As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.
In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)
Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.
Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.
Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.
I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.
The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
I can appreciate this line of reasoning. Makes a lot of sense. I would welcome the return of different stats, and maybe the introduction of more though I wouldn’t be qualified to responsibly propose what these might be.
I would equally welcome the return of USRs and at least the option to play without cp and other tricksiness… I wonder if such a move is even possible, though, without alienating the supposedly huge influx of paying fans new since stats were squished and USRs axed and so on… ?
jeff white wrote: I can appreciate this line of reasoning. Makes a lot of sense. I would welcome the return of different stats, and maybe the introduction of more though I wouldn’t be qualified to responsibly propose what these might be.
I would equally welcome the return of USRs and at least the option to play without cp and other tricksiness… I wonder if such a move is even possible, though, without alienating the supposedly huge influx of paying fans new since stats were squished and USRs axed and so on… ?
I don't think GW moving away from stratagems in any way shape or form is not going to happen in this edition at least. They are way to heavily invested in it.
USRs are fine, but I do not believe it would ultimately fix the issue I tried to raise, because of the limited unit statblock GW would eventually move back to unit special rules. Maybe fewer unit special rules and more USRs, but I would argue it would only diminish the issue, not solve it.
Yeah, I agree. I just added those ideas in as a general look back, still wondering if such a move is even possible, I mean, the stratagems and co economy seem to have replaced the functionality inherent n those old stats,… so, is it even possible to get them back?
jeff white wrote: Yeah, I agree. I just added those ideas in as a general look back, still wondering if such a move is even possible, I mean, the stratagems and co economy seem to have replaced the functionality inherent n those old stats,… so, is it even possible to get them back?
Not without revising the base rules and unit stats again for 10th edition.
You could go back to WS/BS values and Initiative. You'd have to expand the WS comparison chart to allow for +2 to hit etc, but this would be a soft dmg nerf for melee and you can't do that without nerfing shooting also which is already too deadly.
It's a mess, but my point is that we need these layered special rules as a means of differentation, even though it's generally an impractical idea.
I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?
As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.
I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.
The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.
Tiberias wrote: As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.
In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)
Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.
Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.
Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.
I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.
The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.
As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.
Tyel wrote:I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?
As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.
I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.
The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.
Yes, they did. By removing the WS comparison they removed another possible layer of differentiation within the statblock, same with initiative. Just bringing that back wouldn't do it though. The old WS comparison chart was very limited and suboptimal. It would have to be expanded like this for example:
Spoiler:
You'd also have to expand the range of WS distributed among units. In earlier editions you almost never had units above WS4, WS5 was very rare and WS6-8 was only used on characters and basically useless, because with the old chart the best case scenario was to hit on 3+. You'd have to make use of that higher range for elite units like harlequins or banshees for example.
But even if you do this you'd have to re-design shooting because it would be way too deadly in comparison to melee. So implementing this would require a redesigned ruleset and a new edition, and I don't think GW will go back, so were stuck with layers of special rules. Which brings us to another problem: if you rely on these layers of special rules of differentiatioen the cap to modifiers to hit at +1/-1 was an absolute desaster from a game design standpoint.
I get that -4 to hit eldar in 8th was stupid and a problem, but in 9th an unmodified 6 always hits anway and now getting minus to hit both in melee and shooting infinitely less valuable because of the cap they implemented. It also limits another layer of differentiation. They should have capped it at -2.
A good example of this is the new black templars emperors champion. He has a rule where he is -1 to hit in melee, thus in a way representing his skill with his sword or something along those lines. Which is GW trying to differentiate this character as a melee duelist who hunts enemy characters. But with hit modifiers capped at +1/-1 this rule is not very valuable due to all the re-rolls that exist nowadays and it is completely useless against anything that gets -1 innately due to a thunderhammer for example.
oni wrote:I think the cause in this 'cause & effect' equation is that there are too many units in the game.
Sadly I think the only solution now is a mass culling of units.
I don't think that is a realistic scenario. GW is actively re-designing old miniature ranges and increasing model-diversity in newly released armies. If anything the trend goes towards even more different units.
Tiberias wrote: As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.
In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)
Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.
Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.
Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.
I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.
The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.
As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.
WS/BS still exist, but it does not matter what you hit. It's not more or less difficult for a grot to hit a bloodthirster or a guardsman. Initative also doesn't play a role anymore in fight sequencing.
Again as I said, I wouldn't want to see a return to the old comparison chart/system because that had big problems also, but a revised version. And you couldn't just implement that, but you'd have to revise the whole rulebook.
I completely agree on weapon profiles though. The exreme proliferation of high AP weapons everywhere was a big mistake. Lethality of shooting especially moved quite a few steps ahead of surviabilty....which is another reason for the piling of special rules among special rules to increase toughness.
As I am getting deeper into Bolt Action, I think GW's "every little nuance" attempt is revolting. The level of detail they are imparting into the figures is fine for something of the level of Kill team where you have maybe 10 guys you are tracking, but for the size of 40K, it's pure stupidity and bloat for bloat's sake.
I'm glad I got off the 40K wagon, and if were to pick it back up, I'd go back to the 8E indexes.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
While AP modifiers are dolled out like candy on Halloween, the issue runs deeper.
Going back to my point about there being too many units... Too many different units also means too many different weapons. How exactly does one continue to add to and differentiate between the literally 40+ bolt weapons that are now in the game?
This issue is becoming a problem for all factions.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
While AP modifiers are dolled out like candy on Halloween, the issue runs deeper.
Yeah, honestly I wasn't even thinking about AP. The biggest issue is number of attacks. Volume of fire makes the medium weapons better Anti-tank AND anti-infantry weapons.
Going back to my point about there being too many units... Too many different units also means too many different weapons. How exactly does one continue to add to and differentiate between the literally 40+ bolt weapons that are now in the game?
Well, I know what I'd do.
All bolt pistols are either 12" S4 AP-1 or 18" S4 Ap0 [which you pick depends on design goals for the game]
All bolt guns/rifles/carbines at MOST have a choice of profile
24" Assault 2, S4 AP 0;
30" Rapid Fire 1 S4 AP-1; OR
36" Heavy 1 S5 AP-1
That's it, those are the only options. Doesn't matter what its called.
And then the heavy bolter and various gravis heavy whatever rifles can go to a combined profile as well:
36 heavy 3 S5, AP-2 (or whatever)
Not set in stone, tweak to the game's design goals (which presumably someone thought about ahead of time). As long as there is one pistol profile, one 'boltgun' profile and one heavy profile.
Mastercrafted, artificer or whatever for characters is +1D.
Tyel wrote: I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?
As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.
I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.
The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.
Right. Emphasis on the last statement.
Overall the stat block increased. W1/2/3, -1D, transhuman. GW could do a few things with going over T8, but that doesn't affect the whole game.
The reason for layered rules was simply the design space needed to express the armies in a way they wanted to. Back when marines were the only ones with layered rules lots of people complained about not having the same treatment.
I'm not convinced that the change to WS and BS matters all that much. The vast majority or units having WS 3 or 4 back before 8th means even if you changed the WS chart to be less stupid you'd still rarely see much difference overall outside of characters and a few monstrous creatures. I don't think they'd be much added differentiation outside of Daemons Custodies.
Also increased AP thing. it's something I've often heard on the forum as an example of the increased lethality, but from my own observation AP and the amount of high AP weapons have been relatively stable since 5th outside the introduction of the Primaris and SM doctrine.
I think the OP has this completely wrong. There was not discernible stat squish between 7th and 8th, which as actually a problem. The rules around the stats changed while the stats didn't. Compare that to what they have done in 9th and you can see that GW has freed themselves from the shackles of pre-8th edition stats.
Now the question of layered rules is different. Those keep proliferating in an effort to make more and more differentiation between closer and closer units. The entire purpose of the Chapter Tactics layer of rules is to have otherwise identical models behave differently during the game. Trying the play an Ultramarines unit like a White Scars unit will lead to disaster. The same holds true for the other layers of rules. They all make otherwise similar models (even in one area) behave differently on the table top. Ork Nobs and Death Guard are both T5, W2 models with only a modest save difference (4+ vs 3+) and yet you want to use completely different weapons to kill them thanks to Disgustingly Resilient.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not convinced that the change to WS and BS matters all that much. The vast majority or units having WS 3 or 4 back before 8th means even if you changed the WS chart to be less stupid you'd still rarely see much difference overall outside of characters and a few monstrous creatures.
It really doesn't. It shifted the odds a little for some character matchups and some mirror matches (marines vs marines are now 3+ rather than 4+).
In many ways, the -1 to hit with powerfists and other 'big weapons' matters more.
The BS change actually isn't one. It just removed the layer of obfuscation. Instead of 7-BS, it just straight-up gives you the result: the target number. The removal of most modifiers and hard cap (+/- 1 max) on the remainder is the significant change.
I think my point was a bit misunderstood in the last few posts.
I not arguing that the old system was better than the current. But GW could have improved and expanded that system, like allowing for 2+ to hit in the comparison chart and distributing a wider range of WS/BS and initiative.
That way they would have another tool of differentiation within the statblock of units without relying on more and more layers of special rules.
And I'll reiterate, I'm not against multitude of special rules in 9th, because in my opinion GW has written themself into a corner regarding the rules and they now have to rely on a multitude of special rules to achieve differentiation. But this is still better than having not differentiation at all.
I am very much agains the cap on modifiers and the proliferation of high AP shooting everywhere
alextroy wrote: I think the OP has this completely wrong. There was not discernible stat squish between 7th and 8th, which as actually a problem. The rules around the stats changed while the stats didn't. Compare that to what they have done in 9th and you can see that GW has freed themselves from the shackles of pre-8th edition stats.
Now the question of layered rules is different. Those keep proliferating in an effort to make more and more differentiation between closer and closer units. The entire purpose of the Chapter Tactics layer of rules is to have otherwise identical models behave differently during the game. Trying the play an Ultramarines unit like a White Scars unit will lead to disaster. The same holds true for the other layers of rules. They all make otherwise similar models (even in one area) behave differently on the table top. Ork Nobs and Death Guard are both T5, W2 models with only a modest save difference (4+ vs 3+) and yet you want to use completely different weapons to kill them thanks to Disgustingly Resilient.
Chapter traits are good. IMHO one of the best improvement in 40k compared to older edition is that chapters/klans/dynasties etc... have their own rules which lead to a different playstyle. It adds variety/longevity to an army, which is always positive. Now if I get bored of my list I may simply change klan and a few units instead of buying new stuff in bulk.
What is not good is having tons of layered rules slapped on units. Regular SM dudes have 6-7 (Angels of Death alone is 4 rules), and only one is the chapter trait. That's the issue. Example: my SW grey hunters should simply have +1 to hit in combat (SW tactics), morale mitigation system (SM thing) and obj sec if they are troops. Nothing else. No bolter discipline, no combat doctrines, no shock assault, etc... Blood Claws even have two more. Give them flat +1A in their profile if you want them to be better in combat, not something like the Shock Assault layered rule.
I do not agree with the premise of the discussion. It is more a matter of having some 25 armies that need to be fierenciated within the rule sett.
Also regarding the squished statlines 9th edition has done a lot to make them unique by playing around with the wounds. We saw 3 wound tyranid warriors in 8th edition to test it out, and it felt unique and great. Come around 9th edition and we see entire armies with muktiwound models as standar. Initiative might be gone, but back in fifth edition most things had only one wound, inuding tanks. (Monsters might have had muktiwound, I do not remember.) Mind you tanks had a secondary 'armour save' in that horrible damage table.
I'm in agreement with oni that the problem is really the number of units in the game, and the number of different factions. It's more suitable for something like an RPG setting than a competitive wargame. I like all the models, don't get me wrong, but it's a really difficult design challenge if you want to make all the differences meaningful.
I don't think I could do it any better than they are without reducing the complexity by making a lot of units pretty similar to each other.
I think the re-introduction of movement values was a much bigger expansion to the stat block than the removal of initiative was a loss. I appreciate that happened before 8, but it was part of the same trend.
Haighus wrote: I think the re-introduction of movement values was a much bigger expansion to the stat block than the removal of initiative was a loss. I appreciate that happened before 8, but it was part of the same trend.
Agreed, and in keeping with the trend to increase damage in weapons GW messed up by making many M values too high and adding in too many ways to double move or advance and charge. Overall the reintroduction of Movement values has been a good thing but I think it's been mishandled in the execution (which could well be GW's company motto at this point).
I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?
"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"
"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?
"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"
"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
I dunno. The new books change the way some of these armies play pretty significantly. And while they could have just hit the highlights there's a lot of old and creaky stuff in that book.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?
"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"
"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
Or the old GW classic conundrum - they went overboard with their first foray into something (Cough Cough Space Marine 2.0) and rather than dialing that back in any meaningful way, they tried to list everybody else's power level up to that, with varying degrees of success, and tried a round-about method of curbing that excess with a series of Send-In-A-Spider-To-Swallow-The-Fly rules.
Eldar can stack -5 to hit on their flyers, aw dag oh man we should solve that by...making it a gamewide rule that everyone can only get -1/+1 to hit!
Oh, rats, shoot, now its way easier to damage stuff that used to rely on hit mods, um, drukhari get super powerful invulnerable saves on everything now, yeah, and we'll make their vehicles really cheap!
oof, ouch, drukhari are really powerful, I know, we'll release admech with super super strong shooting that's really great at killing drukhari profiles!
Oh no, admech can blow up drukhari but they REALLY REALLY blow up everyone else! um um um terrain setups that are huge giant LOS block parking lots? Does that help?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?
"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"
"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
I dunno. The new books change the way some of these armies play pretty significantly. And while they could have just hit the highlights there's a lot of old and creaky stuff in that book.
Right, they do change things, that's my point.
A "codex update" could literally be a .pdf, updating the wording to 9th, adjusting points costs again, maybe adding another unit datasheet or two for model releases and possibly changing some core army mechanics if the designers decide to tweak the playstyle of the faction.
But such an "update" doesn't do a great job of convincing marketing to pay you... so better lay on the changes! And since you don't want to invalidate people's collections / totally revamp the army again and again, this can only come in the form of MORE MORE MORE! Adding MORE rules.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?
"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"
"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
Or the old GW classic conundrum - they went overboard with their first foray into something (Cough Cough Space Marine 2.0) and rather than dialing that back in any meaningful way, they tried to list everybody else's power level up to that, with varying degrees of success, and tried a round-about method of curbing that excess with a series of Send-In-A-Spider-To-Swallow-The-Fly rules.
Eldar can stack -5 to hit on their flyers, aw dag oh man we should solve that by...making it a gamewide rule that everyone can only get -1/+1 to hit!
Oh, rats, shoot, now its way easier to damage stuff that used to rely on hit mods, um, drukhari get super powerful invulnerable saves on everything now, yeah, and we'll make their vehicles really cheap!
oof, ouch, drukhari are really powerful, I know, we'll release admech with super super strong shooting that's really great at killing drukhari profiles!
Oh no, admech can blow up drukhari but they REALLY REALLY blow up everyone else! um um um terrain setups that are huge giant LOS block parking lots? Does that help?
Whack a (plastic crack) mole… no it does not help!
Hrm, I'd argue the layered rules are an extension of previously existing rules paradigms. We had layered rules in 3E for example, where you wouldnt just play Chaos Marines, but World Eaters or Iron Warriors that got various extra special rules depending on mission and army construction.
We got detachments and formations and all that starting years before the statline adjustments of 8th in 6th edition.
GW has also long used special rules and add ons to cover statline problems, not wanting to change the statline but willing to patch with accessory rules. That's been the story of the Leman Russ for the last 5 editions. This I think is a major culprit.
Scale is also an issue, GW is trying to encompasse ever more stuff intona comoany level wargame and there's just too much going on trying to make a grot and its pistol and a Knight or Titan both meaningful tabletop elements without making thrm cumbersome in one direction or another, particularly when also trying to differentiate black grots from yellow grots and spiky walkers from churchy walkers at the same time.
I think in general this is just GWs design philosophy trying to do too much in the same design space, the statline in and of itself is a tertiary issue.
oni wrote: How exactly does one continue to add to and differentiate between the literally 40+ bolt weapons that are now in the game?
This issue is becoming a problem for all factions.
By not having 40+ bolt weapons? There is absolutely no need for GW giving every single space marine unit 3 different unique weapons. Just give them all a Bolter.
Sometimes I am reminded of the very early days of the Internet, when people would make up every possible site name and register them with the idea of selling them,,, some people made a ton of money selling domain names.
I sometimes wonder if this isn’t what GW are doing, just sharting IP for the sake of saying yeah, this bolter variant is ours, anticipating the day when a competitor will produce a human in power armor with an extra large self propelled burst projectile assault rifle, so that they can say nope, that idea belongs to us, that is a yada bolter and if you want to produce those then you will have to pay for the use of the concept.
I dunno, AoS has far more simple stat blocks but also does fine in maintaining faction/unit identity without the level of rules bloat 40k has. While I do not discount the point entirely, I would argue there are design factors involved as well; 40k has been written in a manner that is very inefficient.
A great example would be bolter discipline. A relatively long rule defining all the instances in which marines get to rapid-fire a bolter, which adds up to 'almost always'. If the rule was just 'marines always rapid fire with bolters' it would be a great deal simplified and still well within the realm of what can be balanced around.
Or to look at dataslate design, heavy intercessors and eradicators. Two dataslates, nine(!) primary weapon options, a completely unneeded special rule, all for something that really just needs to be one dataslate for gravis heavy support that can take heavy bolters or multi-meltas.
And GW is still advtisting high unit counts as if it is a good thing. When an army hits 50+ dataslates more of them is generally BAD, not good. Though the chapterhousim of needlessly slicing up equipment options into distinct units certainly makes things much worse.
jeff white wrote: Sometimes I am reminded of the very early days of the Internet, when people would make up every possible site name and register them with the idea of selling them,,, some people made a ton of money selling domain names.
I sometimes wonder if this isn’t what GW are doing, just sharting IP for the sake of saying yeah, this bolter variant is ours, anticipating the day when a competitor will produce a human in power armor with an extra large self propelled burst projectile assault rifle, so that they can say nope, that idea belongs to us, that is a yada bolter and if you want to produce those then you will have to pay for the use of the concept.
Definitely not. Domains are still bought and sold though.
GW just likes giving units new weapons when they want a different function or form. Paragon War Blade could just be a MC Power Sword and the model given an extra base attack. Repentia basically have a power fist, but if definitely doesn't look like one. Giving marines a mountain of bolters just defines that faction as being really elite and having a tool for every job.
A tool that, perhaps nine times out of ten (don't have the 'dex in front of me so I can't do the math), is just another hammer with a different logo on the handle.
I feel like layered rules is the result of the bare bones foundation they made for themselves with the over simplification of the core rules. Lack of variety in game mechanics results in little opportunity for gameplay to differ between units and makes it harder for one unit to play different than another. GW set themselves up with very little in the way of tools to balance gameplay or to create variety so they end up layering rules that manipulate the very basic core gameplay mechanics of the game (move, shoot, stab, wound, die). Also the fact that any new mechanics introduced in a codex becomes difficult for other codex armies to interact with so most of these mechanics tend to just interact with units with how they do the very basic core rule mechanics.
Honestly I don't see the problem with barebones rules. The game is stupid bloated with layers upon layers of rules and none of it is really necessary. What is wrong with a concise, stable core set of rules easy to understand? What, will the tournament players complain that the skill ceiling isn't high enough for them to feel special? feth 'em.
I dont think people have any problems with easy to use rules that only take up a few pages. As long as they give you meaningful interactions and not only tells you how to resolve the most basics of "move" "shoot" and "fight".
If you had a few simple rules added to the current rules that give you some sort of flanking or maneuver bonus and added a good melee or fallback resolution mechanic with a functional morale system the current rules would be vastly improved. Better written terrain rules and maybe more diverse missions as well could help without taking up more space.
Then you wouldn't need special rules to make meaningful distinction between units or factions but could rely on a models base profile matter more in consideration to the core rules. If your position relative your opponent mattered more than just line of sight then the basic move stat and move related abilities/rules become vastly more relevant. If leadership would affect fallback, melee outnumber or pinning then the core rules would make it feel very different playing low leadership armies compared to high leadership armies.
If you make the core rules more engaging then you can easily remove most pf the bloat but if you have the current core rules and remove all the bloat you aren't left with a good system. It is less bloated but still not good. You would just show to the world that under all the bloat there isn't enough to make a good game. The bloat isn't the sickness, only some very nasty symptoms.
Games like GW's own MESBG or Mantic's Kings of War both have like twice or more the core rules of 9th ed 40k yet they arent harder to play. The big difference there is that most of the rules are in the core rules and then most units survive on their base stats so to play a normal game you need like 60 pages of core rules + 5 pages of army rules for 65 pages total for both players. In 40k its more like 30 pages of core rules but then you need 15-30 pages per player for the rules of the individual armies for a grand total of 80-90 pages you have to learn, Want to play 2 different armies in KoW or mesbg from your last game? Then it is only like 5 pages more you have to learn for the next game involving 2 different armies. For 40k you will need to learn closer to 60pages if you completely swap both armies. That is like learning a completely new game.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly I don't see the problem with barebones rules. The game is stupid bloated with layers upon layers of rules and none of it is really necessary. What is wrong with a concise, stable core set of rules easy to understand? What, will the tournament players complain that the skill ceiling isn't high enough for them to feel special? feth 'em.
The problem is that everything feels samey.
Play the game without stratagems, army rules, or anything (just bare datasheets) and you will see very quickly how shallow the game really is.
There are more differences between how the Soviets and the Germans play in Chain of Command than there are between the Tyranids and the Space Marines in 40k (without army special rules, stratagems, bloat).
This is achieved by having deep core rules.
For example, the Soviet infantry do not have teams, as their smallest tactical unit was the squad; meanwhile, German units tend to have fire teams (e.g. a rifle team and an MG team).
That doesn't actually mean much without the context of the core rules, though. Once you layer on the core rules, you see the major play style differences (and the boons and drawbacks of both systems):
- the Soviet units are harder to activate, since you can only activate them as squads (rather than activating them with teams)
- the Soviet units are more unwieldy to command (you can't have the MG stay behind and the riflemen advance without your squad leader taking time to reorganize the squad)
- large-scale muscle movements are easier for the Soviets (it only takes 1 shock to move at the double with a coherent squad; the Germans take 2 to move at speed since both teams have to reorganize)
- large-scale defensive works are easier for the Soviets (buying entrenchments as support is paid for on a per-team basis, so the soviets pay half as much to entrench a squad)
- Soviet squads are more dangerous to tanks than their German counterparts unless the Germans bring Panzerfausts (the Soviets issued their infantry with deliberate anti-tank grenades)
Essentially, this means the Soviet platoon is better than the German platoon at making large movements or large defensive works, but in a squad vs squad small-scale firefight they are at a disadvantage. This encourages the Soviet player to mass his combat power (whether on attack or defense) to ensure it is never 1 vs 1. Meanwhile, the Germans can use the local superiority of their squads to plan around a single point of the battle - either main defensive area or single breakthrough point.
In 40k?
Meh. Take away bloat, and the primary differences between forces are in the statlines, which means if we accept points are balanced (which they ought to be) then... well, you can see it.
Taking the bloat away doesn't mean just using the core rules so each army is the same thing. It means reducing the special rules for each faction and eliminating the redundancy of stuff that has multiple versions of the very same thing.
It's ok to give SM (or any other faction) their own rules, stratagems, etc... it's not ok to give them 50 pages of faction/chapter dedicated rules and to repeat units and wargear into countless slightly different iteration of the same thing.
Core rules for 40k are probably the best 40k rules ever, there's no need of a 300 hundred pages core book for a functioning edition of 40k. Reducing the bloat shouldn't even be hard: just get rid of those rules that are never taken and that's half of each codexes. Then merge of samey stuff into a single datasheet. Job basically done.
Vankraken wrote: I feel like layered rules is the result of the bare bones foundation they made for themselves with the over simplification of the core rules. Lack of variety in game mechanics results in little opportunity for gameplay to differ between units and makes it harder for one unit to play different than another. GW set themselves up with very little in the way of tools to balance gameplay or to create variety so they end up layering rules that manipulate the very basic core gameplay mechanics of the game (move, shoot, stab, wound, die). Also the fact that any new mechanics introduced in a codex becomes difficult for other codex armies to interact with so most of these mechanics tend to just interact with units with how they do the very basic core rule mechanics.
Most of the layers seem to exist to fix core issues rather then to provide diversity.
Go read a 3e edition codex. There wasn't layers and layers to diversify armies. And what simplification ruined unit identities?
Changing Armor facings to Toughness didn't suddenly make all tanks the same unit.
Changing WS didn't make everyone the same.
Heck I could argue in some ways 3e edition was a more simplistic ruleset then 9th is.
This is a Marine. He can shoot once up to 24" if he stood still. Or once up to 12" if he moved.
Its more complicated then that now with Advances.
Probably half the units in the game had a 24" str 4 AP 5+ rapid fire weapon because half the game was some form of marine (as is still the case) and a marine had a boltgun. Not 5 pages full of slightly different boltguns.
But I never heard people complain about diversity.
Once upon a time Tau's 'identity' was that they had a 30" basic gun. Which was huge. The army didn't chapter tactics, bolter drill, combat doctrines and shock assault to have an identiy.
How many layers of rules only exist to make stuff more lethal or more tough?
Properly balance weapons and reduce overall lethality and you can strip all that garbage out.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly I don't see the problem with barebones rules. The game is stupid bloated with layers upon layers of rules and none of it is really necessary. What is wrong with a concise, stable core set of rules easy to understand? What, will the tournament players complain that the skill ceiling isn't high enough for them to feel special? feth 'em.
The problem is that everything feels samey.
Play the game without stratagems, army rules, or anything (just bare datasheets) and you will see very quickly how shallow the game really is.
There are more differences between how the Soviets and the Germans play in Chain of Command than there are between the Tyranids and the Space Marines in 40k (without army special rules, stratagems, bloat).
This is achieved by having deep core rules.
For example, the Soviet infantry do not have teams, as their smallest tactical unit was the squad; meanwhile, German units tend to have fire teams (e.g. a rifle team and an MG team).
That doesn't actually mean much without the context of the core rules, though. Once you layer on the core rules, you see the major play style differences (and the boons and drawbacks of both systems):
- the Soviet units are harder to activate, since you can only activate them as squads (rather than activating them with teams)
- the Soviet units are more unwieldy to command (you can't have the MG stay behind and the riflemen advance without your squad leader taking time to reorganize the squad)
- large-scale muscle movements are easier for the Soviets (it only takes 1 shock to move at the double with a coherent squad; the Germans take 2 to move at speed since both teams have to reorganize)
- large-scale defensive works are easier for the Soviets (buying entrenchments as support is paid for on a per-team basis, so the soviets pay half as much to entrench a squad)
- Soviet squads are more dangerous to tanks than their German counterparts unless the Germans bring Panzerfausts (the Soviets issued their infantry with deliberate anti-tank grenades)
Essentially, this means the Soviet platoon is better than the German platoon at making large movements or large defensive works, but in a squad vs squad small-scale firefight they are at a disadvantage. This encourages the Soviet player to mass his combat power (whether on attack or defense) to ensure it is never 1 vs 1. Meanwhile, the Germans can use the local superiority of their squads to plan around a single point of the battle - either main defensive area or single breakthrough point.
In 40k?
Meh. Take away bloat, and the primary differences between forces are in the statlines, which means if we accept points are balanced (which they ought to be) then... well, you can see it.
So what is the difference between a 3e edition tactical marine. A chaos space marine, a guardsman, a termagant, a guardian, a kabalite and a fire warrior?
Funny how these arguments of "everything will be to samey" didn't exist before armies had books full of special rules thrown at them.
A loyalist had ATSKNF, chaos had 1 more ld. And no one complained about them being to samey.
Play the game without stratagems, army rules, or anything (just bare datasheets) and you will see very quickly how shallow the game really is.
So many of the layered army rules, whether as stratagems or traits or tactics or whatever, come down to manipulating the same handful of things. Re-Rolling X under Y condition, +1 to Z under W condition. Etc. and these same basic manipulations get rebranded under different sounding titles for each army, but they are all basically the same mass of modifiers and re-rolls. It's the pretense of differentiation through obscurity.
Ordana wrote: So what is the difference between a 3e edition tactical marine. A chaos space marine, a guardsman, a termagant, a guardian, a kabalite and a fire warrior?
Funny how these arguments of "everything will be to samey" didn't exist before armies had books full of special rules thrown at them.
A loyalist had ATSKNF, chaos had 1 more ld. And no one complained about them being to samey.
3rd Ed created some key differences between those troops through just core rules, and those differences are no longer represented in 9th.
A Marine, CSM, or Guardsman had a Rapid Fire weapon. They were all optimal staying stationary to shoot, since they only got one shot on the move, and couldn't shoot and then charge. You tended to use them defensively, in gunlines, or forgoing shooting to get into melee. Meanwhile a Termagant or Guardian was armed with an Assault weapon. They could move, shoot at full effectiveness, and then charge. So, you used them more offensively. Additionally, Eldar and Tyranids had Fleet, which uniquely let them move faster in lieu of shooting. Admittedly Fleet was a special rule, but a simple and army-wide one with low cognitive burden.
Differentiating Eldar and Tyranids, the Eldar had an Initiative advantage. When Eldar did get into melee, they usually struck first. This meant that their basic troops could get 4 attacks off (two shooting, two in melee with the charge bonus) before something like a Guardsman could react. This let them punch above their weight despite being only S3. Eldar were brutal on the charge, but crumbled quickly in a protracted fight.
ATSKNF versus just 1 more point of leadership made a huge difference in an edition where morale could break your army. CSM weren't likely to break, but they could end up running for it, where Marines were more likely to break but would auto-rally, making for tactical retreats instead of outright routs. Guardsmen frequently ran long before their squads were wiped out. Termagants were fearless in Synapse, but fled quickly if cut off from Synapse Creatures.
The old AP system meant that those Marines could blow through Guardsman or Termagant armor while denying their saves entirely, but Fire Warriors were literally twice as hard to kill. In a Marine-dominated meta, this allowed Tau to slug it out with Marines at distance.
And Tau having 30" meant that they uniquely could fire from their deployment zone into the enemy deployment zone with basic troops. In an edition where Rapid Fire meant you could only fire at full range if you were stationary, this gave them basically a free turn of shooting before Marines or Guard could get in position to return fire.
None of these distinctions exist anymore. Rapid Fire's restrictions have been stripped away so Assault isn't advantageous. Everyone can Advance. Initiative is gone. Morale doesn't matter. Synapse is a joke. AP is irrelevant. Anyone can move normally and shoot Rapid Fire at max range. Weapon Skill is no longer opposed. Lasguns can wound tanks. The core mechanics have been watered down and no longer allow simply having a different weapon type or different stats to meaningfully distinguish units and armies. If you drop special rules and stratagems in 9th, there isn't enough there to differentiate what remains.
'Stat squish' isn't the problem here. Broadening the range of stats wouldn't add depth to the game; just more minutiae. To differentiate armies without using layer upon layer of special rules, it's necessary to do two things:
1. Re-work the core rules to make the stats matter. When being S3 means you can't even wound T7, that matters. When failing a Ld check means your unit is out of action for at least one turn and maybe the rest of the game, that matters. I am not saying things need to work exactly as they did in older editions, but there needs to be more impact to having high or low stats than just meaning you sometimes roll a 5+ instead of a 4+.
2. Embrace restrictions, and use lifting those restrictions as a simple way to make units special. 'Move and shoot Heavy without penalty' was a huge deal in 3rd Ed, where you normally couldn't move and shoot Heavy at all. It was a mediocre rule in 8th, where all you're avoiding is a -1. It's literally worthless for many units in 9th, where that restriction only applies to infantry. It's okay for a unit to not be able to do absolutely everything at once- making a player really consider what they want their unit to do for this turn is a good thing. It creates actual choice and opens up the possibility for real tactics. That's getting both deeper gameplay and a lever for differentiating units/armies in one package.
That's not even getting into what could be added to 40K from scratch. Something like Epic's C&C system would make for better differentiation between armies than any expansion of statlines could.
catbarf wrote: Something like Epic's C&C system would make for better differentiation between armies than any expansion of statlines could.
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
I can only speak to Epic: Armageddon, but the activation system is an important mechanic.
Players alternate picking a formation (basically a unit at Epic-scale; eg an Imperial Guard platoon) to activate, and an action you want it to perform (eg Advance is move and shoot, Engage is charge, Double is move twice and shoot at a penalty, and so on), and roll against the formation's Initiative value. There's a penalty for the unit having blast markers (meaning it's been shot at; blast markers are used for morale), so units that are under fire are more likely to fail. If you pass, the unit carries out the order you declared. If you fail, the unit receives a blast marker and can only perform a Hold action, which lets them move or shoot. There's an additional wrinkle in that after you successfully activate, you can try to retain the initiative and activate a second formation rather than pass it over to your opponent, but you suffer a -1 to the activation roll.
Marines have an initiative value of 1+. When they're not under fire and you're not trying to retain initiative, they never fail to activate and will always respond to your orders. Even when your units start taking fire (blast markers), it only takes a 2+ followed by a 3+ to pull off a one-two punch.
Meanwhile, Orks have an initiative value of 3+. Even at the best of times, they've got a 1-in-3 chance of just not doing what you want, and when they start taking fire that drops to 50/50; and don't even think about trying to retain the initiative once in a fight. However, there's an exception- if you want to give them an Engage or Double order, ie either charge or move twice with shooting at a penalty, you get a +2 to the roll.
So Marines are extremely reliable, and can perform any order they like with the same reliability. Even when they're in combat, they're still likely to activate and likely to retain initiative, and having two units simultaneously perform sustained fire or redeploy with a triple-move can really shake up the game state.
Meanwhile, Orks are only reliable as long as you're either moving or charging into melee, and if you want to do anything else- triple-move, sustained fire, go onto overwatch, rally- they can still try for it, but their reliability plummets. They're much more predictable, and more prone to failure at inopportune times.
In short: Marines behave like super-coordinated special forces, and Orks behave like uncoordinated bloodthirsty morons that are best handled by pointing them at the enemy and not trying anything too clever. And this is accomplished through a fairly simple mechanic built into the game's core activation structure.
It's such a huge piece of the fluff, and yet 40K's never even tried to model differences in army character like this. I know the possibility of failing an activation roll is the sort of Clausewitzian friction that would have gamers in 2021 gnashing their teeth, but I'm sure similar ideas could be explored with more deterministic mechanics.
Ordana wrote: So what is the difference between a 3e edition tactical marine. A chaos space marine, a guardsman, a termagant, a guardian, a kabalite and a fire warrior?
Funny how these arguments of "everything will be to samey" didn't exist before armies had books full of special rules thrown at them.
A loyalist had ATSKNF, chaos had 1 more ld. And no one complained about them being to samey.
3rd Ed created some key differences between those troops through just core rules, and those differences are no longer represented in 9th.
A Marine, CSM, or Guardsman had a Rapid Fire weapon. They were all optimal staying stationary to shoot, since they only got one shot on the move, and couldn't shoot and then charge. You tended to use them defensively, in gunlines, or forgoing shooting to get into melee. Meanwhile a Termagant or Guardian was armed with an Assault weapon. They could move, shoot at full effectiveness, and then charge. So, you used them more offensively. Additionally, Eldar and Tyranids had Fleet, which uniquely let them move faster in lieu of shooting. Admittedly Fleet was a special rule, but a simple and army-wide one with low cognitive burden.
Differentiating Eldar and Tyranids, the Eldar had an Initiative advantage. When Eldar did get into melee, they usually struck first. This meant that their basic troops could get 4 attacks off (two shooting, two in melee with the charge bonus) before something like a Guardsman could react. This let them punch above their weight despite being only S3. Eldar were brutal on the charge, but crumbled quickly in a protracted fight.
ATSKNF versus just 1 more point of leadership made a huge difference in an edition where morale could break your army. CSM weren't likely to break, but they could end up running for it, where Marines were more likely to break but would auto-rally, making for tactical retreats instead of outright routs. Guardsmen frequently ran long before their squads were wiped out. Termagants were fearless in Synapse, but fled quickly if cut off from Synapse Creatures.
The old AP system meant that those Marines could blow through Guardsman or Termagant armor while denying their saves entirely, but Fire Warriors were literally twice as hard to kill. In a Marine-dominated meta, this allowed Tau to slug it out with Marines at distance.
And Tau having 30" meant that they uniquely could fire from their deployment zone into the enemy deployment zone with basic troops. In an edition where Rapid Fire meant you could only fire at full range if you were stationary, this gave them basically a free turn of shooting before Marines or Guard could get in position to return fire.
None of these distinctions exist anymore. Rapid Fire's restrictions have been stripped away so Assault isn't advantageous. Everyone can Advance. Initiative is gone. Morale doesn't matter. Synapse is a joke. AP is irrelevant. Anyone can move normally and shoot Rapid Fire at max range. Weapon Skill is no longer opposed. Lasguns can wound tanks. The core mechanics have been watered down and no longer allow simply having a different weapon type or different stats to meaningfully distinguish units and armies. If you drop special rules and stratagems in 9th, there isn't enough there to differentiate what remains.
'Stat squish' isn't the problem here. Broadening the range of stats wouldn't add depth to the game; just more minutiae. To differentiate armies without using layer upon layer of special rules, it's necessary to do two things:
1. Re-work the core rules to make the stats matter. When being S3 means you can't even wound T7, that matters. When failing a Ld check means your unit is out of action for at least one turn and maybe the rest of the game, that matters. I am not saying things need to work exactly as they did in older editions, but there needs to be more impact to having high or low stats than just meaning you sometimes roll a 5+ instead of a 4+.
2. Embrace restrictions, and use lifting those restrictions as a simple way to make units special. 'Move and shoot Heavy without penalty' was a huge deal in 3rd Ed, where you normally couldn't move and shoot Heavy at all. It was a mediocre rule in 8th, where all you're avoiding is a -1. It's literally worthless for many units in 9th, where that restriction only applies to infantry. It's okay for a unit to not be able to do absolutely everything at once- making a player really consider what they want their unit to do for this turn is a good thing. It creates actual choice and opens up the possibility for real tactics. That's getting both deeper gameplay and a lever for differentiating units/armies in one package.
That's not even getting into what could be added to 40K from scratch. Something like Epic's C&C system would make for better differentiation between armies than any expansion of statlines could.
^Exalted!!!
The 3rd ed paradigm did a lot with a pretty lightweight set of faction rules.
Ordana wrote: So what is the difference between a 3e edition tactical marine. A chaos space marine, a guardsman, a termagant, a guardian, a kabalite and a fire warrior?
Funny how these arguments of "everything will be to samey" didn't exist before armies had books full of special rules thrown at them.
A loyalist had ATSKNF, chaos had 1 more ld. And no one complained about them being to samey.
3rd Ed created some key differences between those troops through just core rules, and those differences are no longer represented in 9th.
A Marine, CSM, or Guardsman had a Rapid Fire weapon. They were all optimal staying stationary to shoot, since they only got one shot on the move, and couldn't shoot and then charge. You tended to use them defensively, in gunlines, or forgoing shooting to get into melee. Meanwhile a Termagant or Guardian was armed with an Assault weapon. They could move, shoot at full effectiveness, and then charge. So, you used them more offensively. Additionally, Eldar and Tyranids had Fleet, which uniquely let them move faster in lieu of shooting. Admittedly Fleet was a special rule, but a simple and army-wide one with low cognitive burden.
Differentiating Eldar and Tyranids, the Eldar had an Initiative advantage. When Eldar did get into melee, they usually struck first. This meant that their basic troops could get 4 attacks off (two shooting, two in melee with the charge bonus) before something like a Guardsman could react. This let them punch above their weight despite being only S3. Eldar were brutal on the charge, but crumbled quickly in a protracted fight.
ATSKNF versus just 1 more point of leadership made a huge difference in an edition where morale could break your army. CSM weren't likely to break, but they could end up running for it, where Marines were more likely to break but would auto-rally, making for tactical retreats instead of outright routs. Guardsmen frequently ran long before their squads were wiped out. Termagants were fearless in Synapse, but fled quickly if cut off from Synapse Creatures.
The old AP system meant that those Marines could blow through Guardsman or Termagant armor while denying their saves entirely, but Fire Warriors were literally twice as hard to kill. In a Marine-dominated meta, this allowed Tau to slug it out with Marines at distance.
And Tau having 30" meant that they uniquely could fire from their deployment zone into the enemy deployment zone with basic troops. In an edition where Rapid Fire meant you could only fire at full range if you were stationary, this gave them basically a free turn of shooting before Marines or Guard could get in position to return fire.
None of these distinctions exist anymore. Rapid Fire's restrictions have been stripped away so Assault isn't advantageous. Everyone can Advance. Initiative is gone. Morale doesn't matter. Synapse is a joke. AP is irrelevant. Anyone can move normally and shoot Rapid Fire at max range. Weapon Skill is no longer opposed. Lasguns can wound tanks. The core mechanics have been watered down and no longer allow simply having a different weapon type or different stats to meaningfully distinguish units and armies. If you drop special rules and stratagems in 9th, there isn't enough there to differentiate what remains.
'Stat squish' isn't the problem here. Broadening the range of stats wouldn't add depth to the game; just more minutiae. To differentiate armies without using layer upon layer of special rules, it's necessary to do two things:
1. Re-work the core rules to make the stats matter. When being S3 means you can't even wound T7, that matters. When failing a Ld check means your unit is out of action for at least one turn and maybe the rest of the game, that matters. I am not saying things need to work exactly as they did in older editions, but there needs to be more impact to having high or low stats than just meaning you sometimes roll a 5+ instead of a 4+.
2. Embrace restrictions, and use lifting those restrictions as a simple way to make units special. 'Move and shoot Heavy without penalty' was a huge deal in 3rd Ed, where you normally couldn't move and shoot Heavy at all. It was a mediocre rule in 8th, where all you're avoiding is a -1. It's literally worthless for many units in 9th, where that restriction only applies to infantry. It's okay for a unit to not be able to do absolutely everything at once- making a player really consider what they want their unit to do for this turn is a good thing. It creates actual choice and opens up the possibility for real tactics. That's getting both deeper gameplay and a lever for differentiating units/armies in one package.
That's not even getting into what could be added to 40K from scratch. Something like Epic's C&C system would make for better differentiation between armies than any expansion of statlines could.
^Exalted!!!
The 3rd ed paradigm did a lot with a pretty lightweight set of faction rules.
That was a amazing summery and kind of sad to read all in one place, makes it feel even more like now we have a bunch of words to say to the opponent to get largely flavourless rules and it’s pushed as if that is more flavour than ever before.
I wish it was easy to go back. But would require so much work.
Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
Tiberias wrote: As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.
In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)
Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.
Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.
Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.
I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.
The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.
As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.
If you take a unit like Space Marine Devestators:
Missile Launchers, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas are all weapons intended to take down Tanks. While each adds flavor to the game they are basically just the same thing.
I'd like to see the game move more into a similar ruleset as to what AoS has. Hit--Wound--Damage and done.
Blackie wrote: Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
I don't think this post comes across how you intended it to. Or maybe it does and its just that bad.
Blackie wrote: Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
Even back in 2nd ed when there was Strategy Rating, Marines rated higher than Eldar.
Missile Launchers, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas are all weapons intended to take down Tanks. While each adds flavor to the game they are basically just the same thing.
3rd ed squashed all Devastator weapons to just three. HB, ML and Las. A.k.a. anti-infantry, anti-tank, and a weapon that did both roles but not as well.
Not that I personally want to go that far again, but it was a clean paradigm.
Tiberias wrote: As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.
In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)
Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.
Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.
Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.
I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.
The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.
As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.
What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.
If you take a unit like Space Marine Devestators:
Missile Launchers, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas are all weapons intended to take down Tanks. While each adds flavor to the game they are basically just the same thing.
I'd like to see the game move more into a similar ruleset as to what AoS has. Hit--Wound--Damage and done.
Missile Launchers, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Multi-Meltas are not the same things though. Lascannon is long ranged anti tank, multimelta is close ranged anti tank. In previus editions when people stood and gunlined each others lascannons where the meta. Now that you need to get on the table (smaler table mind you) multimelta is the weapon of choise. Likevice the missile launcher isa hybid weapon. Half anti tank, half anti infantery, but not good to od any of them.
Plasma cannon I agree is odd. It is a top down design where it would be fun if you can take the chance to overcharge it. And moving from 7th to 8th edition they moved from blast templates to d3 shots (and then d3 blast in 9th.) It is a very odd gun, but it is more like a hyrbid like the rocketlauncher with the blast and it can overcharge vs though targets and blast vs hordes. It is very complicated, but I find it fun.
Further all of these weapon profiles gives you different playpatterns. These days people try to close in with multimeltas. It makes for a more fun game then lascannons sniping from afar, at least in my opinion.
To be honest, as long as you know the general functions of the different categories I find the game easy enough to play.
Blackie wrote: Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
I don't think this post comes across how you intended it to. Or maybe it does and its just that bad.
I can understand Blackie.
As someone that played greenskins in fantasy, the amount of "But Animosity is just SO orky!" I did get from Imperial or High Elves players was just jarring.
I love me some orcs or orks. But I'm tired of all their faction rules being straight up negative because "lool thats how orks are in the fluff".
LOTR orcs are less reliable than warhammer ones and you don't see them with all that crap bolted into their rules. And still, they play and feel like an orc horde should in MESBG.
Those rules work if they have other stuff that balances it. But in fantasy and 40k they never had it. If you want joke factions bloodbowl is a better game, and even there, with the tier system, they are being honest about what you should expect of any faction you play.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
I think the issue is that people have very different interpretations of the lore.
Which is sort of why a "lore based ruleset" is unlikely to satisfy.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"
Blackie wrote: Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
I don't think this post comes across how you intended it to. Or maybe it does and its just that bad.
I can understand Blackie.
As someone that played greenskins in fantasy, the amount of "But Animosity is just SO orky!" I did get from Imperial or High Elves players was just jarring.
I love me some orcs or orks. But I'm tired of all their faction rules being straight up negative because "lool thats how orks are in the fluff".
LOTR orcs are less reliable than warhammer ones and you don't see them with all that crap bolted into their rules. And still, they play and feel like an orc horde should in MESBG.
Those rules work if they have other stuff that balances it. But in fantasy and 40k they never had it. If you want joke factions bloodbowl is a better game, and even there, with the tier system, they are being honest about what you should expect of any faction you play.
But like most suggested changes the defenders of 9th assume the suggestion was "I think we should go back to EXACTLY the way things were with no changes" (the other being "I want to change this one thing with everything else staying exactly the same") because it allows them to side-step the point and argue about a point that was never stated.
No one said Orks should have Animosity or self-destructive rules, it was just an example.of how the game has done a better job of presenting faction differences in previous editions. If your interpretation of Blackie's post is correct at least.
Blackie wrote:Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
Galas wrote:I can understand Blackie.
As someone that played greenskins in fantasy, the amount of "But Animosity is just SO orky!" I did get from Imperial or High Elves players was just jarring.
I love me some orcs or orks. But I'm tired of all their faction rules being straight up negative because "lool thats how orks are in the fluff".
LOTR orcs are less reliable than warhammer ones and you don't see them with all that crap bolted into their rules. And still, they play and feel like an orc horde should in MESBG.
Those rules work if they have other stuff that balances it. But in fantasy and 40k they never had it. If you want joke factions bloodbowl is a better game, and even there, with the tier system, they are being honest about what you should expect of any faction you play.
If you guys are saying that Orks are actually super coordinated in the lore and should never have rules that represent them being less organized than other factions, I would suggest you go re-read your codex. I specifically said that I wouldn't ever expect to see something like activation rolls come back as a means of representing C&C, but I would like to see something that represents the difference between an unruly Ork horde held together by the Warboss versus a Marine force with individual-level comms. I'm about as far from a Marine fanboy as you can get, this is just basic lore.
If you think I'm suggesting Orks should just be plain bad and have no other advantages to offset that lack of coordination, I would respectfully request you stop trying to mind-read. Orks were a devastating sledgehammer in Epic with plenty of firepower to compensate for their poor C&C. Marines were a scalpel that could easily get overwhelmed if not played well. Orks could, pound-for-pound, out-fight Marines- as they should.
Also, on the subject of 'I don't like people who don't play my faction telling me negative rules are good'- I've been playing Tyranids since 3rd Ed, when Tyranids had a special rule that let their opponents ignore target priority tests, and losing Synapse meant losing control of your army as Ld5 critters suddenly stop doing anything useful. I'm very familiar with negative rules, thanks. GW stripping out the consequences of Synapse has turned it from a core mechanic that shapes how the faction plays to a largely ignorable bit of rules detritus that at best exists as a nod to the fluff. Having weaknesses or being bad at certain things is important to characterization, and it's fine as long as they're balanced elsewhere. If you can't tolerate your faction having weaknesses, you're only going to get bland rules.
Poor C&C in Epic is no different from having poor BS in 40K. It's just a low stat, balanced out by advantages elsewhere. Simply not being as good at something as everyone else is a legitimate form of characterization.
I think that GW's motivation for layering rules is to facilitate player choice for various purposes.
First, layered rules support 3 modes of play. Open uses the fewest layers, Crusade uses the most and Matched is in the middle.
But being layers, we do have the option of incorporating some and not others even outside the intended parameters of three types of play- a common example is people who play Open, but still choose to battleforge, or people who play Crusade but still use points.
This would be harder to achieve without a layer approach, I think.
Layers also function to allow a player to limit source material. You don't NEED to include Theatre of War rules if you don't feel like buying White Dwarf, and you don't NEED armies of renown or subfaction supplements if you don't feel like buying campaign books.
Finally, layers serve a purpose in game too. I'm firing at grots? Great, don't need a strat or an aura, just shoot. Firing at marines? I can throw a strat OR an aura into this, but probably don't need both. Firing at a Titan? Okay, lets stack a strat AND an aura on that.
We can argue about how well this is actually achieved- that's somewhat subjective. I'm not necessarily saying that it's executed as well as it could be. But I think that these are likely the core motivations for this design.
Profit motive has a piece of it too, obviously. But I think it's an oversimplification to assume that is the only motivation.
An argument could be made that the layered rules promote engagement outside of the game. Special rules make tactics conversation easy, because you're talking about named interactions between models or for list building. But actual table-space tactics are much harder to talk about, as written language isn't great for detailed discussions about interacting vectors and volumes. You wind up needing detailed diagrams instead of plain language.
Blackie wrote:Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .
If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
Galas wrote:I can understand Blackie.
As someone that played greenskins in fantasy, the amount of "But Animosity is just SO orky!" I did get from Imperial or High Elves players was just jarring.
I love me some orcs or orks. But I'm tired of all their faction rules being straight up negative because "lool thats how orks are in the fluff".
LOTR orcs are less reliable than warhammer ones and you don't see them with all that crap bolted into their rules. And still, they play and feel like an orc horde should in MESBG.
Those rules work if they have other stuff that balances it. But in fantasy and 40k they never had it. If you want joke factions bloodbowl is a better game, and even there, with the tier system, they are being honest about what you should expect of any faction you play.
If you guys are saying that Orks are actually super coordinated in the lore and should never have rules that represent them being less organized than other factions, I would suggest you go re-read your codex. I specifically said that I wouldn't ever expect to see something like activation rolls come back as a means of representing C&C, but I would like to see something that represents the difference between an unruly Ork horde held together by the Warboss versus a Marine force with individual-level comms. I'm about as far from a Marine fanboy as you can get, this is just basic lore.
If you think I'm suggesting Orks should just be plain bad and have no other advantages to offset that lack of coordination, I would respectfully request you stop trying to mind-read. Orks were a devastating sledgehammer in Epic with plenty of firepower to compensate for their poor C&C. Marines were a scalpel that could easily get overwhelmed if not played well. Orks could, pound-for-pound, out-fight Marines- as they should.
Also, on the subject of 'I don't like people who don't play my faction telling me negative rules are good'- I've been playing Tyranids since 3rd Ed, when Tyranids had a special rule that let their opponents ignore target priority tests, and losing Synapse meant losing control of your army as Ld5 critters suddenly stop doing anything useful. I'm very familiar with negative rules, thanks. GW stripping out the consequences of Synapse has turned it from a core mechanic that shapes how the faction plays to a largely ignorable bit of rules detritus that at best exists as a nod to the fluff. Having weaknesses or being bad at certain things is important to characterization, and it's fine as long as they're balanced elsewhere. If you can't tolerate your faction having weaknesses, you're only going to get bland rules.
Poor C&C in Epic is no different from having poor BS in 40K. It's just a low stat, balanced out by advantages elsewhere. Simply not being as good at something as everyone else is a legitimate form of characterization.
Oh, I dont dislike factions having weakness and strong points.
Actually, Im in the Camp of "Factions are more defined by what they lack than what they are good at" as design ethos.
I never played Epic so probably overreacted based in my experience in fantasy, for that I apologize.
I get a little too triggered when someone puts negative rules orks had as an example of something they want back, because at least in my opinion, historically, GW has defined some Factions by how good they are by fluff (eldars, marines, high elves, etc) but others are defined by what makes them bad (orks, greenskins, tyranids, etc...)
Galas wrote: Oh, I dont dislike factions having weakness and strong points.
Actually, Im in the Camp of "Factions are more defined by what they lack than what they are good at" as design ethos.
I never played Epic so probably overreacted based in my experience in fantasy, for that I apologize.
I get a little too triggered when someone puts negative rules orks had as an example of something they want back, because at least in my opinion, historically, GW has defined some Factions by how good they are by fluff (eldars, marines, high elves, etc) but others are defined by what makes them bad (orks, greenskins, tyranids, etc...)
Presumably that comes from designing to the average.
If the average are humans, then Eldar, Marines, and High Elves are better in most ways, whilst Orks are stronger but of lower organization, Greenskins are just orks, and Tyranids make hordes of subhuman bugs (while their elites, i.e. Warriors, were stronger than humans in every way).
I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"
And that could work if points were balanced but...
Galas wrote: I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"
And that could work if points were balanced but...
One could say "Elves are super fast, super-skilled and good at killing things, but they're flimsy and not particularly numerous" but GW has a really, really hard time figuring out how to nail that formula down lol. Theyve had literally 9 editions, and they somehow always simultaneously fail in two directions simultaneously with Eldar and Dark Eldar
One always ends up super murderously damaging AND ALSO weirdly durable
and the other always ends up hilariously pillow fisted AND ALSO crazy fragile.
Someday, someone will point out to GW that:
1) in an IGOUGO system where you tank all your opponent's damage on the chin, the best way to do 'fast glass cannon' is by using once-per-game durability boosts flavored as 'speedy matrix dodges'
2) if you flavor durability as 'speedy matrix dodges' but it's just...always on, then you've just made a unit that is durable.
3) if literally every army can blow up literally every other army in 3 turns, making your 'glass cannon army' that can blow up an enemy army in one turn is going to feel somewhat stupid.
Galas wrote: I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"
And that could work if points were balanced but...
Part of the problem is that the things that could be used to balance out these factions, and better represent their fluff, have often been poorly represented in the tabletop.
Marines in Epic weren't the 'everything you can do, I can do better' that they are in 40K; C&C was their chief strength. Marines in Epic weren't optimal at gunline slugfests, but they could redeploy in a hurry to concentrate force on the weakest point of your force. If you managed to pin them down and bring in heavy armor, they didn't fare well, but if you couldn't do that you'd be constantly on the back foot trying to respond. They got inside your OODA loop through speed, surprise, and violence of action. Meanwhile in 40K, they're just beatsticks with big guns.
Orks were able to punch above their weight in Epic because poor C&C was a balancing factor. For the points, they were both strong and tough, and in a straight fight would butcher through their points of Guard or Marines. Meanwhile in 40K they've often been glass hammers (which for Orks is just weird) because they're priced around their high offensive ability and don't have those 'soft' factors to offset their strength and bring the cost down.
Or take Eldar. They're supposed to rely on speed as a defense and run circles around their confused enemies. Well, 40K has no modeling of speed as defense, and no activation or C&C system that might make Eldar particularly able to outmaneuver the enemy, so go figure it's never really worked well and Eldar have typically either been infuriatingly tough to kill (through special rules to provide durability) or made of tissue paper.
The inability of the core rules to represent the things that differentiate these factions in the background is why we need an avalanche of special rules to clumsily patch in differences, to varying degrees of success, and ultimately everything still interacts within a narrow kill/hold objectives paradigm.
Galas wrote: I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"
And that could work if points were balanced but...
Part of the problem is that the things that could be used to balance out these factions, and better represent their fluff, have often been poorly represented in the tabletop.
Marines in Epic weren't the 'everything you can do, I can do better' that they are in 40K; C&C was their chief strength. Marines in Epic weren't optimal at gunline slugfests, but they could redeploy in a hurry to concentrate force on the weakest point of your force. If you managed to pin them down and bring in heavy armor, they didn't fare well, but if you couldn't do that you'd be constantly on the back foot trying to respond. They got inside your OODA loop through speed, surprise, and violence of action. Meanwhile in 40K, they're just beatsticks with big guns.
Orks were able to punch above their weight in Epic because poor C&C was a balancing factor. For the points, they were both strong and tough, and in a straight fight would butcher through their points of Guard or Marines. Meanwhile in 40K they've often been glass hammers (which for Orks is just weird) because they're priced around their high offensive ability and don't have those 'soft' factors to offset their strength and bring the cost down.
Or take Eldar. They're supposed to rely on speed as a defense and run circles around their confused enemies. Well, 40K has no modeling of speed as defense, and no activation or C&C system that might make Eldar particularly able to outmaneuver the enemy, so go figure it's never really worked well and Eldar have typically either been infuriatingly tough to kill (through special rules to provide durability) or made of tissue paper.
The inability of the core rules to represent the things that differentiate these factions in the background is why we need an avalanche of special rules to clumsily patch in differences, to varying degrees of success, and ultimately everything still interacts within a narrow kill/hold objectives paradigm.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
I think the issue is that people have very different interpretations of the lore.
Which is sort of why a "lore based ruleset" is unlikely to satisfy.
This.
There are people who consider orks a comic relief while I despise funny orks. Or even hooligan orks. To me orks are just mad max style raiders, brutal and scary. Sometimes even cunning . That's 100% lore based.
Initiative in 40k was one of the most annoying things IMHO. Basically my orks never fought first and boyz were just used as meat shields to let the lone nob with a pk, who had a weapon with "fight last" rule anyway, strike and do the damage.
Initiative could have been great if it was handled like in fantasy, where chargers got to strike first regardless of the initiative.
If you guys are saying that Orks are actually super coordinated in the lore and should never have rules that represent them being less organized than other factions, I would suggest you go re-read your codex. I specifically said that I wouldn't ever expect to see something like activation rolls come back as a means of representing C&C, but I would like to see something that represents the difference between an unruly Ork horde held together by the Warboss versus a Marine force with individual-level comms. I'm about as far from a Marine fanboy as you can get, this is just basic lore.
Except it's not. Orks aren't just hordes of stupid dudes. There are also speedfreaks or dread mobz armies, with lots vehicles and not that many dudes. The may be less organized but orks live for killing the enemy so forgetting about the war to squabble with each other is just plain stupid. If anything they should be, and they actually are, more vulnerable to morale, that's how their being "less organized" is portrayed on the battlefield. A warboss that kills a couple of dudes to make a unit rally is fluffy, a unit that does nothing for a whole turn because it fails some test isn't.
Also, if you really want to stick with the lore, SM lists should field like 20-30 guys at 2000 points.
Tend to think initiative was a terrible rule that's never worked.
Because as said - if I always get to attack before you do, either that's going to be massively overpowered (because I'm just going to kill you - see Elves, 8th edition WHFB) or I'm so pillowfisted I do no damage and you cut me to bits (lots of Eldar options through the editions) - or you put lots of barriers in place to get around this (oh look, I have no grenades and I'm navigating a shrub, so I'm both more likely to fail the charge and attack last despite having triple your initiative.)
If you make chargers always fight first... you just make the stat pointless the majority of time.
Which I think explains the real problem with stat squishes. GW try to come up with rules to make armies different - but then they start writing rules because form follows function.
I.E. to be a successful close combat unit in 40k you need a functional delivery system (i.e. lots of movement special rules), and to basically delete anything you connect with (i.e. getting your points back in one assault phase). If you don't have this and don't have something else to compensate (i.e. "vastly disproportional toughness") you probably just have a bad unit which doesn't work.
So these units all tend to end up looking quite similar to each other - and its hard to see how you'd meaningfully differentiate.
In the same way once you reduce shooting to maths, there's marginal difference to having say 3 shots at a certain strength/AP at BS3+, and say 6 shots at the same strength/AP at BS5+. (The later is more vulnerable to minuses to hit - but its unclear that's meant to represent something in the fluff, and more just a function of the maths.)
This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.
It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.
Sim-Life wrote: This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.
It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.
Sim-Life wrote: This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.
It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.
I can't tell you how much I love this comment. I hate this black and white mentality you describe. As I said in my inital post, the old WS/BS system was far from optimal, same with initiative, but I strongly believe that it could have been tweaked by GW to be better than what we have now.
Sim-Life wrote: This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.
It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.
Can you offer up a good counter example then?
Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?
The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.
Sim-Life wrote: Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?
The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.
I don't really understand your reasoning.
I say initiative hasn't worked in 40k (or WHFB) and offer a reason as to why its never worked.
You say that's just because GW have never made it work and the only time you've encountered it is in 40k.
I then say "okay, has anyone else managed in any other games?" to which you claim that's irrelevant and trying to derail the thread.
The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.
If you answer "no" to either the stat is more or less worthless. If you answer yes to both it is almost certainly overpowered and not fun to play against. You can't really escape this problem.
Sim-Life wrote: Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?
The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.
I don't really understand your reasoning.
I say initiative hasn't worked in 40k (or WHFB) and offer a reason as to why its never worked.
You say that's just because GW have never made it work and the only time you've encountered it is in 40k.
I then say "okay, has anyone else managed in any other games?" to which you claim that's irrelevant and trying to derail the thread.
The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.
If you answer "no" to either the stat is more or less worthless. If you answer yes to both it is almost certainly overpowered and not fun to play against. You can't really escape this problem.
Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could also implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiative exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.
Tiberias wrote: Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.
Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).
Its incredibly difficult to put a points value on that.
Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.
Tiberias wrote: Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.
Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).
Its incredibly difficult to put a points value on that.
Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.
I don't get your point. It surely depends on the context of whether you get to fight first or not and that is where nuance would havd to be written into the rules around initiative.
The old WS comparison charts had big problems, you never could hit on 2+ no matter how high your WS was and there was no clause that unmodified 6s always hit, which made for (very rare) scenarios where very low WS units could not even hit.
Secondly the distribution and variety of higher WS across units and factions was badly implemented. Most things ranged from 3-5 and then there were extreme outliers like bloodthirsters with WS10 which didn't provide much benefit because you couldn't hit better than 3+ anyway. The range of WS from 6-8 was never used for units.
They could have expanded the chart to allow for 2+ to hit and say that unmodified 6s always hit and expand the range of WS given to units so there would be some with WS 6 or 7 that would fit into that category like howling banshees for example.
As to your last point about what the unit should cost, I don't agree because you can't make that assessment in a vacuum. Higher WS does not necessarily equal +X point cost because you would have to take other rules and stats into account that particular unit has.
Blackie wrote: The may be less organized but orks live for killing the enemy so forgetting about the war to squabble with each other is just plain stupid.
Which is why Epic gave them a conditional bonus to their activation rolls so long as you were using orders that get them into combat. Their reliability only dropped when you tried to, say, put them onto Overwatch, or perform stationary sustained fire. If you failed an activation roll, they didn't 'squabble'. They could still move or shoot.
Are you actually reading the thread or just grinding your axe about Animosity rules? Epic's command system didn't make units suddenly drop everything and squabble amongst themselves, it modeled command and control failures that produce friction in the Clausewitzian sense, allowing units to still act but not to perform advanced maneuvers. Orks specifically got special rules so that as long as you're getting them into a fight, you don't have to worry nearly as much about C&C.
Orks wanting to get into battle doesn't mean the Warboss has a radio to every Nob that lets him signal them all to withdraw from combat in unison and execute a sweeping flank maneuver, and they will obey at a moment's notice in perfect synchronized coordination. That's not how Orks work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.
Tyel wrote:Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.
This is what Sim-Life was talking about; you're discussing these mechanics solely in the context of their historical 40K implementation.
Other ways you could handle Initiative:
-Chargers strike first, then use Initiative order.
-Units with multiple attacks strike at multiple Initiative steps rather than all at once, so there's some back-and-forth.
-Having a higher Initiative only allows some of your attacks to be resolved first, and then the remainder are simultaneous, depending on the difference in I value.
-Higher I makes you harder to hit and combat is resolved simultaneously.
Similarly, the issue of WS5 being no better than WS4 against WS3 could be addressed a number of ways:
-Re-work the WS table so that WS3 is hitting WS5 on 5+.
-Re-work the WS table so that WS5 hits WS3 on 2+.
-Use opposed rolls as in 2nd, so any increment of WS is valuable.
-Use different-faceted dice to increase the granularity of opposed values.
I mean, at the very least just making Initiative only apply to non-chargers and 'steepening' the WS table a bit (IMO, WS3 vs WS5 really should be 5+ vs 3+) would soften the impact of Initiative without gutting it entirely and make all increments of WS valuable.
Tiberias wrote: Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.
Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).
Only if you assume you're using the same system GW used in the past. You're missing Sim-Life's point, while inadvertently illustrating it quite well. Initiative could be used in many different ways. It could be used as some sort of evasion stat. It could allow models to always make some portion of their attacks even if they're killed. Higher Initiative might allow a unit to ignore the first wounding hit they take in close combat.
The specifics aren't too important. The point is all these options are available but so many people, like yourself, only view things through the lens of GW's past failures.
We still use Initiative and it works just fine. We've adjusted the WS table and units that get bonus attacks for charging resolve those attacks at the highest initiative level.
Subsequent attacks are resolved in initiative order. This isn't rocket science.
If we are complaining about the Initiative stat being a hard binary, couldn't it just be altered to an opposed check before combat? Each player rolls 1d6+i, higher roll goes first (tie goes to higher i stat). Super simple change, makes it no longer higher stat always goes first, but more likely to go first still.
I believe if something like Initiative exist it should be something given by unit basis and not faction or raced based outside some weird cases.
In 40k instead of "I should try to pair my high initiative units against your low ones" tactical play was a case of "so I'm playing agaisnt your army? Ok you have higher initiative than me everywhere"
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"
Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element.
Lol-random elements can never be too strong or the game loses a focus on strategy and becomes all about who rolls better for animosity. In the same manner, having an army that is very reliable be too strong is also bad because it means you cannot even hope that lady luck gives you a chance of winning because the faction beats yours even on your good days.
I do think random rules should be designed as something awesome happens but you also suffer a setback or something awful happens but at you get this benefit, that or you get one of these bad results results that actually impact what happens, not just the magnitude of what happens, like WHFB misfire which was IIRC just a question of how many turns you weren't going to shoot, this turn/this turn and the next/the rest of the game, instead it should be something like can't shoot next turn/half range for the rest of the game/lower Strength for the rest of the game. But WHFB was not designed that way, the highs were high and the lows were low, I just wanted to point out Orcs and Goblins did have highs.
Orks should absolutely have random elements, like guns which are randomly anti-infantry one turn and anti-tank the next (before choosing targets). Orks should also have more important single dice rolls like rolling 1 D3 for the number of shots in a whole unit of Lootas instead of rolling for the individual model which would lead to getting a mediocre number of hits more often.
Galas wrote: I believe if something like Initiative exist it should be something given by unit basis and not faction or raced based outside some weird cases.
In 40k instead of "I should try to pair my high initiative units against your low ones" tactical play was a case of "so I'm playing agaisnt your army? Ok you have higher initiative than me everywhere"
Same thing with WS, most armies were WS 3 across the board or WS 4 across the board. Matching WS 4 units against WS 4 units to draw out combat and WS 4 units to WS 3 units to quickly take out a flank is interesting, getting +1 to hit against the entire enemy army in melee isn't. Initiative should be represented by fight first or fight last abilities or fight in death where appropriate, being hard to hit in melee should be represented by abilities where appropriate, through USRs, not a stat that every unit in the game has.
If anything the stats in 7th were squished in a system that really required them to be more spread out. Terminators having the same WS and Initiative as Havocs was just kind of a joke, rather than a meaningful core mechanic.
Orks should absolutely have random elements, like guns which are randomly anti-infantry one turn and anti-tank the next (before choosing targets). Orks should also have more important single dice rolls like rolling 1 D3 for the number of shots in a whole unit of Lootas instead of rolling for the individual model which would lead to getting a mediocre number of hits more often.
I disagree. Rules shouldn't be random, and I'm glad that the whole SAG, lootas random shots, etc are finally gone. In fact those rules were so bad that these units were either overpowered and spammed (lootas in 5th or with the 25 man combo in 8th, relic SAG and regular SAGs in 8th) or completely useless. Let alone weapons like Bubblechukka that was exactly like you said: sometimes anti infantry, sometimes anti tank, and in fact no one was ever using it, not even in the lowest casual friendly games. Now they all found some middle ground at least.
It's the dice rolling that should provide randomness. So less amount of dice rolled and less ways to fix the result are the way to do, not through some odd rules. It's the game of averages (or above averages) that should be countered at all costs.
Orks unrealiabibilty comes to the fact that they have BS5+ or BS4+ at most, bad morale stats and low armour saves on average.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"
Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element..
Nah man. Skaven were proper lol-random made right. Risk-reward, most of the time chosen by the player. Orks have always been all the risk for stupidly weak rewards (You just said it: Risk: Being completely useless. Reward: A minor buff to movement). Thats no bueno. I'm not agaisnt random, I play ogres and vampires in bloodbowl FFS. And I always play the low scum hordes in nearly any game I can. Greenskins rules have always been crap from a design point of view in fantasy. I cannot talk for 40k, I never played orks in 40k because they lacked the goblin element.
I never played orks in 40k because they lacked the goblin element.
What now?
/Suspiciously eyes multiple units and lore bits written from the grot point of view./
tehre's a huge distinction between having one, eternally trash-tier grot unit available in game and goblins, which are a fully supported and (now, in AOS, fully stand-alone) faction with their own infantry, special weapons, monsters, elite units, commanders, wizards, etc.
This is like telling an Ogre Kingdoms that they can still play an Ogre Army in 40k because Ogryn exist as one single unit in the AM codex.
Yeah you cannot compare gretchin, killa kanz (my favourite ork unit) and mek gunz to the sheer variety of goblins in old fantasy both normal, night and forest ones.
I think grots can compare pretty well, you got da red gobbo, grot tanks of both sizes, kans, foot lads, boomy guns, mekky guns.
Hell, that’s way more units than either of the or(ru)c clans in AOS rn.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"
Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element.
The problem is that people took less Orcs in an Orc army because the randomness was literally crippling while the benefits were nothing and the mitigations for the randomness were just as damaging.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I think grots can compare pretty well, you got da red gobbo, grot tanks of both sizes, kans, foot lads, boomy guns, mekky guns.
Hell, that’s way more units than either of the or(ru)c clans in AOS rn.
Nah, just in named+generic characters goblis had more units in fantasy than the whole grot GW package and is only a contest by taking FW units.
da red gobbo is legends, and makari is a support of Ghaz.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).
Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"
Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element.
The problem is that people took less Orcs in an Orc army because the randomness was literally crippling while the benefits were nothing and the mitigations for the randomness were just as damaging.
Not only that but animosity was stupid on itself because it was representing something that it was allready there.
"Orcs are fighting people. They lack discipline, order, etc..." ok. Thats why they had low Leadership, and it was reflected in the interactions of their low leadership with all general rules of the game how greenskins were much less organized than dwarfs , elves or humans
And then you pile in another negative rule to double down on the same concepto. Awful, awful rules writting.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I think grots can compare pretty well, you got da red gobbo, grot tanks of both sizes, kans, foot lads, boomy guns, mekky guns.
Hell, that’s way more units than either of the or(ru)c clans in AOS rn.
sorry what?
Gretchin
Red Gobbo (technically, i guess...He's an elite choice that does almost literally nothing)
Mek Gunz
Killa Kanz
Grot Tank
Grot Mega-Tank
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I didn’t say they had more than AOS goblins, just that they had more than aos orcs, at least the proper 2.
...which do not have rules support, so, not sure why we'd mention them. I admittedly dont know much about AOS orks, but 'savage orruks' seem to have more options than 40k gretchins. And I'll bet that unlike 40k gretchins, I can run a legal army of them that is battleforged!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I didn’t say they had more than AOS goblins, just that they had more than aos orcs, at least the proper 2.
...which do not have rules support, so, not sure why we'd mention them. I admittedly dont know much about AOS orks, but 'savage orruks' seem to have more options than 40k gretchins. And I'll bet that unlike 40k gretchins, I can run a legal army of them that is battleforged!
Savage orruks have a cavalry unit, an infantry unit, then big stabbas. And you can do a battleforged grot army, makari is an hq.
the_scotsman wrote: This is like telling an Ogre Kingdoms that they can still play an Ogre Army in 40k because Ogryn exist as one single unit in the AM codex.
.
. Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.
