanding than all the countless hours I've spent playing the game. I couldn't possibly know more about how the game works than you, certainly not...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.
Is it my fault that X-Wing is the relevant comparison here? FFG does a better job than GW, and GW should learn from it. And it's ridiculous to claim that a simpler game can't be deep or interesting when X-Wing exists as an obvious counter example.
SHUPPET wrote: I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol.
You're again showing your ignorance of game design. Simplification does not mean tastelessness, nor does it prevent the game from being deeper. Depth comes from good design and multi-layered strategic interactions, not from word count in the rules. Simplifying the rules allows the designer to focus on the core interactions that make the game deep and interesting without getting lost in clutter like having different rules for swords and axes in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit with a single shot regardless of which melee weapon it has. What GW is doing is compensating for a lack of depth by adding tons of word count to the rules. It makes it seem deeper because you have to learn all those rules and you're rolling tons of dice for different things, but once you get out of that learning stage there isn't much to the game and a lot of the rules do very little besides adding word count.
I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.
Yes, you are clearly more knowledgeable about the game than I am. Seeing it played is clearly giving you a better understanding than all the countless hours I've spent playing the game. I couldn't possibly know more about how the game works than you, certainly not...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.
Is it my fault that X-Wing is the relevant comparison here? FFG does a better job than GW, and GW should learn from it. And it's ridiculous to claim that a simpler game can't be deep or interesting when X-Wing exists as an obvious counter example.
Well that is certainly an insightful and constructive post. I'll take this as your concession that you have no argument besides blind loyalty to GW and stubborn refusal to accept that 40k is flawed.
Well that is certainly an insightful and constructive post. I'll take this as your concession that you have no argument besides blind loyalty to GW and stubborn refusal to accept that 40k is flawed.
X-Wing isn't all that simple, it has just a focus on ship to ship battles fighter /fighter etc.
It does that comparatively well, that i have to admint.
Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat. That alone makes the game more complex to beginn with, that beeing said, Gw did a gak job even at streamlining, either streamlining to much or simply making rules that bypass the streamlined rules, ergo making the game in certain aspects highly annoying.Heck assult guns can't even fire after advancing in their own core rulebokk if you follow RAW, if that does not prove that GW has 0 idea sometimes about rulewriting then i don't know what else.
Also certain faction keyword buffs like -1bs etc seriously could've just been done via the normal rulebook, instead i now have 10 times the same gak rule in 10 diffrent codex with 10 diffrent names.
Bonus points for GW messing up copy and pasting which also happened.
Not Online!!! wrote: Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat.
It really isn't. 40k has models of infantry and tanks and aircraft, but rules-wise they're all the same. There's no meaningful conceptual difference between an IG Thunderbolt and a Raven Guard Predator, except that one has a minimum movement distance that never really matters. Both have a similar stat line, both have a -1 penalty against incoming fire, both can shoot in all directions, etc. The tank and the fighter jet are just two different aesthetic options. And 40k doesn't incorporate any combined-arms strategy. Infantry can deliver high-end firepower, tanks can hold objectives, spotting and suppressing fire and such don't matter at all. From a strategic point of view which unit type you take depends entirely on calculating the math of how efficient it is for its point cost, not combined arms tactics. Some armies have tanks as their most overpowered option, some have infantry.
The rule set is rather small compared to previous editions.
But you need a bunch of books (codices, FAQs) to keep track of all the rules of your (soap) army. This is never a good thing.
Well the argument that something is better then in the past, matters only if the past wasn't that bad. If a day before someone got beaten up fourt imes, and then today only got beaten twice, his day was technicly 50% better.
Plus it is not just X-wing, most of the WWII games have a rules et al ot less complicated then warhammer 4000. And their play is much requires a lot more tactics, then zerging opponents turn 1, or having a list that plays soliter.
Not Online!!! wrote: Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat.
It really isn't. 40k has models of infantry and tanks and aircraft, but rules-wise they're all the same. There's no meaningful conceptual difference between an IG Thunderbolt and a Raven Guard Predator, except that one has a minimum movement distance that never really matters. Both have a similar stat line, both have a -1 penalty against incoming fire, both can shoot in all directions, etc. The tank and the fighter jet are just two different aesthetic options. And 40k doesn't incorporate any combined-arms strategy. Infantry can deliver high-end firepower, tanks can hold objectives, spotting and suppressing fire and such don't matter at all. From a strategic point of view which unit type you take depends entirely on calculating the math of how efficient it is for its point cost, not combined arms tactics. Some armies have tanks as their most overpowered option, some have infantry.
Yeah you can have lots of different rules when there are a handful of models on the table, try having unique rules for every single unit in the system in a 2000 point game. You couldn't do that, you wouldn't even be able to memorise all that, you'd need the codex/rules every time you use a unit you obviously never played 2nd edition. You like x-wing great but to think you can apply that to 40k is absurd. You can't apply x-wing to 40k, they are far too different.
But units in 40 are mostly tokens. It doesn't really mater that much if you would have one big base for 10 marines with 10w or a squads of separate 10 models. The only thing that happens, because of number of models in warhammer is slower game play and more random spread of rolls. Which in the the end means that the really good armies are able to ignore the random, with stats or rules. w40k is mostly a target priority game and some random rolling, while for other games you have to do more specific stuff, like throw smoke so your med trooper gets to heal your downed LMG dude. Most of the combos I have seen in w40k are unintentional.
Karol wrote: But units in 40 are mostly tokens. It doesn't really mater that much if you would have one big base for 10 marines with 10w or a squads of separate 10 models. The only thing that happens, because of number of models in warhammer is slower game play and more random spread of rolls. Which in the the end means that the really good armies are able to ignore the random, with stats or rules. w40k is mostly a target priority game and some random rolling, while for other games you have to do more specific stuff, like throw smoke so your med trooper gets to heal your downed LMG dude. Most of the combos I have seen in w40k are unintentional.
If you take away individual movement then all you have is a large scale game of Epic. That would be gak. Epic was fun because you could literally field a whole chapter, which made that game interesting, big armies with titans you could forgo individual movement.
My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quentra wrote: I feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.
I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.
I played an entire tournament yesterday without opening a book. I printed out everything and played.
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quentra wrote: I feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.
I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.
I played an entire tournament yesterday without opening a book. I printed out everything and played.
You have kind of hit the nail on the head about why right there.
You can teach the game to a 5 year old.
I dont think this game is too complicated, it requires too many books sure, but its the LACK of complexity that I dont like about 8th, its too simple, not dumbed down per say, but lacks the complexity I enjoy in a wargame, thats why I am mainly a 30k player, for all of 7ths faults I still think its a better system (for me).
I am hopeful though that 8th will turn into the game I enjoy, a few changes to how vehicles work and other issues and I will come back... or if they bloody fix Deathwing!
Not Online!!! wrote: Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat.
It really isn't. 40k has models of infantry and tanks and aircraft, but rules-wise they're all the same. There's no meaningful conceptual difference between an IG Thunderbolt and a Raven Guard Predator, except that one has a minimum movement distance that never really matters. Both have a similar stat line, both have a -1 penalty against incoming fire, both can shoot in all directions, etc. The tank and the fighter jet are just two different aesthetic options. And 40k doesn't incorporate any combined-arms strategy. Infantry can deliver high-end firepower, tanks can hold objectives, spotting and suppressing fire and such don't matter at all. From a strategic point of view which unit type you take depends entirely on calculating the math of how efficient it is for its point cost, not combined arms tactics. Some armies have tanks as their most overpowered option, some have infantry.
Yeah, I mean it's not like the flyer: 1) can only pivot 90 degrees before moving. 2) Must move, and therefore suffers -1 to hit, while a predator can stay still (hardly "never really matters" when you're 25% less effective out the gate) 3) Can fall back from an assault and still shoot 4) Can't be assaulted except by other models with Fly 5) Can't charge 6) Can't hold/score an objective, ever.
Oh, and the Predator doesn't get -1 to hit because Space Marine chapter tactics don't apply to their tanks.
But yeah, those are all minor differences, amirite? I mean, it's not like my Slaanesh army can silence a predator just by putting a Fiend in base contact with it all game, while a Thunderbolt would be a huge, near insurmountable threat vulnerable only to smite and a single winged daemon prince. There's absolutely no difference at all.
But units in 40 are mostly tokens. It doesn't really mater that much if you would have one big base for 10 marines with 10w or a squads of separate 10 models. The only thing that happens, because of number of models in warhammer is slower game play and more random spread of rolls. Which in the the end means that the really good armies are able to ignore the random, with stats or rules. w40k is mostly a target priority game and some random rolling, while for other games you have to do more specific stuff, like throw smoke so your med trooper gets to heal your downed LMG dude. Most of the combos I have seen in w40k are unintentional.
I don't agree at all, I have seen many games of 40k being decided by few misplaced models. The difference becomes very obvious when watching a game where one person is careful about their movements and the other isn't, it's huge.
To offer a compromise between X Wing and 40k, have either if you played Battlefleet Gothic?
It's freaking awesome!
It's very much following the fluff of 40k, but has super fun ship to ship combat. The models are impossible to find now, but they're littlarry just eye candy. I made base templates (with orientation markers, ship names etc), printed them on cardstock, and played the game. Would I like to have a proper Necron fleet? Hells yes! But it makes due for now.
It's really not at all a complicated game; it just makes us all hide too much information in our little book of secrets, which makes opposing armies feel complicated when we're trying to learn them all mid game. Nothing in the game is really all that complicated or hard to remember; we're just mostly exposed to it at the point when we should already know what enemy models do in the game.
Grimdakka wrote: I think 9th edition will be near-perfect, just like how 4th edition was the best version of 3rd edition.
Hi-five!!! 4th really was excellent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I won't touch 8th edition because it's not complex enough. I miss older rules that we're scrapped. As do the majority of my friends.
If it gets even more dumbed down I will toss my models.
When I was a kid around 13 the rules were easy to remember and understand, I don't think that I would enjoy playing with someone who isn't litterate enough to memorize most of the rules they play with.
I'm not a fan of more people playing if it means that it becomes less tactical.
I'm currently disgustied with the stupidity of it being overly simplistic, it's already easy to understand for competent children.
We don't need to make it more accessible for people that aren't litterate.
phydaux wrote: Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.
I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.
Poorly organized rulebooks has been the bane of the hobby since I started. Having to remember where they have this or that special rule, is it before the lore, before the profiles, after the unit profiles but before the weapon summary? The BRB was written out decently in I think last edition. Fluff for first half, rules for second, but this new book... gak it's all over the place.
But theres the money.
Or companies think there it is, look at rts games on PC, and the dumbing down there.
8th ed difficulty compared to what they did with C&C is like monecular genetics compared to the 1x1
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.
I do prefer the days of 20-25$ softback codex books, back then I bought codexes for armies I didn't play...I just bought them for the artwork and lore (40$ is too much for me). Digital however...for tabletop gaming...I hate it. I can't count on my phone or whatever to stay charged long enough for a full gaming session. To me it's no less clunky, it might save storage space, but honestly I like buying physical things and items...thats what this hobby is about anyways using physical components on the table, otherwise we'd be playing digital versions of these games entirely, like BB2 which is a good game...but a totally different experience than handling the rules in person.
I cannot agree more. Although I'm sure that I've just developed an addiction to "codex air", and flipping through the books mid-game gets me that fix.
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 8th is like the most popular edition of 40k of all time and is a massive success, people have reacted very positively to the changes at all levels of the game. There is a vocal minority you hear screaming about how it's no good, rest assured you will never see these people happy about it. They play the game to complain.
As much as I love Battlescribe, a codex in hand is worth 2 on the phone.
I wouldn't say it's becoming more complicated, they're just fixing holes & cost adjustment for the game to run even remotely close to balance.
I taught the basics of the game to my 4 year old nephew and he picked up to hit/wound/save mechanic pretty easily. Other than that he basically understands the game and has had fun the 2 times we've played so far.
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 8th is like the most popular edition of 40k of all time and is a massive success, people have reacted very positively to the changes at all levels of the game. There is a vocal minority you hear screaming about how it's no good, rest assured you will never see these people happy about it. They play the game to complain.
8th is the most popular edition ever eh? Can you prove that ?
A massive success ? Can you prove that? Can you prove that as the only marketed edition that is purely down to the rules?
People have reacted positively to the rules? Well that’s demonstably false, reactions have been mixed, leaning to the positive, but certainly not “at all levels of the game”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
We want a better game, we want the issues to be ironed out and to quote myself
“I Think 8th will eventually be the game I want to play, I feel like it’s still in the beta stages and given time it will develop into a good and well rounded game, then I will come back to it”
Hardly the screaming of a person who “plays to complain”
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 8th is like the most popular edition of 40k of all time and is a massive success, people have reacted very positively to the changes at all levels of the game. There is a vocal minority you hear screaming about how it's no good, rest assured you will never see these people happy about it. They play the game to complain.
This is horrible to someone that wants a tactical game.
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 8th is like the most popular edition of 40k of all time and is a massive success, people have reacted very positively to the changes at all levels of the game. There is a vocal minority you hear screaming about how it's no good, rest assured you will never see these people happy about it. They play the game to complain.
8th is the most popular edition ever eh? Can you prove that ?
A massive success ? Can you prove that? Can you prove that as the only marketed edition that is purely down to the rules?
People have reacted positively to the rules? Well that’s demonstably false, reactions have been mixed, leaning to the positive, but certainly not “at all levels of the game”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
We want a better game, we want the issues to be ironed out and to quote myself
“I Think 8th will eventually be the game I want to play, I feel like it’s still in the beta stages and given time it will develop into a good and well rounded game, then I will come back to it”
Hardly the screaming of a person who “plays to complain”
Going by the metric of their incredible economic success, record profits and gigantic boost in the value of their shares, I'd say for GW it is far and away the most successful edition. It's got more players and is generating more revenue than any previous edition. If by 'success' you mean 'do I enjoy it', that's up to each person's preferences and is at the end of the day pretty meaningless.
I really enjoyed 8th edition when it was just the Index books because everything felt balanced towards each other. Since the release of the codex books there has been codex creep but overall it has made the game better. You do need a level of complexity in a war game otherwise it is boring. Has 8th become too complex again? Absolutely not! I would go so far as to say it is about right for what it should be. We don't want a return to 7th but likewise we don't want too simple. 8th edition is a good system that just needs GW to make certain tweaks.
Thargrim wrote: 8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.
Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.
This is actually kind of what i meant to begin with.
sfshilo wrote: My five year old son can play 8th ed. There is no way he could play 7th.
He can also play X-wing, but we don't play any of the cards, FAQ rules, and other more complicated rules.
Battletech Alphastrike is also easy for him to play.
My point is I know of THREE games that have rulesets I can explain to a 5 year old. 8th ed is one of them. I have no idea where all this vitriol lately against 8th is coming from, it blows my mind honestly.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. 8th is like the most popular edition of 40k of all time and is a massive success, people have reacted very positively to the changes at all levels of the game. There is a vocal minority you hear screaming about how it's no good, rest assured you will never see these people happy about it. They play the game to complain.
8th is the most popular edition ever eh? Can you prove that ?
A massive success ? Can you prove that? Can you prove that as the only marketed edition that is purely down to the rules?
People have reacted positively to the rules? Well that’s demonstably false, reactions have been mixed, leaning to the positive, but certainly not “at all levels of the game”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
We want a better game, we want the issues to be ironed out and to quote myself
“I Think 8th will eventually be the game I want to play, I feel like it’s still in the beta stages and given time it will develop into a good and well rounded game, then I will come back to it”
Hardly the screaming of a person who “plays to complain”
Going by the metric of their incredible economic success, record profits and gigantic boost in the value of their shares, I'd say for GW it is far and away the most successful edition. It's got more players and is generating more revenue than any previous edition. If by 'success' you mean 'do I enjoy it', that's up to each person's preferences and is at the end of the day pretty meaningless.
Given they have never marketed before, how incredible is that success really, all we can say is that advertising works, a real shocker there, we don’t know how popular previous Ed’s could have been if the had had the same level of marketing rather than a CEO that appeared to be anti consumer.
Has it got more players? Maybe, maybe not, how many were driven away by the aforementioned anti consumer practices, how many have returned, why have they returned, how many are new? The only answer we ever get is “lots” cos “reasons” truth is we don’t know, so it’s disengenuous to claim we have more players than ever, when we don’t even know how many we have had each ED, we also lack info on the cost to profit ratio (as they don’t do a proper earnings breakdown every quarter).
Long story short we don’t actually know what is causing the upsurge in popularity for 8th, I put it down to excellent marketing of a mediocre ruleset and a softening of the anti consumer nature GW has been notorious for, long may it continue and again, I hope they continue to flesh out the lacklustre rules in some important areas.
And yes it’s generating more revenue that previous Ed’s... but it’s also a lot more expensive than previous Ed’s,
LunarSol wrote: It's really not at all a complicated game; it just makes us all hide too much information in our little book of secrets, which makes opposing armies feel complicated when we're trying to learn them all mid game. Nothing in the game is really all that complicated or hard to remember; we're just mostly exposed to it at the point when we should already know what enemy models do in the game.
This is very true.
Back in maybe 4th or 5th you had maybe a page of USR in the BRB and they'd be present in all the books in some way. Sure they would have other rules but it generally wasn't as big a change in my eyes.
For instance some sub-factions that allow people to double shoot if they stand still or advance and charge with re-rolls to charge and on and on. Some of these rules are fairly big and fairly game-changing and if i haven't read your codex i won't know you can do that esp. with the 4 pages of stratagems.
Then there's the issue of book layout that someone mentioned. I dunno who designed the layout of the book but they should've been fired.
Perhaps i'm also just not used to how 8th ed 40k handles things. It's miles better than 7th no doubt but as i said it seems to be ramping up the rules bloat.
Formosa wrote: Given they have never marketed before, how incredible is that success really, all we can say is that advertising works, a real shocker there, we don’t know how popular previous Ed’s could have been if the had had the same level of marketing rather than a CEO that appeared to be anti consumer.
Has it got more players? Maybe, maybe not,
That you can claim this is baffling. Yes, it's not like we've got a checklist to know down to the man but there's no way we have less players than any previous edition. It doesn't matter who they are, whether they left or came back or why they play, nor does it matter that the rules are kinda crap (my own view incidentally, it's just not too crap to stop me playing), GW is selling stuff through the roof. I doubt the player base has remained he same and suddenly we're seeing tens of thousands of people starting 2nd and 3rd armies. We're seeing tens of thousands of new players.
Formosa wrote: Long story short we don’t actually know what is causing the upsurge in popularity for 8th, I put it down to excellent marketing of a mediocre ruleset and a softening of the anti consumer nature GW has been notorious for, long may it continue and again, I hope they continue to flesh out the lacklustre rules in some important areas.
But there is a huge upsurge. The marketing vs non marketing thing doesn't matter when viewing how successful an edition is. You can't exclude 8th from the equation because GW have done more to market it. They've marketed, and it's their most successful edition. Not their best in terms of gameplay, but their most successful.
Rapid fire should be a Marine rule period. I think GW has got themselves in a box with Assault, Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons, Pistols....blah blah.
make weapons shoot 1 or 2 or 3 times...just call it what it is.
Make super characters hit like a super character...not make some militia dude roll more dice
8th can be the best ever but get rid of the reroll dope high that GW is on, LOTs of less dice, better terrain and do something with USR and Strategems.
Honestly without Strategems I would be soooo bored with the game....Wait....why is that? Is it a crutch that has gotten out of hand???
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
Yes, we know GW's profit- but we don't know how many individuals contributed to that number, or why. Is it because they love 8th? Merely because it isn't 7th? Because of GW's "community engagement?" Because it's the game everyone else plays? We don't know, and can't know for sure without proper research.
"I see more people playing" is anecdotal and not useful. Your experience does not necessarily represent the mean.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
but you can get completely wrong results with that approach, if you walked around any of our game stores except the GW you would think GW either went out of business or no longer makes games, it has pretty much no presence at all, but 1 state south on any given saturday my buddy has been able to pick and choose which local 40k tourney he wants to go to, its a big thing there.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
meleti wrote: "Actually, 8th edition is deeply unpopular" is my favorite DakkaTake.
Popular does not mean good. Justin Beiber is Popular. Facebook is Popular.
8th has benefited from being streamlined enough to attract the kiddywinks, and a massive marketing/social media blitz that, well it's marketing, what do you expect. It's manipulative by design.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion first, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
Anecdotally in the prior 25years(played RT) I spent a grand total of $0 on GW, since 8th dropped I've prob spent close to $1500(and climbing) on gak from them. it's 100% due to 8th being the game it is.
slick marketing and advertising didn't bring me back, fun gameplay and badass models did.
meleti wrote: "Actually, 8th edition is deeply unpopular" is my favorite DakkaTake.
Popular does not mean good. Justin Beiber is Popular. Facebook is Popular.
8th has benefited from being streamlined enough to attract the kiddywinks, and a massive marketing/social media blitz that, well it's marketing, what do you expect. It's manipulative by design.
“Gosh Steven, that ruleset looks so streamlined I’m going to turn off my XBox and buy Warhammers!”
“Great idea Kevin! I’ve been put off for the last 25 years even though I’m only 12! Thank the four gods that rules bloat is gone and we can focus on being streamlined!”
Said no ‘kiddywinks’ ever.
Streamlined rules have made the game easier to pick up and play, but it’s still the models and universe that are the main attraction. I’m having more fun with 8th than anything since 2nd, but let’s not pretend ‘streamlined rules attract kiddywinks’ is remotely accurate.
As someone used to standard FoC (1 HQ, 2 Troop) i found the new ones odd at first, but welcome.
As for ‘scoff scoff it’s not very complicated, fur the kidz’? It’s a game. Something I do to relax. It shouldn’t be equivalent to doing a tax return. Let my opponent be my challenge, not rules minutiae.
And on an entirely personal note, I do wish the phrase ‘granular’ would do one. Hates it I does. Completely tangential to the thread, but I felt I needed to say it!
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
I didn’t make that assertion though, he quoted me purposefully out of context to suit his narrative.
“Long story short we don’t actually know what is causing the upsurge in popularity for 8th”
“truth is we don’t know, so it’s disengenuous to claim we have more players than ever, when we don’t even know how many we have had each ED”
My answer basically boils down to “we don’t know enough to say 8th is the most popular and successful ed ever”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
Where did that rational thought go?
Also still waiting for you to back your original statement up, and again just to remind you, the one who Makes the original assertion has to provide the evidence, that’s you, then the person they are debating must try to debunk it, that’s me, just reminding you as you clearly don’t know how debating works, also as a reminder you also attacked first with the “they play to whine” comment, so don’t try to claim any moral superiority, so go ahead prove what you are saying or admit what I have been admiring all along, we... don’t... know, based on the info we have available.
Or you know... you can continue to white knight for GW and not be taken seriously.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah you can have lots of different rules when there are a handful of models on the table, try having unique rules for every single unit in the system in a 2000 point game. You couldn't do that, you wouldn't even be able to memorise all that, you'd need the codex/rules every time you use a unit you obviously never played 2nd edition. You like x-wing great but to think you can apply that to 40k is absurd. You can't apply x-wing to 40k, they are far too different.
Wait, weren't you the one saying that 40k can't be simplified? Now you're complaining about making 40k more complex. And you're making a pretty ridiculous argument here, claiming that it would be impossible to have unique rules for every single unit in the system in a game that gives every unit special snowflake rules and obsesses over the difference between a sword and an axe. It's so inconsistent I'm honestly not sure what your point is anymore, besides "40k is great and any other game is wrong".
And of course I can apply X-Wing to 40k. The claim was that a simple and streamlined game can not also be deep and interesting. X-Wing is both. Now that we've established that it's possible to do simple and deep the only question remaining is how to apply the concept to 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, I mean it's not like the flyer:
1) can only pivot 90 degrees before moving.
2) Must move, and therefore suffers -1 to hit, while a predator can stay still (hardly "never really matters" when you're 25% less effective out the gate)
3) Can fall back from an assault and still shoot
4) Can't be assaulted except by other models with Fly
5) Can't charge
6) Can't hold/score an objective, ever.
Oh, and the Predator doesn't get -1 to hit because Space Marine chapter tactics don't apply to their tanks.
But yeah, those are all minor differences, amirite? I mean, it's not like my Slaanesh army can silence a predator just by putting a Fiend in base contact with it all game, while a Thunderbolt would be a huge, near insurmountable threat vulnerable only to smite and a single winged daemon prince. There's absolutely no difference at all.
Most of those aren't conceptual differences. Who cares if you can only make a 90* pivot when every weapon has a 360* arc and 48" range? It barely matters where you move, and the limits on flyers rarely have any meaningful effect on the game. Same thing with the -1 BS penalty. Yeah, it technically exists, but it's effectively the same as printing the Thunderbolt at BS 4+ (remember, it starts at BS 3+) and removing the penalty. You can't do anything to change the -1 penalty, so it's just part of the math on how much damage the unit puts out. It doesn't change how you play the unit. And falling back shouldn't be a difference. A single infantry model shouldn't do anything to prevent a tank from shooting, the tank should be able to drive over them and resume combat without bothering to wash the blood off the treads. It's only because of GW's stupidity with 8th that this even happens.
A game with meaningful conceptual differences between aircraft and tanks would actually represent them as different strategic elements. For example, aircraft might have more peak firepower but poor sustained firepower (you quickly run out of bombs if you drop thousands of pounds of explosives on a target) and only arrive later in the game with poor reliability (you have to call for air support and hope it arrives on target in time). Tanks would have better sustained firepower and be able to control territory (suppressing fire, spotting, etc, in addition to scoring objectives). This would give them very different strategic roles in your army: tanks would offer a powerful on-table support element for your infantry over the full length of a game, while aircraft would be a precision assassination strike to annihilate a key target anywhere on the table. This would be a huge difference from 40k, where the choice between tanks and aircraft usually comes down to calculating which one is more overpowered and spamming it.
I don't think it is too complicated. The rules are about as simple as they can get outside of generic one page rule systems. I am enjoying the way they have done away with templates; the shooting and cc dice mechanic are similar. It all makes for an easier game to learn.
I think the problem is. GW have slipped back into the old habit of players needing to reference multiple sources to make sure they have up-to-date rules.
Chapter Approved, Indexes should be free with a small charge to buy a sheet of easy peal stickers with all the Errata for your given Codex that are pre cut to fit nicely over the offending Codex entry.
vim_the_good wrote: I don't think it is too complicated. The rules are about as simple as they can get outside of generic one page rule systems. I am enjoying the way they have done away with templates; the shooting and cc dice mechanic are similar. It all makes for an easier game to learn.
I think the problem is. GW have slipped back into the old habit of players needing to reference multiple sources to make sure they have up-to-date rules.
Chapter Approved, Indexes should be free with a small charge to buy a sheet of easy peal stickers with all the Errata for your given Codex that are pre cut to fit nicely over the offending Codex entry.
Vim
GW has found a new potential income source with CA, and indexes, do you honestly think they will stop?
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
Where did that rational thought go?
Also still waiting for you to back your original statement up, and again just to remind you, the one who Makes the original assertion has to provide the evidence, that’s you, then the person they are debating must try to debunk it, that’s me, just reminding you as you clearly don’t know how debating works, also as a reminder you also attacked first with the “they play to whine” comment, so don’t try to claim any moral superiority, so go ahead prove what you are saying or admit what I have been admiring all along, we... don’t... know, based on the info we have available.
Or you know... you can continue to white knight for GW and not be taken seriously.
You cannot demand proof from others for statements you call out as unverifiable, without backing down from your own completely unverifiable statements that you also refuse to provide proof for, in the exact same breath. Go ahead and make the call right now on whether or not you are going to be a forum cop forum people posting educated assumptions based on the information at hand without having all the hard data, because if you are to keep thrusting forth that we cannot, then you're equally as guilty of the same thing.
Meet your own standards first before demanding them of others. You talk about being taken seriously while completely contradicting your own statements, all for the sake of pride and being incapable of backing down from the indefensible position you backed yourself into when you stated exactly what YOU claim is an invalid opinion.
Also I love how sharing the extremely popular sentiment of enjoying a game, is somehow white knighting.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
Complicated? Play Star Fleet Battles.
Mind you that's complicated but we'll laid out.
My issue is 40k is now so simple it's too open to abuse and confusingly simple.
The rules are everywhere and jumbled up.
And they are still essentially the same boring mechanics we've had since 3rd.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
Excuse me when i
A) want a properly edited and readable PDF.
B) Not use a App that is inofficial and often more wrong then right.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
You mean the software with errors that while useful is not replacement for codex? That if somebody tries to use their only source of rules proper response is refuse game.
Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Seriously 99% of people use Battlescribe as the tool it is, a supplement to their codex to make life orders of magnitude easier when playing 40K, not as an outright replacement for a codex.
And to be very blunt about it with all of the FAQ's out currently Battlescribe is more accurate that basically all of the ink and paper codexes right now. That is a *fact* and you can be upset about it but it does not change that. It's honestly the reason why GW should release some kind of digital equivalent to Battlescribe.
8th Ed is on the edge of being overly complicated for me, not quite there but close. I think they could sort out a lot of that if they go to a set of USR's in future editions. The side benefit of doing that would be that they could then include slightly beefier rules in other places while still keeping the game relatively straight forward, which would make some of the people who wish the rules were a bit deep happier also. Win, win all around as far as I am concerned.
As to the *success* of 8th edition, it is just straight up more successful than any edition previously. I have been playing since just shortly after 2nd Edition and I have *never* seen the level of activity involving 40K that is taking place now. I live in the Maryland/DC/Virginia area, so it's not like I'm out in the middle of no where, I live in one of the major metropolitan areas of the US. Yes my experience on this is anecdotal but in a major population center. (There's also the fact that GW is selling more product that ever before but apparently that is not sufficient evidence for some people.)
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
The 40K rules have certainly expanded since 8th Edition released through the Codex releases, but I don't feel that the game is getting too complicated or "bloated." I understand that some prefer the concept of USRs in the main rule book, but I am rather enjoying the new format. Rules are tailor made for each unit with the ability to tinker with them without affecting other units with similar characteristics. It does mean that playing against a new army without having read their Codex can mean some surprises, particularly with Stratagems. I don't mind that either.
In several local tournaments I have had only one rules "impasse" that required us to ask a judge. The game is quite clean, even with all the Stratagems. Its also attracting new players and has brought many former players back to the gaming table. I don't have hard data for that latter assertion - only what I see at my FLGS and amongst my gaming friends. I don't think that its due to marketing. Around here it is due to the many people playing 40K at the FLGS - that draws back old players more than any slick marketing. Community engagement has increased, as we see with the many FAQs etc.
Having said that, the non-Codex FAQs could use some consolidation. Perhaps Chapter Approved 2018 will do something like that?
vim_the_good wrote: I don't think it is too complicated. The rules are about as simple as they can get outside of generic one page rule systems. I am enjoying the way they have done away with templates; the shooting and cc dice mechanic are similar. It all makes for an easier game to learn.
I think the problem is. GW have slipped back into the old habit of players needing to reference multiple sources to make sure they have up-to-date rules.
Chapter Approved, Indexes should be free with a small charge to buy a sheet of easy peal stickers with all the Errata for your given Codex that are pre cut to fit nicely over the offending Codex entry.
Vim
GW has found a new potential income source with CA, and indexes, do you honestly think they will stop?
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Why are they obviously jerks for not bring a book they don't need? I play tons of games and see a core rulebook for... essentially none of them, because we know the rules and don't need them and have references for the bits that are hard to remember.
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Why are they obviously jerks for not bring a book they don't need? I play tons of games and see a core rulebook for... essentially none of them, because we know the rules and don't need them and have references for the bits that are hard to remember.
They are jerks because Battlescribe is an unofficial third party tool that has a history of mistakes. If you don't have your actual rules with you in case of any questions then you shouldn't be allowed to play.
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Why are they obviously jerks for not bring a book they don't need? I play tons of games and see a core rulebook for... essentially none of them, because we know the rules and don't need them and have references for the bits that are hard to remember.
They are jerks because Battlescribe is an unofficial third party tool that has a history of mistakes. If you don't have your actual rules with you in case of any questions then you shouldn't be allowed to play.
And most first party tools have a history of mistakes. So do most printed materials for that matter. I haven't played an error free game in years. Not sure why Battlescribe needs to be held to a different standard, particularly when its largely fine.
wow this in another thread..... are people seriously struggling this much to carry 1-3 books and maybe a printed out piece of paper? How the heck do people manage to carry an army to the store if they cant bring a book or 2? I mean there are even little pouches on the side of 99% of the army carriers that will easily fit a couple codexes and those things are on wheels. I hope non of these people have an old-school army with pewter models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: also you can buy the digital copy of each book and just bring your phone
I find it hilarious that the people who thought it was too difficult and time consuming to look up USR's in previous editions are the ones defending carrying around 3-5 books simply to play a game.
The point isn't that its too difficult to carry the books, it's that it should never have come to that in the first place.
Why don't people understand that 8th edition is very, very poorly laid out. Just, mind-bogglingly stupid levels of disorganization.
It's clear that the "living ruleset" idea simply does not work unless everything is digital and automatically updates every time a rule is changed.
It's to the point where you can't even assemble a legal army without consulting 3 books, an FAQ and several randomly placed facebook messages. It's completely insane.
You think this is easy for people who have been in the hobby forever like we have? Try being a new player. You think they have any idea of what's going on?
And 8th ed. defenders are claiming that this uber streamlined rules set is somehow making it easier for new players to enter the hobby? Get Real.
You wonder why people use Battlescribe? It's more accurate than consulting half of GW actual physical copies of their own game. Half the time the PR team on facebook doesn't get it right and we're all left scratching our heads as to the meaning of certain rulings.
How about instead of going out of their way to make things mind numbingly simply, they just write some rules and make it sound to begin with. Don't have a specific number of pages in mind. Just write until it's good.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I find it hilarious that the people who thought it was too difficult and time consuming to look up USR's in previous editions are the ones defending carrying around 3-5 books simply to play a game.
The point isn't that its too difficult to carry the books, it's that it should never have come to that in the first place.
Why don't people understand that 8th edition is very, very poorly laid out. Just, mind-bogglingly stupid levels of disorganization.
It's clear that the "living ruleset" idea simply does not work unless everything is digital and automatically updates every time a rule is changed.
It's to the point where you can't even assemble a legal army without consulting 3 books, an FAQ and several randomly placed facebook messages. It's completely insane.
You think this is easy for people who have been in the hobby forever like we have? Try being a new player. You think they have any idea of what's going on?
And 8th ed. defenders are claiming that this uber streamlined rules set is somehow making it easier for new players to enter the hobby? Get Real.
You wonder why people use Battlescribe? It's more accurate than consulting half of GW actual physical copies of their own game. Half the time the PR team on facebook doesn't get it right and we're all left scratching our heads as to the meaning of certain rulings.
How about instead of going out of their way to make things mind numbingly simply, they just write some rules and make it sound to begin with. Don't have a specific number of pages in mind. Just write until it's good.
having universal rules wouldn't cut down on what books you need to bring. You would still need a book for each army (im assuming you are running 3 different forces soup if you're needing 5 books) so that's not cut down by having universal special rules. You still need any FAQ that applies to your army so that's not going to be cut down. You would still theoretically need the rule book (if you're still having to consult the BRB a year after release). The only way to cut down on the number of books would be to put everything into a single book that would cost a ton and weigh as much as every codex strapped together. It would also be made invalid with every rules release.
In reality without the hysterical screaming over bringing a book to a board game, you only need
1. A codex per army your are taking..... if the number of books really bothers you so much play a mono faction
2. Chapter approved...... Seriously just photocopy the one or two pages that apply to your army
3. Any FAQ that you need on hand.... a few pieces of paper
So, in reality, people need 1-2 books and a couple of pieces of paper that chances are you never have to take out of a folder because after a week everyone knows the changes that took place in the latest FAQ
I take my rulebook, codex and chapter approved with me. I use battle scribe to have the army list to hand (after checking points). It isn't hard to pack in a bag and I don't see the problem with it. Even if you use two or three codexes to build your army it shouldn't be an issue to put them in a bag and carry them.
Other than playing missions I don't see why you'd need the rulebook and CA for any particular game (unless you're an index army in CA). Once you're comfortable with the rules, there's not really anything you'll need to reference in there. Have it in case there's a question that comes up, but it's not too important.
Datasheets, stratagems, relics, etc., are the things that are more useful to reference mid-game. You probably know all these off the top of your head but your opponent might not.
With the FAQs, they're helpful to have but again a lot of that isn't material you'll need to reference mid-game.
USR clean up the mess of having pages upon pages of "bespoke rules" is what I'm saying.
The lack of USR's and the general layout of the main rules themselves is indicative of the general disorganization of the game as a whole.
Chapter approved shouldn't be a thing. Period.
We shouldn't need to buy more rules on top of the rules we just bought because they noticed after a year that maybe their bad rules writing wasn't up to par. Something that took us on this site maybe 10 min to figure out based simply on rumours before the game was even released.
The FAQ's should be accessible online on their site with no other purchase necessary.
Furthermore, rulings on questions should not be answered on facebook.
If you play soup, you play soup. Thats something nobody can control but yourself, and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
The game itself is poorly written. And it just keeps getting more and more muddled down from every direction, and I think they are doing it purposefully.
Notice how they released the FAQ for Imperial Knights a couple weeks after the main release, so people had time to make a legal army, and then have some of those issues with Armigers overturned so that it might have put you in a position of purchasing models that you didn't need or want?
I purchased an Ynarri army at the beginning of the edition because I liked the idea of combining Eldar and Dark Eldar. Guess what? The FAQ made my army illegal. feth me right?
The FAQ's and rules changes are happening so quickly, you can't even keep up with them before your army is made illegal or bad.
I'll show up to games or talk to people who are all playing off of different iterations of the same rules set. Some people don't even know that there has been FAQ's made via facebook. I know that I don't know all of what has transpired between now the last FAQ.
Long story short. If they want to do things the way they are doing them, eliminate hard copy books. Make everything interactive and online accessible. It's the only way that this works.
USRs also serve as universal mechanics that all armies could interact with and be designed around. Simple stuff like Relentless, Furious Charge, Scout, Deepstrike, Prefered Enemy, etc. It puts more depth of mechanics into the game without having to have long drawn out explanations on a unit profile and without it seeming excessive to have something like Relentless defined for every vehicle, MC, terminator, etc. MTG doesn't spell out how trample or first strike works so it's not hard for a card to have first strike, trample, lifelink, vigilance, etc on the same card because these "key words" have well defined mechanics.
meleti wrote: Other than playing missions I don't see why you'd need the rulebook and CA for any particular game (unless you're an index army in CA). Once you're comfortable with the rules, there's not really anything you'll need to reference in there. Have it in case there's a question that comes up, but it's not too important.
Datasheets, stratagems, relics, etc., are the things that are more useful to reference mid-game. You probably know all these off the top of your head but your opponent might not.
With the FAQs, they're helpful to have but again a lot of that isn't material you'll need to reference mid-game.
That 7th edition reference sheet which is roughly 4 pages did the same thing making needing the rule book only really necessary when practicing rules lawyering. What your saying isn't in anyway wrong but what I think everyone would like is ease of access to the information and in all editions GW has been fairly terrible about communicating rules in a logical and easy to reference format. 8th was an attempt but they went about it by gutting a lot of mechanics for more simplicity instead of making the rules better organized.
I don’t know if I’d call it complicated per se, but it’s certainly very tedious. The books, faqs, cards, wound tracking, stratagem tracking, etc... make even FFG games with their dial and token fetishes look clean. It’s certainly a messy experience unless you play often.
Brutus_Apex wrote: USR clean up the mess of having pages upon pages of "bespoke rules" is what I'm saying.
USRs wouldn't reduce the number of page for anything. Datasheets have plenty of space. USRs would actually add more pages to the BRB without really affecting the codexes. They would also require you to bring the BRB in the first place which is no longer necessary. The least you would "need" right now is the free downloadable rules and a codex.
Chapter approved shouldn't be a thing. Period.
For points changes and errata I agree. But for new mission types or even new scenario based rules like Cities of Death I don't see why not.
The FAQ's should be accessible online on their site with no other purchase necessary.
They already are.
Furthermore, rulings on questions should not be answered on facebook.
They aren't. People just like to ask for any possible clarification while we wait for our bi-annual FAQ. Which btw was caused by the commissar nerf. So many people complained about too many FAQs and erratas too fast that we now have to wait 6 months to get any sort of updates.
The FAQ's and rules changes are happening so quickly, you can't even keep up with them before your army is made illegal or bad.
Sure, but isn't that the whole point of a living rules set? The pro is that things get changed. The con is that things get changed. It sucks to have units invalidated but it's also nice when crap units get better.
Long story short. If they want to do things the way they are doing them, eliminate hard copy books. Make everything interactive and online accessible. It's the only way that this works.
Just buy the enhanced editions. They get updated to match erratas and point changes. Though they are a bit slow to get updated . That said, a free online index for each faction should be available. So unit datasheets and army specific rules should be downloadable. But there is a confirmed army builder app coming out "soon" which will feature points for sure, it might also include detachments and such.
Furthermore, rulings on questions should not be answered on facebook.
...
Long story short. If they want to do things the way they are doing them, eliminate hard copy books. Make everything interactive and online accessible. It's the only way that this works.
That seems like quite a contradiction. If you like the trend towards interactive and online rules, the facebook-rulings appear to be the closest thing we have in this regard and what you'd want to encourage.
It's currently not as interactive as it could be, because some idiots still claim that FAQ/errata from GW communicated via one IP address is somehow less official than FAQ/errata communicated via a different IP address.
USRs don't clean up anything. They just add another rulebook you need and another step to looking up rules.
Here's an example; my opponent wants to know what a Lictor does. So I look it up in the codex. Now I know he has Stealth, Infiltrate and Prefered Enemy. My opponent now wants to know what Stealth and Infiltrate do because his army doesn't use those rules much. So now, rather than just reading them from the page I already have open and in front of me, i have to look them up in a different, bigger book.
I have never once memorized EVERY USR in the BRB and in nearly every game of 6th Ed we'd have to look up a few of them.
Long story short. If they want to do things the way they are doing them, eliminate hard copy books. Make everything interactive and online accessible. It's the only way that this works.
Ew no. I like physical books and I don't have a problem keeping up with FAQs and carrying more than 2 at a time. Don't assume that because you have arms with hollow bones that we all do.
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Why are they obviously jerks for not bring a book they don't need? I play tons of games and see a core rulebook for... essentially none of them, because we know the rules and don't need them and have references for the bits that are hard to remember.
If you don't have your codex how are you able to check rules? Opponent wants to know rules. Is he supposed to just take your word for it? YOU might know point costs, stats and rules inside out. Whatabout your opponent? Is your idea that it's responsibility of players to know EVERY codex inside out?
No rules for your army with you, no game. Can't play without rules. If you don't have your rules with you then you don't play. Battlescribe print out is not replacement.
The problem is not the carrying, the problem is that certain armies that require diffrent rulebooks have to search and buy a shitton of em. Add CA and a shitton of FAQ's and the rules are a mess.
LunarSol wrote: And most first party tools have a history of mistakes. So do most printed materials for that matter. I haven't played an error free game in years. Not sure why Battlescribe needs to be held to a different standard, particularly when its largely fine.
Battlescribe is held to a different standard because it is a third-party tool, not official rules. If the codex says a unit is 150 points then it's 150 points, period, until/unless it is changed by FAQ/errata. If Battlescribe says the unit is 155 points then Battlescribe is wrong. And Battlescribe has a history of making errors like that, things that do not match the official rules published by GW. It is not a substitute for having a full copy of all of your rules with you for every game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: USRs don't clean up anything. They just add another rulebook you need and another step to looking up rules.
Here's an example; my opponent wants to know what a Lictor does. So I look it up in the codex. Now I know he has Stealth, Infiltrate and Prefered Enemy. My opponent now wants to know what Stealth and Infiltrate do because his army doesn't use those rules much. So now, rather than just reading them from the page I already have open and in front of me, i have to look them up in a different, bigger book.
I have never once memorized EVERY USR in the BRB and in nearly every game of 6th Ed we'd have to look up a few of them.
That's a terrible example because all three of those USRs are common ones. Even if your army doesn't use them much other armies sure do, and you'll very quickly learn what they do. And once you learn those rules you've learned them forever. You can look at a new unit's rules, see that it has the Stealth USR, and know exactly how that rule works. You never have to worry about being surprised by a subtle difference in the rule because every instance of Stealth is exactly the same.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
Busses and trains? You don't know you're born.
In MY day all our models were sculpted from rocks. We'd pack them up into our cases which were boxes we found in t'road and we'd walk 50 miles uphill to play a game for 5 minutes on some rusty corrugated iron with codexes scratched into the wall and dice made from marbles with dots painted on them before walking home 50 miles uphill again. And when we got home our ole dad would dip all our models in turpentine and make us repaint them afore bed.
Sim-Life wrote: Busses and trains? You don't know you're born. In MY day all our models were sculpted from rocks. We'd pack them up into our cases which were boxes we found in t'road and we'd walk 50 miles uphill to play a game for 5 minutes on some rusty corrugated iron with codexes scratched into the wall and dice made from marbles with dots painted on them before walking home 50 miles uphill again. And when we got home our ole dad would dip all our models in turpentine and make us repaint them afore bed.
You think that's bad? Our ol' da used to wake us up 5 hours before we'd gone to bed, and force us to sculpt all our models out of milliput while wearing mittens while soaked in acetone!
But to reiterate: 40k isn't becoming complicated. "Deep" is not the same as "Complicated" and 40k is neither.
Hi guys. I'm trying to get back to this hobby for a while. I played on editions 4,5,6th. I have a big problem to cope with all the different sources of the rules, faq's, indexes, codexes, etc.
I just wanted to start some small Deathwatch force when there was no new codex yet. And I was so confused and overwhelmed with how many books I should buy and read before I will get my first mini.
Another thing - what happened to the small rulebooks that used to be included in starter sets? They were so damn useful!
Really guys it's not the weight in kilos that is a problem. It's really chaotic for someone from the outside to catch up with all this mess now. And there are some handy DataCards also. I assume they can become outdated too after another CA or FAQ? It's a paradox that my previous experience and habits make it harder for me to understand the 8th ed. (yes, I read this pdf for returning players made by GW). I'm starting to love boxed games with fixed forces and persistent rules. I don't want to spend so much money on paper with GW logo.
And why there are so many different bolters?
I bought this harcover rulebook and it's so hard to get to what's most important there. Tons of fluff, scenarios for narrative, open play, fancy ways to setup your minis at the table. OMG do people have no imagination and creativity any more? Why the units' costs in Codex are in some other place and not in unit's description?
Sorry for a messy post, just wanted to say "I agree". It's hard for one who likes to feel he knows all the rules to be sure that he's not missing something. Rules are not that complicated but spread on pieces of paper thrown here and there.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Physical books don't run out of power, either. Not to mention not everyone likes using digital rulebooks. Some of us, when playing a physical game, prefer to unplug completely. If I want to stare at a screen I'll stay home and play video games.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
"At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight."
"I have the BA and DA"
So unless I'm missing something huge you really only need 2 books now. Also, download this great app everyone uses called battlescribe. You build your list once and check it against your book 1 time. You can now reference everything quickly off your phone.
Also, what is it with peoples inability to memorize 99% of their armies rules after 2-3 games. Are you really having to still reference your codex every 2min during a game? I also cant sympathize with "i decided to take these units i don't like carrying in my army because they are heavy and 8th is a really bad game because of this"
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Why not just use Battlescribe and if someone REALLY pushes you on a rule THEN look up the digital book for them. It's what I do with my side armies like AdMech and Custodes
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Physical books don't run out of power, either. Not to mention not everyone likes using digital rulebooks. Some of us, when playing a physical game, prefer to unplug completely. If I want to stare at a screen I'll stay home and play video games.
>Complains about not having all books in one convenient, lightweight, referencing spot.
>Offered simple solution
>What am i supposed to do? carry a power cord in my bag?
>Also some of us like carrying all of the heavy books we don't want modern solutions
Seriously what would you like GW to do? If you don't want to carry multiple books but you are unwilling to play a mono faction or use digital, then the only solution for GW would be to put every codex into a single book thus causing the book to be 1. larger and weigh more then 1-3 codexes of the specific armies you choose 2. significantly more expensive than the specific codex for the army you want to play 3. invalidated with every new codex release.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Why not just use Battlescribe and if someone REALLY pushes you on a rule THEN look up the digital book for them. It's what I do with my side armies like AdMech and Custodes
I've been saying this in multiple posts but apparently its not a valid option because then you might need to bring a power cord and also they like the feel of books (even though they hate the feel of the books while holding them)
Having their rulebooks still mostly on paper, when you have so many FAQs that actually change important stuff and a yearly round of rebalance, it's unconvenient.
They should all go full digital, fully mantained and mantained, free rulesets. Just text, easy to load and flick though. The books are just for collection values and for juicy new art and for new lore. For the added value they bring.
If you want a complicated game, just take a look at the Infinity rulebook. Have fun.
Having their rulebooks still mostly on paper, when you have so many FAQs that actually change important stuff and a yearly round of rebalance, it's unconvenient.
They should all go full digital, fully mantained and mantained, free rulesets. Just text, easy to load and flick though. The books are just for collection values and for juicy new art and for new lore. For the added value they bring.
If you want a complicated game, just take a look at the Infinity rulebook. Have fun.
This, so much this.
If they would just make all the rules avilable more people could take a look. Heck it would probably be easier to maintain then constant FAQs
Funny how things go round in circles as to whatever GW edicts and certain members of the community lap it up...
3 years ago AoS got rid of points and certain people immediately towed the line that POINTS ARE THE DEVIL INCARNATE! and such a flawed system that GW is right for abolishing them and as such, should not even attempt to use them and anyone who thinks otherwise is a WAAC powergamer who kicks kittens for fun.
Fast forward to now, and we had slightly similar arguments WRT power levels v points. But now, the spokes on the wheel have turned again and USRs are the literal work of Satan himself and GW are ahead of the curve in abolishing these damnable things.
No. 40k is far more needlessly complicated than it needs to be. USRs are an easy fix to much of this unnecessary complexity.
Grimtuff wrote: USRs are an easy fix to much of this unnecessary complexity.
People keep saying this, ignoring the decade of rules where USR's didn't fix a damn thing.
GW didn't do it right=/=it's a bad thing.
OK. USRs are bad because I don't like them. And I don't like them because I dislike referencing rules in a giant rulebook. USRs are FAR more complicated to use than the current system.
If you want a bank of special rules tucked away in the BRB fine, whatever, but each rule should be fully spelled out on each datasheet for ease of use at a minimum. "What does my Ghostkeel do? Oh yeah, here it is right in the datasheet I'm already looking at."
Grimtuff wrote: USRs are an easy fix to much of this unnecessary complexity.
People keep saying this, ignoring the decade of rules where USR's didn't fix a damn thing.
GW didn't do it right=/=it's a bad thing.
OK. USRs are bad because I don't like them. And I don't like them because I dislike referencing rules in a giant rulebook. USRs are FAR more complicated to use than the current system.
If you want a bank of special rules tucked away in the BRB fine, whatever, but each rule should be fully spelled out on each datasheet for ease of use at a minimum. "What does my Ghostkeel do? Oh yeah, here it is right in the datasheet I'm already looking at."
So, once again. The problem is not the USRs. It's a giant rulebook.
Release a pocket rulebook and problem solved.
Just because GW don't do it right does not make it a bad idea. USRs work perfectly fine for WMH. This coupled with the fact that one can simply click on the relevant USR icon on a model card in War Room and it brings up the rule.
I've always found the USR debate rather curious. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want a set of standardized rules applicable to most armies in most situations, listed in a single place. Just because GW went ridiculously overboard with their rules in 6th and 7th doesn't mean the concept is invalid, just horribly implemented.
Our version of 40K has about 25 USR's - if an army has some exception to the main rule it can be stated elsewhere, such as in their codex. Again 8th Ed. is simply another example of GW throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
"At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight."
"I have the BA and DA"
So unless I'm missing something huge you really only need 2 books now. Also, download this great app everyone uses called battlescribe. You build your list once and check it against your book 1 time. You can now reference everything quickly off your phone.
Also, what is it with peoples inability to memorize 99% of their armies rules after 2-3 games. Are you really having to still reference your codex every 2min during a game? I also cant sympathize with "i decided to take these units i don't like carrying in my army because they are heavy and 8th is a really bad game because of this"
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Physical books don't run out of power, either. Not to mention not everyone likes using digital rulebooks. Some of us, when playing a physical game, prefer to unplug completely. If I want to stare at a screen I'll stay home and play video games.
>Complains about not having all books in one convenient, lightweight, referencing spot.
>Offered simple solution
>What am i supposed to do? carry a power cord in my bag?
>Also some of us like carrying all of the heavy books we don't want modern solutions
Seriously what would you like GW to do? If you don't want to carry multiple books but you are unwilling to play a mono faction or use digital, then the only solution for GW would be to put every codex into a single book thus causing the book to be 1. larger and weigh more then 1-3 codexes of the specific armies you choose 2. significantly more expensive than the specific codex for the army you want to play 3. invalidated with every new codex release.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Why not just use Battlescribe and if someone REALLY pushes you on a rule THEN look up the digital book for them. It's what I do with my side armies like AdMech and Custodes
I've been saying this in multiple posts but apparently its not a valid option because then you might need to bring a power cord and also they like the feel of books (even though they hate the feel of the books while holding them)
This. Just this.
There is literally no winning with these people while still having a business. Let's get to the crux of it - as the guy who tried to explain said, they want free codexes.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Physical books don't run out of power, either. Not to mention not everyone likes using digital rulebooks. Some of us, when playing a physical game, prefer to unplug completely. If I want to stare at a screen I'll stay home and play video games.
>Complains about not having all books in one convenient, lightweight, referencing spot.
>Offered simple solution
>What am i supposed to do? carry a power cord in my bag?
>Also some of us like carrying all of the heavy books we don't want modern solutions
Seriously what would you like GW to do? If you don't want to carry multiple books but you are unwilling to play a mono faction or use digital, then the only solution for GW would be to put every codex into a single book thus causing the book to be 1. larger and weigh more then 1-3 codexes of the specific armies you choose 2. significantly more expensive than the specific codex for the army you want to play 3. invalidated with every new codex release.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
Dumbest thing I've read today...
Books actually ARE heavy
Yeah. Like 20 of them. 2 codexes, CA and a few sheets of paper aren't exactly going to tax you unless you have a physical illness. MAYBE if you had to carry ALL the books several miles you'd have a point.
16 miles carrying a BRB. codex. Index. CA and FW index.
Plus dice. Tape measure. Army.
Lugging it around busses and trains.
Up hills.
Then finally you get to play 2 hours of rules arguing.
Pack it all up.
And 16 miles back.
Plus your £12 out of pocket now
Yeah no thanks.
The simple solution is to buy all digital copies and simply have them all in your pocket on your phone. But it sounds like your real problem is having to take the bus and train to go play a game. Not sure how 8th caused this issue as it doesn't sound particularly fun to have to travel like that to any edition of a game.
That is not a simple solution.
I have the BA and DA codex on my phone and using them is a nightmare.
They load too slow and all the scrolling makes making a list stressful as hell. Especially if you're flicking between 4 or 5 books/pdf on a 4" screen.
It's definitely a step backwards.
At least in 3rd and 4th I only needed 2 books to carry. Which cuts down on a ton of weight.
And at least back then I didn't NEED to carry 4 quad lascannon Predators to avoid being laughed out the store...
Why not just use Battlescribe and if someone REALLY pushes you on a rule THEN look up the digital book for them. It's what I do with my side armies like AdMech and Custodes
I've been saying this in multiple posts but apparently its not a valid option because then you might need to bring a power cord and also they like the feel of books (even though they hate the feel of the books while holding them)
This. Just this.
There is literally no winning with these people while still having a business. Let's get to the crux of it - as the guy who tried to explain said, they want free codexes.
No. They want free codexes with all the rules in a single book that never needs to be erratad, FAQ'd or updated.
Grimtuff wrote: USRs are an easy fix to much of this unnecessary complexity.
People keep saying this, ignoring the decade of rules where USR's didn't fix a damn thing.
GW didn't do it right=/=it's a bad thing.
OK. USRs are bad because I don't like them. And I don't like them because I dislike referencing rules in a giant rulebook. USRs are FAR more complicated to use than the current system.
If you want a bank of special rules tucked away in the BRB fine, whatever, but each rule should be fully spelled out on each datasheet for ease of use at a minimum. "What does my Ghostkeel do? Oh yeah, here it is right in the datasheet I'm already looking at."
So, once again. The problem is not the USRs. It's a giant rulebook.
Release a pocket rulebook and problem solved.
Just because GW don't do it right does not make it a bad idea. USRs work perfectly fine for WMH. This coupled with the fact that one can simply click on the relevant USR icon on a model card in War Room and it brings up the rule.
I would like if the structured the rules alike, with section numbers and the such (no fancy fluff description here)with the only the actual rule wording. then you could use keywords to quick reference which specific rule is being addressed. then you could have a pocket rulebook that's trimmed of the fat/fluff and just lean rules remaining(kinda like golf). that way everyone has the same basic rules but then their faction coolness isn't restrained.
Crimson Devil wrote: If the product is a bad as you guys say, and it's always been bad as you argue. Doesn't that make anyone buying their stuff morons?
No, because there are good parts of the hobby even if the rules are trash. The fact that some of us will put up with bad rules for the sake of getting to use the models we love doesn't in any way change the fact that the rules are bad.
Crimson Devil wrote: If the product is a bad as you guys say, and it's always been bad as you argue. Doesn't that make anyone buying their stuff morons?
No, because there are good parts of the hobby even if the rules are trash. The fact that some of us will put up with bad rules for the sake of getting to use the models we love doesn't in any way change the fact that the rules are bad.
they've always had the best miniatures, which for some of us is enuff. but I agree with Peregrine (which happens from time to time) the rules are bad, I just don't agree with the degree of bad. I'm more like kinda bad, not raging dumpster fire.
It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
So, once again. The problem is not the USRs. It's a giant rulebook.
Release a pocket rulebook and problem solved.
No, the problem is not the size of the rulebook, it's the fact that I have to cross reference multiple documents to figure out what a particular unit does. All you're proposing is removing unit abilities from their datasheets and compiling them in a third document. Why? I have no idea. USRs are themselves unnecessarily complicated, and we are better off without them.
Even assuming that the USRs actually work and are convenient, you don't gain any meaningful benefit from having them over the current system. Codexes will be just as long since unit abilities take max 3 lines and datasheets are all only one page anyway. The number of codexes will be the same since the number of factions determines that, not the number of special rules. The BRB will actually be longer, and will render the free online rules useless since unit abilities are required to play the game, thus making the BRB a mandatory purchase for new players, whereas right now it is not (I went a good 6 months just using the online pdf). The only rules you currently need to purchase to play legit games are the codexes, everything else is essentially optional and sometimes free.
The current system effectively eliminates the need for the BRB, yet you call it "unnecessarily complicated". Everything you need is in the codex. It could not be easier.
If by chance you're somehow getting caught up on the name of each rule, just don't bother memorizing the name. "This model ignores wounds on a 5+" instead of " this model has disgustingly resilient". After a while you learn the name by osmosis but even then it still doesn't actually matter.
Dandelion wrote: All you're proposing is removing unit abilities from their datasheets and compiling them in a third document. Why?
Because of standardization. If you have USRs you replace 50 different rules with a single rule that is easy to memorize. You memorize what the Stealth USR does (+1 cover save in terrain) and that's it, all GW has to do is print a single word on a unit's datasheet and you know exactly what it does. You don't have Stealth, Stealthy, Stealth Troops, Stealthy Assassin, Expert Hiding, and Terrain Masters, all of which give a +1 cover save except that one of them gives it to a unit in or behind terrain. You no longer have to carefully study the exact wording of each rule to make sure you know it's the standard form of the USR that it looks like at first glance, and not a subtly different one.
Codexes will be just as long since unit abilities take max 3 lines and datasheets are all only one page anyway.
Datasheets don't need to be one page. Back in previous editions, where USRs were used effectively and point costs had a better layout you could fit 2-3 units on a single page.
The number of codexes will be the same since the number of factions determines that, not the number of special rules.
This can also be changed. The design concept behind USRs can be applied to things like space marines, removing all of the redundant codices and having a single space marine codex for all chapters that uses USRs and similar ideas to keep the length down to a reasonable level.
The BRB will actually be longer
Only by a very small amount. 5-10 pages is not a big deal, that could easily be accommodated by removing maelstrom missions from the book.
and will render the free online rules useless
Only if GW doesn't put the USRs in the free rules. Why would you assume that they wouldn't? Even if they don't the problem is not USRs, it's GW's greed in publishing a "free" core rulebook that isn't enough to play the game.
The current system effectively eliminates the need for the BRB
It doesn't. You still need the core rules, detachment rules, mission rules, etc.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
Because of standardization. If you have USRs you replace 50 different rules with a single rule that is easy to memorize. You memorize what the Stealth USR does (+1 cover save in terrain) and that's it, all GW has to do is print a single word on a unit's datasheet and you know exactly what it does. You don't have Stealth, Stealthy, Stealth Troops, Stealthy Assassin, Expert Hiding, and Terrain Masters, all of which give a +1 cover save except that one of them gives it to a unit in or behind terrain. You no longer have to carefully study the exact wording of each rule to make sure you know it's the standard form of the USR that it looks like at first glance, and not a subtly different one
It is that plus a healthy distrust of GW writing ability. They seem to sometimes write rules in a such a way, that they seem the same, but have a small difference which in gaming terms is huge. I could easily imagine GW writing 90% of stealth special rules the same way, and then give something that looks the same to let say eldar, but their would work in the open, behind cover when not touching it etc.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
Because of standardization. If you have USRs you replace 50 different rules with a single rule that is easy to memorize. You memorize what the Stealth USR does (+1 cover save in terrain) and that's it, all GW has to do is print a single word on a unit's datasheet and you know exactly what it does. You don't have Stealth, Stealthy, Stealth Troops, Stealthy Assassin, Expert Hiding, and Terrain Masters, all of which give a +1 cover save except that one of them gives it to a unit in or behind terrain. You no longer have to carefully study the exact wording of each rule to make sure you know it's the standard form of the USR that it looks like at first glance, and not a subtly different one
It is that plus a healthy distrust of GW writing ability. They seem to sometimes write rules in a such a way, that they seem the same, but have a small difference which in gaming terms is huge. I could easily imagine GW writing 90% of stealth special rules the same way, and then give something that looks the same to let say eldar, but their would work in the open, behind cover when not touching it etc.
That granularity is why no USRs is good. It means if one unit's stealth works slightly differently it can represents the model better. It also means that its easier to tweak the rule if the rule becomes over/underpowered without having to consider how changing the rule will effect units that are okay. Not to mention that not all units are equal. How Furious Charge (if it grants +1 attack) effects a 10 man unit of Death Company is very different to how it effects a trygon for example.
Sim-Life wrote: It means if one unit's stealth works slightly differently it can represents the model better.
This is a game where a titan can delete the whole unit in one shot either way. The vast majority of these differences are irrelevant and pointless, nothing but rules bloat and substituting memorization of tiny differences for genuine strategic depth. And in the rare case where a difference is necessary and has a meaningful gameplay effect it can be included as a unit-specific rule. In this case it will be extremely obvious that it is different because it has a fully-stated special rule in its datasheet instead of the Stealth USR.
It also means that its easier to tweak the rule if the rule becomes over/underpowered without having to consider how changing the rule will effect units that are okay.
This kind of thing is best accounted for by point cost changes. USRs, when used for basic things like stealth/re-roll 1s/etc don't need small tweaks because they're basic. And they generally lead to very basic cases of being overpowered/underpowered, where a unit's math is just too good/bad for its point cost. It's very straightforward to fix these cases by adjusting the point cost until the power per point is where it should be. For complex stuff that would significantly vary in its effect you'd use unit-specific rules.
Not to mention that not all units are equal. How Furious Charge (if it grants +1 attack) effects a 10 man unit of Death Company is very different to how it effects a trygon for example.
Well yes, but what's your point? I fail to see how this is an argument against USRs. If both units have a rule that grants them +1 attack then they should have the same USR. Whether you give a particular rule to a unit is irrelevant in a discussion of USRs vs. all rules on the datasheet.
I imagine that if it was the USRs that broke the game, you may not want them or replace them by something that you can FAQ faster, as in without testing how the change to an USR on one unit will effect the game for other units with it. But, and I don't claim to be competent about rules design here, it seems to me that the broken parts either come from points being counted in some strage way, units having interactions with rules from different sources giving OP results and specific unit rules that were "fun" as a fluff choice, but aren't fun to play with or against.
I a more scared that GW may give some sort of AoE resurect mechanic to SoB saints, making them rise up stuff like baneblades or knights, then somehow something like +1 to cover breaking the game.
The game is actually easy to play and even with all the special rules in codex's, FAQ's errata it's still a simple game.
The problem is that GW40k designers keep ramming fluff and rules together at 100mph to force players into participating in both. Hence we end up with the car crash that is the 8th edition BRB.
The worst thing is GW has done better in the past yet has gone backwards once again. Have a BRB pack of 2 books if you must but keep the fluff in 1 book and the rules in a seperate book.
Do similar in codex's have a fluff section and then a rules section, the latter codex's are generally a lot better for this than others but some are a mess of random fluff stuff in the middle of a rules description.
Also while the living rules are good for balance and helping with odd unclear rules interactions, trying to teach the game to people is about as intuitive as solving a rubics cube blindfolded.
Heres your Rule book, Rule book FAQ, Codex,Codex FAQ, Big FAQ, Captor Approved and any additional house rules. That's before you start trying to introduce missions with objectives etc.
Thats 6 rules source's not including the odd situations where the FAQ for another faction is the one you need to answer your question on a rules interaction.
Really a lot of the "complexity" of finding the correct rules could be solved by having CA contain a rules baseline for each year incorporating all the preceding FAQ's errata.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
That's the problem these people are having. More people are playing 40k then ever because the rules (while not perfect, no game ever is) are very good and fun. So people that hate 8th come to dakka to complain about how books are too heavy and digital versions might need you to bring a charger. They will tell you that x rule is broken but at the same time updating the rules to fix it is making the game too complicated. That they hated how some codexes never got updated in an edition but 8th is too complicated because codexes are coming out too fast.......
Meanwhile, everyone at their store is just having fun playing on 40k night..... and they hate that
Look man, there's no way I'm going to change your mind but I will say this:
I have played with and without USRs and the current system is WAY better and easier to use. I like the new system and I dislike USRs. Fight me I guess.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
This is once again, your toxic local, not how store's work. Once I buy my toys im free to play with whatever game I like, I've never even heard of restricting people's rules as a store owner as being a thing.
You have all these stories of where you play just being an absolute cesspit that I'm really skeptical they are all true, and I suspect a lot of it is embellished for the sake of your point at the time, but thats just my suspicion.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
That's the problem these people are having. More people are playing 40k then ever because the rules (while not perfect, no game ever is) are very good and fun. So people that hate 8th come to dakka to complain about how books are too heavy and digital versions might need you to bring a charger. They will tell you that x rule is broken but at the same time updating the rules to fix it is making the game too complicated. That they hated how some codexes never got updated in an edition but 8th is too complicated because codexes are coming out too fast.......
Meanwhile, everyone at their store is just having fun playing on 40k night..... and they hate that
Way to go misrepresenting people issues, were not a group BTW, many people dislike 8th for many reasons.
Me for example, I dislike that it is missing large sections of necessary rules (such as terrain interaction), has essentially brought back a set of rules for psychic powers that has been tried before and didn’t work, a lot (not all) of the codexs lack ... soul... for lack of a better term (subjective), implemented a set of rules that would clearly cause issues and claimed it had been playtested, I could go on but you get the point, but do I hate 8th?
No, do I like it, no, not in it’s current state and needs another year or so of development, I have faith that it will become the kind of game I want to play and until then I will stick with HH, necromunda and kill team if it pans out.
So don’t lie and try to detract from peoples genuine grievances, it’s morally dishonest of you.
That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
That's the problem these people are having. More people are playing 40k then ever because the rules (while not perfect, no game ever is) are very good and fun. So people that hate 8th come to dakka to complain about how books are too heavy and digital versions might need you to bring a charger. They will tell you that x rule is broken but at the same time updating the rules to fix it is making the game too complicated. That they hated how some codexes never got updated in an edition but 8th is too complicated because codexes are coming out too fast.......
Meanwhile, everyone at their store is just having fun playing on 40k night..... and they hate that
Way to go misrepresenting people issues, were not a group BTW, many people dislike 8th for many reasons.
Me for example, I dislike that it is missing large sections of necessary rules (such as terrain interaction), has essentially brought back a set of rules for psychic powers that has been tried before and didn’t work, a lot (not all) of the codexs lack ... soul... for lack of a better term (subjective), implemented a set of rules that would clearly cause issues and claimed it had been playtested, I could go on but you get the point, but do I hate 8th?
No, do I like it, no, not in it’s current state and needs another year or so of development, I have faith that it will become the kind of game I want to play and until then I will stick with HH, necromunda and kill team if it pans out.
So don’t lie and try to detract from peoples genuine grievances, it’s morally dishonest of you.
The comment wasn't directly pointed at you but all the comments in this and dozens of other threads that present circular arguments of why 8th is the worst. Such as
>There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
As everyone keeps saying 8th is not a perfect game, but GW is clearly listening to feedback and constantly improving. At this point, if people have issues with the core of what 8th is they really should just try looking for a new game. I say this not because I want people to leave the game or i want people that don't agree with me to leave. I say this because with the way 40k is expanding and the numbers they are pulling in sales they aren't going to change course anytime soon. You can come and scream about how the games needs to be more like HH or 7th or a dozen different systems, but as long as 40k keeps pumping out such good numbers the core of the game isnt going to change.
SHUPPET wrote: That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
The only thing that offends me is when people try to dismiss others opinions, I may not agree with people that 8th is any good or not but I have NEVER tried to dismiss their opinions, I could easily just say that anyone that likes 8th is a white knight moron, but I don’t, because I understand that we are a varied bunch with many reasons to like and dislike things.
But let’s end this comment on a positive for a change, here’s what I DO alike about 8th.
Vehicles and montrous creatures have a T value, saves and wounds, they also degrade, which I think is quite good.
Move and fire heavy weapons, tanks being able to actually shoot on the move, varied move values.
Command points, I think how they are generated is dim, but really like the idea itself, it’s about time they added something g like this to 40k.
SHUPPET wrote: That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
And what exactly about the anti-8th opinions that people are expressing isn't grounded? Because it sure seems like your criteria for "grounded" is expressing positive opinions and confidence that GW will get it right soon, and any purely negative opinions are dismissed as irrational.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: >There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
This is not a circular argument. What people want here is a real book, but 1-2 real books that cover everything they need, not 5+ books. It's a very specific desire, but it is not circular and GW is not meeting it.
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
This is also not circular. The objection is not that GW is changing the rules, it's that GW is quickly changing stuff because they are apparently incapable of doing proper playtesting and catching this stuff before it is published. It is entirely legitimate to object to rapid changes in the rules that wouldn't exist if GW did their job.
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
Nope, not circular either. 8th can still be terrible even if it's the dominant game in the market, and that dominance can have reasons unrelated to rules. Stuck in an area where the only convenient store is a GW store? It's 40k or nothing. People in your area really like GW's models? Good luck convincing them to use some obscure fan-made rules for another system instead of taking the easy way out and playing the game they already know. The reality is that, for a lot of people, the choice is between playing a badly flawed game or playing nothing at all.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
That's the problem these people are having. More people are playing 40k then ever because the rules (while not perfect, no game ever is) are very good and fun. So people that hate 8th come to dakka to complain about how books are too heavy and digital versions might need you to bring a charger. They will tell you that x rule is broken but at the same time updating the rules to fix it is making the game too complicated. That they hated how some codexes never got updated in an edition but 8th is too complicated because codexes are coming out too fast.......
Meanwhile, everyone at their store is just having fun playing on 40k night..... and they hate that
Way to go misrepresenting people issues, were not a group BTW, many people dislike 8th for many reasons.
Me for example, I dislike that it is missing large sections of necessary rules (such as terrain interaction), has essentially brought back a set of rules for psychic powers that has been tried before and didn’t work, a lot (not all) of the codexs lack ... soul... for lack of a better term (subjective), implemented a set of rules that would clearly cause issues and claimed it had been playtested, I could go on but you get the point, but do I hate 8th?
No, do I like it, no, not in it’s current state and needs another year or so of development, I have faith that it will become the kind of game I want to play and until then I will stick with HH, necromunda and kill team if it pans out.
So don’t lie and try to detract from peoples genuine grievances, it’s morally dishonest of you.
The comment wasn't directly pointed at you but all the comments in this and dozens of other threads that present circular arguments of why 8th is the worst. Such as
>There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
As everyone keeps saying 8th is not a perfect game, but GW is clearly listening to feedback and constantly improving. At this point, if people have issues with the core of what 8th is they really should just try looking for a new game. I say this not because I want people to leave the game or i want people that don't agree with me to leave. I say this because with the way 40k is expanding and the numbers they are pulling in sales they aren't going to change course anytime soon. You can come and scream about how the games needs to be more like HH or 7th or a dozen different systems, but as long as 40k keeps pumping out such good numbers the core of the game isnt going to change.
Who’s screaming ?
Who wants 8th to be 7th?
The core game has changed several times since it was released... sooo yeah.. thats a thing.
Is the game constantly improving, that’s pretty subjective, for example my primary army is Deathwing, so to me the game has taken a negative turn, but I’m able to think critically and understand that overall the DS and rule of 3 are ... ok ish for now, they need more work.
And no, if people have an issue with 8th they should endeaver to encourage GW to change it, like you just claimed, they are listening, or are you implying that only YOUR opinion is worth listening to, and people that agree with you? Seems like a double standard to me.
But to your main point.
There are too many books, too much paperwork, this isn’t new and nor is the grievance, 3rd was th worst offender for this and 8th is catching up fast, but guess what, is long tooth old gamers remember the old chapter approved compendiums, so does GW thankfully, so here’s hoping they bring that back in and include all the FAQ in chapter approved compendiums.
Digital books are impractical, small screens for phones, sluggish systems, poor optimisation, lack of support for android (until recently), but it’s getting better thankfully so this won’t be an issue for long.
People liking real books is fine, no problem there.
8th is terrible and everyone hates it, 8th is great and anyone who hates it is a moaner, screaming or a whiner... double standard again.
Then play a different game, or you know, make it known you don’t like something, since GW is listening like you said...
I can’t everyone else is enjoying 8th... everyone eh, everyone.... well clearly that’s not true.
Do you not see the irony of what you are posting ?
SHUPPET wrote: That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
And what exactly about the anti-8th opinions that people are expressing isn't grounded? Because it sure seems like your criteria for "grounded" is expressing positive opinions and confidence that GW will get it right soon, and any purely negative opinions are dismissed as irrational.
I mean you must have read the quote, so you already know the answer to that question. You just don't care about reality - you're Peregrine.
If you cant tell a difference for example between Formosa's critique of 8th and why he dislikes it in that post there, that I can disagree with but yet respect as a differing opinion and one at least built off reason, as opposed to the other guys in here who hate 8th because "the codexes are too heavy and I hate erratas and GW has a grudge against Grey Knights and wants them to suffer" and whatever other dumb reasons, well there's nothing else to be said really, and that's just you as a person. We get it, you hate 8th for ALL the reasons, just like you did for 7th, just like you did for 6th, just like you did for 5th, and that's as far back as I remember seeing you post. But not all reasoning is created equally and you're damn right that I'll dismiss some of it as irrational, just because it's someone else's opinion doesn't give it some automatic right of validity.
Crimson Devil wrote: It makes no sense to me. I can appreciate loving the models, but why use GW's rules? I have dozens of games and lots of miniatures. The games with rules I don't like, I don't play. If I want to use those minis I'll find a game they fit in. Their are plenty of adaptions of 40k all over the net. Conversions for Bolt Action, AoS, & DUST are just the ones off the top of my head. So why put yourselves through playing a game you hate?
It must be some form of sadomasochism.
If you play at a store, then you can only play only the way the store owners are ok with. You can't just use Dust rules and play w40k with 20 models, even if they support the game, because they want to sell stuff for the game and don't care what you already have. And yes I do understand that in some places around the world people have huge houses and don't play at stores. It is not the norm in every country in the world. It is probablly a minority of places world wide, that can play like that.
I play at a store every weekend and not a single store in Utah I've played regularly at has that sort of restriction.
For the record: Gajo Games, Comics Utah, MRS Hobbies, & Hastur Hobbies.
Peregrine wrote:
Conversion rules are great, but only if you have people to play with. If you show up at a store on 40k night everyone else is going to expect to use the standard 40k rules, not some obscure conversion for a different game that nobody else has ever heard of. So you either play with the 40k rules, or you sit in the corner wishing you could do something with your models until you give up and go home.
If the people around you also share your distaste for 8th edition it should be easy to find one other person brave enough to try something new.
That's the problem these people are having. More people are playing 40k then ever because the rules (while not perfect, no game ever is) are very good and fun. So people that hate 8th come to dakka to complain about how books are too heavy and digital versions might need you to bring a charger. They will tell you that x rule is broken but at the same time updating the rules to fix it is making the game too complicated. That they hated how some codexes never got updated in an edition but 8th is too complicated because codexes are coming out too fast.......
Meanwhile, everyone at their store is just having fun playing on 40k night..... and they hate that
Way to go misrepresenting people issues, were not a group BTW, many people dislike 8th for many reasons.
Me for example, I dislike that it is missing large sections of necessary rules (such as terrain interaction), has essentially brought back a set of rules for psychic powers that has been tried before and didn’t work, a lot (not all) of the codexs lack ... soul... for lack of a better term (subjective), implemented a set of rules that would clearly cause issues and claimed it had been playtested, I could go on but you get the point, but do I hate 8th?
No, do I like it, no, not in it’s current state and needs another year or so of development, I have faith that it will become the kind of game I want to play and until then I will stick with HH, necromunda and kill team if it pans out.
So don’t lie and try to detract from peoples genuine grievances, it’s morally dishonest of you.
The comment wasn't directly pointed at you but all the comments in this and dozens of other threads that present circular arguments of why 8th is the worst. Such as
>There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
As everyone keeps saying 8th is not a perfect game, but GW is clearly listening to feedback and constantly improving. At this point, if people have issues with the core of what 8th is they really should just try looking for a new game. I say this not because I want people to leave the game or i want people that don't agree with me to leave. I say this because with the way 40k is expanding and the numbers they are pulling in sales they aren't going to change course anytime soon. You can come and scream about how the games needs to be more like HH or 7th or a dozen different systems, but as long as 40k keeps pumping out such good numbers the core of the game isnt going to change.
Who’s screaming ?
Who wants 8th to be 7th?
The core game has changed several times since it was released... sooo yeah.. thats a thing.
Is the game constantly improving, that’s pretty subjective, for example my primary army is Deathwing, so to me the game has taken a negative turn, but I’m able to think critically and understand that overall the DS and rule of 3 are ... ok ish for now, they need more work.
And no, if people have an issue with 8th they should endeaver to encourage GW to change it, like you just claimed, they are listening, or are you implying that only YOUR opinion is worth listening to, and people that agree with you? Seems like a double standard to me.
But to your main point.
There are too many books, too much paperwork, this isn’t new and nor is the grievance, 3rd was th worst offender for this and 8th is catching up fast, but guess what, is long tooth old gamers remember the old chapter approved compendiums, so does GW thankfully, so here’s hoping they bring that back in and include all the FAQ in chapter approved compendiums.
Digital books are impractical, small screens for phones, sluggish systems, poor optimisation, lack of support for android (until recently), but it’s getting better thankfully so this won’t be an issue for long.
People liking real books is fine, no problem there.
8th is terrible and everyone hates it, 8th is great and anyone who hates it is a moaner, screaming or a whiner... double standard again.
Then play a different game, or you know, make it known you don’t like something, since GW is listening like you said...
I can’t everyone else is enjoying 8th... everyone eh, everyone.... well clearly that’s not true.
Do you not see the irony of what you are posting ?
[/spoiler]
You missed the entire point when I say the core of the game. Those that fundamentally hate 8th are going to be disappointed because with the recent success. Let me give some exact examples of this because you seem to be struggling (also with the concept that i was never responding specifically to your critisism)
1. The weight of the books
The original grievance was with the weight of the books. The suggestion is then made to just get digital. This goes around until the point that they are getting at the whole time is that GW should do free rules that are 100% downloadable.
>This is an issue with the "core" way GW makes money on its rules. Until it looses significant market share because of it and state to take a loss on codexes and rule books this will not change (GW is making money hand over fist with every codex release)
2. 8th is terrible and needs to be more like game x (this is common in tons of threads, once again wasn't specifically pointing out any of your posts)
There is a big difference between the thread the other week about rhinos and the typically "8th is terrible post". The rhino post was someone who found that transports struggle this edition, wanted to fix it and had suggestions on how they would. The other type of post is "x game does everything better and 40k should be like it"
>This is an issue with the core of the game. GW is not going to start emulating smaller less successful games while there's is on the rise. They might take into consideration things like a transport change or the beta deep strike rule when people suggest it, but they aren't going to become X game. Why would they? they make more money then X game and their market share is increasing with 8th not decreasing.
So once again 8th is definitely not perfect, but the CORE of the game is not going to change and for the posters (everyone knows who they are) that derail most threads into "8th is the worst" are going to just keep being disapointed because the direction of 8th is not going to change. We might get a new edition but its going to be 8th 2.0 if they keep making money like they are.
SHUPPET wrote: I mean you must have read the quote, so you already know the answer to that question. You just don't care about reality - you're Peregrine.
If you cant tell a difference for example between Formosa's critique of 8th and why he dislikes it in that post there, that I can disagree with but yet respect as a differing opinion and one at least built off reason, as opposed to the other guys in here who hate 8th because "the codexes are too heavy and I hate erratas and GW has a grudge against Grey Knights and wants them to suffer" and whatever other dumb reasons, well there's nothing else to be said really, and that's just you as a person. We get it, you hate 8th for ALL the reasons, just like you did for 7th, just like you did for 6th, just like you did for 5th, and that's as far back as I remember seeing you post. But not all reasoning is created equally and you're damn right that I'll dismiss some of it as irrational, just because it's someone else's opinion doesn't give it some automatic right of validity.
IOW, you're doing exactly what I said: dismissing opinions you don't agree with as "irrational". Complaining about the weight of books is a legitimate issue, even if you personally don't care about it. Recall that at least one person making the complaint has to take public transportation to a game, so weight matters far more than it would if you're driving your own car. I don't know about "GW just hates GK", that's clearly absurd but I don't see that being more than a tiny and irrelevant minority of criticism about 8th.
SHUPPET wrote: That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
And what exactly about the anti-8th opinions that people are expressing isn't grounded? Because it sure seems like your criteria for "grounded" is expressing positive opinions and confidence that GW will get it right soon, and any purely negative opinions are dismissed as irrational.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: >There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
This is not a circular argument. What people want here is a real book, but 1-2 real books that cover everything they need, not 5+ books. It's a very specific desire, but it is not circular and GW is not meeting it.
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
This is also not circular. The objection is not that GW is changing the rules, it's that GW is quickly changing stuff because they are apparently incapable of doing proper playtesting and catching this stuff before it is published. It is entirely legitimate to object to rapid changes in the rules that wouldn't exist if GW did their job.
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
Nope, not circular either. 8th can still be terrible even if it's the dominant game in the market, and that dominance can have reasons unrelated to rules. Stuck in an area where the only convenient store is a GW store? It's 40k or nothing. People in your area really like GW's models? Good luck convincing them to use some obscure fan-made rules for another system instead of taking the easy way out and playing the game they already know. The reality is that, for a lot of people, the choice is between playing a badly flawed game or playing nothing at all.
Sorry is just can't take anyone seriously that says 8th and everyone hates it and that can coexist with 8th dominating the game market right now. 7th was terrible.... i can say that because GWs numbers reflected it and they lost a huge portion or market share. 8th is a very good game and the masses are voting with their wallets. It's "40k or nothing" right now because 8th is good and making money.
Asmodios wrote: Sorry is just can't take anyone seriously that says 8th and everyone hates it and that can coexist with 8th dominating the game market right now.
Then you aren't understanding the market. GW has three major advantages that other games don't have:
1) A chain of retail stores where only their products are permitted. This is more true in the UK than in the US, but in a lot of places the only store available is a GW store and that means the only games available are GW games. So it very much is 40k or nothing.
2) Very successful fluff and model design. Other games have fluff of course, but a lot of people simply love what GW produces and will continue to buy and play even when the rules are bad.
3) As a result of their past dominance of the market, a large number of people with an investment in 40k already. These people are looking for any excuse to use the armies they've already spent money and time on, so showing any signs of improvement over 7th is going to bring a lot of them back even if the game is still pretty bad. I suspect that most of GW's increase in sales is former players deciding to give it another try because it can't be as bad as 7th, not recruiting new customers at a higher rate with a superior product.
Add up all three of these factors and GW can have a huge share of the market while continuing to publish terrible rules.
SHUPPET wrote: That's a fair statement Formosa and makes your opinion seem a bit more rational, but they be fair to the guy you gave the opposite impression of that so far. On top of that, even if it doesn't apply to you there is many others it definitely does, if it doesn't apply to you there is no reason to get offended if you dislike 8th for more grounded reasons
And what exactly about the anti-8th opinions that people are expressing isn't grounded? Because it sure seems like your criteria for "grounded" is expressing positive opinions and confidence that GW will get it right soon, and any purely negative opinions are dismissed as irrational.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: >There are too many books that are too heavy
>Then use the digital books
>I like the feel of real books
This is not a circular argument. What people want here is a real book, but 1-2 real books that cover everything they need, not 5+ books. It's a very specific desire, but it is not circular and GW is not meeting it.
Or
>8th is the worst because x unit is overpowered
>GW releases point adjustment for unit x
>OMG they change everything so fast nobody can keep up this game is terrible
This is also not circular. The objection is not that GW is changing the rules, it's that GW is quickly changing stuff because they are apparently incapable of doing proper playtesting and catching this stuff before it is published. It is entirely legitimate to object to rapid changes in the rules that wouldn't exist if GW did their job.
Or
>8th has terrible rules and everybody hates it
>then play a different game
>I cant everyone else is playing and enjoying 8th
Nope, not circular either. 8th can still be terrible even if it's the dominant game in the market, and that dominance can have reasons unrelated to rules. Stuck in an area where the only convenient store is a GW store? It's 40k or nothing. People in your area really like GW's models? Good luck convincing them to use some obscure fan-made rules for another system instead of taking the easy way out and playing the game they already know. The reality is that, for a lot of people, the choice is between playing a badly flawed game or playing nothing at all.
Sorry is just can't take anyone seriously that says 8th and everyone hates it and that can coexist with 8th dominating the game market right now. 7th was terrible.... i can say that because GWs numbers reflected it and they lost a huge portion or market share. 8th is a very good game and the masses are voting with their wallets. It's "40k or nothing" right now because 8th is good and making money.
Who says everyone hates 8th? All I keep hearing is people saying everyone loves it, which also isn’t true, you know when you generalise a group it winds people up right?
And no, if people have an issue with 8th they should endeaver to encourage GW to change it
I agree, but I don't think many people give that sort of constructive feedback. The narratives I see from some many people painting GW as this malicious uncaring entity out to punish players is just like the opposite, and as a designer gives zero reason to do anything other than chalk such people up as a loon or even a shill or detractor for other companies. To be clear, I'm not talking about you, as I think yours was the kind that could be taken on board, and if enough people felt the similar way that could be reflected en masse, all by the power of constructive feedback, to a company that is listening more so now than ever.
However, while they are listening I highly doubt they are listening to Dakka. This forum has well and truly shot it's credibility with the incessant whining, and if they want constructive feedback you know this is there last place they are checking.
I can only imagine Johnny G. Workshop, sitting here refreshing this forum like "oh damn, another thread talking about how much I hate assault and want it to fail and exposing my Xenos bias, I really can't catch a break here"
Asmodios wrote: Sorry is just can't take anyone seriously that says 8th and everyone hates it and that can coexist with 8th dominating the game market right now.
Then you aren't understanding the market. GW has three major advantages that other games don't have:
1) A chain of retail stores where only their products are permitted. This is more true in the UK than in the US, but in a lot of places the only store available is a GW store and that means the only games available are GW games. So it very much is 40k or nothing.
2) Very successful fluff and model design. Other games have fluff of course, but a lot of people simply love what GW produces and will continue to buy and play even when the rules are bad.
3) As a result of their past dominance of the market, a large number of people with an investment in 40k already. These people are looking for any excuse to use the armies they've already spent money and time on, so showing any signs of improvement over 7th is going to bring a lot of them back even if the game is still pretty bad. I suspect that most of GW's increase in sales is former players deciding to give it another try because it can't be as bad as 7th, not recruiting new customers at a higher rate with a superior product.
Add up all three of these factors and GW can have a huge share of the market while continuing to publish terrible rules.
Funny that non of that stuff mattered during 7th when they lost a massive amount of market share. I love how upset you get every time i bring up how much money 8th is making GW. The finical report crashed every hope you had of 8th being a failure.
And no, if people have an issue with 8th they should endeaver to encourage GW to change it
I agree, but I don't think many people give that sort of constructive feedback. The narratives I see from some many people painting GW as this malicious uncaring entity out to punish players is just like the opposite, and as a designer gives zero reason to do anything other than chalk such people up as a loon or even a shill or detractor for other companies. To be clear, I'm not talking about you, as I think yours was the kind that could be taken on board, and if enough people felt the similar way that could be reflected en masse, all by the power of constructive feedback, to a company that is listening more so now than ever.
However, while they are listening I highly doubt they are listening to Dakka. This forum has well and truly shot it's credibility with the incessant whining, and if they want constructive feedback you know this is there last place they are checking.
I can only imagine Johnny G. Workshop, sitting here refreshing this forum like "oh damn, another thread talking about how much I hate assault and want it to fail and exposing my Xenos bias, I really can't catch a break here"
Asmodios wrote: Funny that non of that stuff mattered during 7th when they lost a massive amount of market share. I love how upset you get every time i bring up how much money 8th is making GW. The finical report crashed every hope you had of 8th being a failure.
Of course that stuff mattered in 7th. Those factors are why GW still exists as a company despite the utter debacle that was 7th edition and the initial AoS release. People forget that, as bad as GW's situation was in 7th, they still made a profit in every financial report. Things could have been much worse, and would have been much worse for pretty much any other company that published such broken products for such a long period of time.
As much as I love 8th edition... yeah, GW really should at least try to present their rules in a comprehensible and easy to access way. What they have done with AoS in 2.0, if you want to access all the "Basic" rules is infuriating.
8th is the most popular edition ever eh? Can you prove that ?
A massive success ? Can you prove that? Can you prove that as the only marketed edition that is purely down to the rules?
People have reacted positively to the rules? Well that’s demonstably false, reactions have been mixed, leaning to the positive, but certainly not “at all levels of the game”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
We want a better game, we want the issues to be ironed out and to quote myself
“I Think 8th will eventually be the game I want to play, I feel like it’s still in the beta stages and given time it will develop into a good and well rounded game, then I will come back to it”
Hardly the screaming of a person who “plays to complain”
In the period we launched a new edition of Warhammer 40,000. The launch month, June 2017, reached new heights for us, which was no real surprise as the models and supporting gaming mechanics were better than ever.
Warhammer 40,000 - our most popular and recognisable brand is a space fantasy setting.
Just in case anyone was planning on pretending that this success was like, all coming from AoS or HH or some nonsense.
I think it's say to safe the vocal minority is not the people enjoying the game. It's great to get some hard numbers out here, because it really shines a light on the accuracy of what we've been saying.
My 2 cents into this discussion and whether 8th is doing bad or not.
I can say that 8th has been doing very well here locally and everybody seems to like the rules. In fact, the only place I see people vehemently complain about 8th edition rules and books is here on Dakkadakka. I was in a tournament the other day and nobody brought more than a Codex and then there was a rulebook passed around if people were suffering from memory loss. Even I just brought my Craftworld Codex and 8th edition rule leaflet, and my Craftworld stratagem/psychic cards.
I would also add that there are no "superior" rules. These are all arguments I have seen in every single other Wargame, and I can't imagine that's going to change anytime soon. Everybody else has their unique subjective view of a superior ruleset and it is hard to hit those specific notes. I personally think 8th has hit a very good middle-ground, but again, that is a personal opinion.
A return to USR would also make the possibility of unit reference cards easier. As the special rules are on the unit entry it is going to make for rather large cards, as the rules will need to be listed.
I honestly think that unit reference cards like that found in Warmachine and Hordes would help to cut down on a lot of the need to carry so many books. There could also be cards that have the sub-faction rules/traits/abilities etc.
I collect several factions for 40k and having to flick through several codexes to recall stat lines and rules can be time consuming, having cards eliminates this.
Once I have painted up my forces I intend to make reference cards tailored to my units.
A lot of the "special rules" either just have different names with the same results, or are just minor variations.
What they could do with is standardizing them... eg: An example of a standard scheme: Feel No Pain [X+] When a unit with this rule receives a wound, roll 1D6 for each wound. If the roll result is X+, then that wound is ignored. Then on different units you can just put Feel No Pain 6+, or Feel No Pain 5+
Another example could be... Inspiring Leader [X+] [Y] If a unit within Y inches of this unit fails a morale test roll 1D6. If the roll result is X+ the unit which failed the morale test automatically passes it instead. So that rule could be displayed as Inspiring Leader 6+, 12", or Inspiring Leader 5+, 3".
That means that if you know the basics of what Feel No Pain or Inspiring Leader or whatever rule is, you only need to see the X and Y and Zs of the individual rules of that unit.
I suppose you could also call rules different things but just accept that they are a certain rule.... You might have a standard rule called "Horriffic"
Horrific [Y"] Enemy units within Y inches of this unit must take a morale test within their morale phase, whether or not they have lost any models, unless they have a special rule that allows them to automatically pass morale tests.
Then on the unit datasheets you could have Terrifying - Horrific [6"] Smelly - Horrific [3"] Intimidating - Horrific [3"] Each one could have a little lore about it to make it more fun, and have a name more appropriate, but the core rule is the same.
TarkinLarson wrote: A lot of the "special rules" either just have different names with the same results, or are just minor variations.
What they could do with is standardizing them... eg: An example of a standard scheme: Feel No Pain [X+] When a unit with this rule receives a wound, roll 1D6 for each wound. If the roll result is X+, then that wound is ignored. Then on different units you can just put Feel No Pain 6+, or Feel No Pain 5+
Another example could be... Inspiring Leader [X+] [Y] If a unit within Y inches of this unit fails a morale test roll 1D6. If the roll result is X+ the unit which failed the morale test automatically passes it instead. So that rule could be displayed as Inspiring Leader 6+, 12", or Inspiring Leader 5+, 3".
That means that if you know the basics of what Feel No Pain or Inspiring Leader or whatever rule is, you only need to see the X and Y and Zs of the individual rules of that unit.
I suppose you could also call rules different things but just accept that they are a certain rule.... You might have a standard rule called "Horriffic"
Horrific [Y"] Enemy units within Y inches of this unit must take a morale test within their morale phase, whether or not they have lost any models, unless they have a special rule that allows them to automatically pass morale tests.
Then on the unit datasheets you could have Terrifying - Horrific [6"] Smelly - Horrific [3"] Intimidating - Horrific [3"] Each one could have a little lore about it to make it more fun, and have a name more appropriate, but the core rule is the same.
We had those. They were called Universal Special Rules. They worked for a while, until GW went nuts in 6th ed and started to make pages of them, most of which had hardly any impact and were found on like 3 units in the entire game, making the "universal" part a bit of a lie.
My only real problem with the special rules is that a lot of them are so...bland. They are usually just some variant of a reroll. Which is fine, I guess, just boring.
TarkinLarson wrote: A lot of the "special rules" either just have different names with the same results, or are just minor variations.
What they could do with is standardizing them... eg:
An example of a standard scheme:
Feel No Pain [X+]
When a unit with this rule receives a wound, roll 1D6 for each wound. If the roll result is X+, then that wound is ignored.
Then on different units you can just put Feel No Pain 6+, or Feel No Pain 5+
Another example could be...
Inspiring Leader [X+] [Y]
If a unit within Y inches of this unit fails a morale test roll 1D6. If the roll result is X+ the unit which failed the morale test automatically passes it instead.
So that rule could be displayed as
Inspiring Leader 6+, 12", or Inspiring Leader 5+, 3".
That means that if you know the basics of what Feel No Pain or Inspiring Leader or whatever rule is, you only need to see the X and Y and Zs of the individual rules of that unit.
I suppose you could also call rules different things but just accept that they are a certain rule....
You might have a standard rule called "Horriffic"
Horrific [Y"]
Enemy units within Y inches of this unit must take a morale test within their morale phase, whether or not they have lost any models, unless they have a special rule that allows them to automatically pass morale tests.
Then on the unit datasheets you could have
Terrifying - Horrific [6"]
Smelly - Horrific [3"]
Intimidating - Horrific [3"]
Each one could have a little lore about it to make it more fun, and have a name more appropriate, but the core rule is the same.
We had those. They were called Universal Special Rules. They worked for a while, until GW went nuts in 6th ed and started to make pages of them, most of which had hardly any impact and were found on like 3 units in the entire game, making the "universal" part a bit of a lie.
My only real problem with the special rules is that a lot of them are so...bland. They are usually just some variant of a reroll. Which is fine, I guess, just boring.
USRs are a good idea, the fact GW went overboard with them and messed them up in 6th/7th doesn't change that. It's completely non-sensical that rules like Feel No Pain/Disgustingly Resilient/I'm So Tough and Deep Strike/Manta Strike/We Were Here All Along aren't consolidated into one rule. We've already seen that this causes problems when GW had to adjust the Deep Strike and FNP rules in the latest beta. Go and look at how they had to describe FNP-style effects in those rules to see why they need USRs.
I wouldn't call 8th edition complicated, but it's bloated and needlessly complex without that complexity adding much extra depth. What a lot of the rules need is an element of choice. That's particularly true of the reroll auras. At the moment it's trivially easy to use those auras because a 6" radius is absolutely huge when you need a single model from a unit in range. A better approach would be to apply buffs to one unit of the player's choice within range.
Just to note, Slipspace, some armies don't have auras and do in-fact apply their buffs to a single unit (or a limited number of units in range). For example, Imperial Guard has no aura bonuses outside of Commissars, but their functional replacement, Orders, is both slightly stronger (since it affects fewer units), and is limited in output.
USR's work until GW want to give a unit a slightly different version of a USR then it all goes to pot.
Two example: Feel No Pain. Seems simple enough, but what happens when you want to give FNP against only mortal wounds? Now you have a unique special rule that doesn't interact with any other rules that interact with Feel No Pain.
What about explodes? We'd need to have a long string of unintuitive numbers after the explodes rule to replicate all possible variations.
It just ends up in tears and I am glad they are gone.
BaconCatBug wrote: USR's work until GW want to give a unit a slightly different version of a USR then it all goes to pot.
Two example: Feel No Pain. Seems simple enough, but what happens when you want to give FNP against only mortal wounds? Now you have a unique special rule that doesn't interact with any other rules that interact with Feel No Pain.
What about explodes? We'd need to have a long string of unintuitive numbers after the explodes rule to replicate all possible variations.
It just ends up in tears and I am glad they are gone.
Sounds less like a problem with usrs and more like a problem with marketing dept squids pushin crack plastic at the expense of the game.
I don't think it's too complex, I would say quite the opposite. Compared to some of the popular board games going around. Warhammer and other tabletop games are not that far from the complexity of those games. The biggest difference is you need a tape measure.
I feel that it's gotten bloated to a degree by the number of books you need. For example to play space marines, I need an index, the codex, chapter approved and the most recent FAQ. Thats four books just for basic options.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I feel that it's gotten bloated to a degree by the number of books you need. For example to play space marines, I need an index, the codex, chapter approved and the most recent FAQ. Thats four books just for basic options.
Or, you need your codex with penciled-in points changes and FAQ notes/printouts.
Blndmage wrote: People keep saying that once you have your codex, you should trash your index, why do you need yours?
Personally, I'm waiting for the various indexes to go on eBay cheap, and snap them up.
Cause with out the index there are a good number of options I can't use some of my models because GW decided to dick over long standing players and dumped anything that they couldn't be bothered to put in the box stock.
Codexes are supposed to replace indexes and army specific chapter approved material. That was always GW's intent- I didn't even think it was legal to use indexes and army specific rules from CA once you had your codex.
I don't play Space Marines, so I'm not sure which options used to be possible in the index that are no longer possible in the codex. If that's true, it is a problem- dexes were supposed to be everything in the index + more.
Just for my curiousity (since it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever have an interest in playing Space Marines), could you list some of the "good number" of options you've lost?
PenitentJake wrote: Codexes are supposed to replace indexes and army specific chapter approved material. That was always GW's intent- I didn't even think it was legal to use indexes and army specific rules from CA once you had your codex.
I don't play Space Marines, so I'm not sure which options used to be possible in the index that are no longer possible in the codex. If that's true, it is a problem- dexes were supposed to be everything in the index + more.
Just for my curiousity (since it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever have an interest in playing Space Marines), could you list some of the "good number" of options you've lost?
IIRC it was in one of the FAQs where they explicitly said that if a particular unit or wargear option isn't in the codex, you can use the relevant entry from the index.
In my case, the Astra Militarum codex no longer has demo charges in their special weapon squads, nor Rough Riders altogether. In order to make use of either, I need to refer to the index in addition to the codex.
PenitentJake wrote: Codexes are supposed to replace indexes and army specific chapter approved material. That was always GW's intent- I didn't even think it was legal to use indexes and army specific rules from CA once you had your codex.
I don't play Space Marines, so I'm not sure which options used to be possible in the index that are no longer possible in the codex. If that's true, it is a problem- dexes were supposed to be everything in the index + more.
Just for my curiousity (since it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever have an interest in playing Space Marines), could you list some of the "good number" of options you've lost?
Off the top of my head, Blood Angels lost the following:
Librarians & Chaplains lost bikes
Sanguinary Priest lost bikes, jump packs and all weapon options
Dreadnoughts lost weapon options
Razorbacks lost the Lascannon/Plasma Turret
Company Veterans, Champions, Ancients, & Sanguinary Initiates lost their jump packs
BaconCatBug wrote: USR's work until GW want to give a unit a slightly different version of a USR then it all goes to pot.
Two example: Feel No Pain. Seems simple enough, but what happens when you want to give FNP against only mortal wounds? Now you have a unique special rule that doesn't interact with any other rules that interact with Feel No Pain.
So USRs work until they are no longer universal? Isn't that what bespoke rules are for?
What about explodes? We'd need to have a long string of unintuitive numbers after the explodes rule to replicate all possible variations.
It just ends up in tears and I am glad they are gone.
Explodes, per your example, is an easy fix. This is how MEDGe does it- Range- 1/2 the model's Mass characteristic +D3" Shots- Mass X2- 1 damage- simple, scalable, and one rule.
I believe most factions lost options when the index were supplemented by the codexes. GW could have just left those options in but instead force me to keep an allegedly obsolete book just to use models that in some cases they still sell the bits for.
Explodes, per your example, is an easy fix. This is how MEDGe does it- Range- 1/2 the model's Mass characteristic +D3" Shots- Mass X2- 1 damage- simple, scalable, and one rule.
I didn't start playing 8th until after the codex dropped. I figured I could skip the index only to find out, no I need to buy that as well or I can't use models that have been legal for decades. It's a bad design choice that GW did not need to do.
I didn't start playing 8th until after the codex dropped. I figured I could skip the index only to find out, no I need to buy that as well or I can't use models that have been legal for decades. It's a bad design choice that GW did not need to do.
Those models are still legal for the edition they were released in. It was a business decision, and not an unforeseeable one either.
So through the couple pages ive read ive seen no mention of 8ths advanced rules (expansions i think).
Does anyone even use the rules past the core rules or have a good foundation as to which "advanced" rules should always be used.
Ive complained a lot about 8th over 7th but im starting to realize its not the rules im complaining about as much as the modular delivery of the rules, when i open the book what rules should i be playing by, if someone says all of them then 8th does have more rules and complexity than 7th.
Explodes, per your example, is an easy fix. This is how MEDGe does it- Range- 1/2 the model's Mass characteristic +D3" Shots- Mass X2- 1 damage- simple, scalable, and one rule.
So now we need a Mass characteristic?
Not necessarily, just an example of what I think are better ways to do things than 30 rules that are really the same rule only with very minor variations. Codifying things into universal rules or core mechanics is simpler. Don't equate being simple with having few rules. A game can have more than 4 pages of core rules and still be simple (and deep). It's all in the implementation.
I didn't start playing 8th until after the codex dropped. I figured I could skip the index only to find out, no I need to buy that as well or I can't use models that have been legal for decades. It's a bad design choice that GW did not need to do.
Those models are still legal for the edition they were released in. It was a business decision, and not an unforeseeable one either.
Um, i'd disagree. It cost GW almost no money to keep rules for models and last i checked they arn't fruit, my dreadnought shouldn't expire. further they eliminated models that if anything would make them more money. If there is not a chaplain on a bike, then i need to buy a bike and buy a chaplain and convert the thing.
.
game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
