Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First, a small Joke. I do not know what 11th edition will be like, but 12th edition will be with sticks and stones.

I don't mind vehicles having toughness instead of armor value, if it makes it easier to check one less thing. I think vehicles having wounds and armor saves is a bit much. I prefer the old damage table system, so I'd like to see something like the damage table return instead of pre-selected reductions in vehicle power based on wounds.
I do think the more damage the vehicle has taken from the damage table should be reflected in bonuses on the table, like +1 on the table for each weapon destroyed, +1 on the table if the vehicle has been slowed down, etc, make it harder or impossible to destroy the vehicle in 1-2 hits, but the more hits that get through the more likely it is to result in the destruction.

I also like when psykers have more than 1 power available, it just feels better, I haven't worked out a good system yet but I think it should be done.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Same with the stupid AF "After losing a fight, you run, but if my attackers run faster, rather than re-engaging and fighting again, you're all just dead without a roll." I think there might have been a carve out... But you guessed it: For SPace Marines only cuz YAY SPACE MARINES.

Ignoring the carve out for GW's favourite sons, I think this made more sense because it was just core to the combat rules. It was how you wiped out big units in assault.
Rather than today's system of "this squad needs to kill (or at least do significant damage) to whatever it charges, so to do that we'll have to give (almost) every combat unit a bazillion attacks."

But I'm not exactly itching for it to come back.
Its a bit like the discussion of how they should bring initiative back. I'm pretty sure only factions with high initiative think that - no one with initiative 2 thought it was a good system. (And GW themselves had to keep adding work arounds to the point where they should clearly have just scrapped it.)

Which is a common issue of GW rules design.
"Here's a problem/negative effect - it adds complexity and realism."
"Well this sucks. Can we solve the problem?"
"Yeah - but only for these units, in these factions."
"Isn't that massively overpowered/unfair on the ones who can't solve it?"
"Yeah, probably, who cares? Anyway enjoy getting a new codex in 6 years..."

Tyel wrote:

But I'm not exactly itching for it to come back.

I was gonna do a huge response, but this line softened me up a bit.

The rule was probably my least favourite rule out of any edition I played. Scattering deepstrike was a close second.

To say that "tag you're dead" made sense because it was a core rule, and that was just how you defeated units in assault doesn't make any sense to me at all. You can scare me off the board, but if you catch me before I get to the edge of the board, I am going to turn around and fight, not just die of fear- that's fething ridiculous.

It created a situation where in order to be a good close combat unit, leadership was almost as important as your ability to fight, which again, is just kinda dumb, core mechanic or not. Resolving combat by attacks + unit rules + possible strats makes WAY more sense to me, even if it's on the datacard rather than being a core mechanic.

Personally, I always figured Sweeping Advance would have been improved if it just granted free attack(s) to the winner of the close combat instead of instantly killing everyone on the losing side - that would still allow you to chew down a large tarpit without making it one of those "Do you want me to pick up my models now, or would you rather waste time on a roll we both know I'll lose?" situations.

 PenitentJake wrote:


Same with the stupid AF "After losing a fight, you run, but if my attackers run faster, rather than re-engaging and fighting again, you're all just dead without a roll." I think there might have been a carve out... But you guessed it: For SPace Marines only cuz YAY SPACE MARINES.

These rules were stupid, and when they died, I pissed on their graves. If they return again, I'm done.

Those rules were a hold-over from the first time GW tried to dumb-down their rules. Or, simplify, or speed up, or whatever euphemism you'd like to pick for it. In WFB 3rd, i.e. the orange hardback book of utter craziness and fun, when a unit broke and ran their enemies got a free round of swings against them as they fled. Your opponent would attack again, you'd remove casualties again, then move the unit however far it had run. I forget if they also got to chase you or not, that was a long time ago now. I think there was a mechanic for that too. Along with things like cavalry wedges, archers in arrowhead formations, and about a billion other things that all got dropped from the game.

It was slow and clunky, but fun. And the rules often made some form of sense, like the opponent getting some free hacks when the enemy they were fighting turned their backs. I think RT had a similar mechanic, but again...35 years ago.

It got dumbed down in WFB to making a break check, and if you ran, you and your opponent (if they chose to pursue) both rolled dice to see how far. If their roll matched or beat yours, you picked up your models, as they were now "scattered beyond hope of rallying." It changed the way we played the game, but everyone adapted and it became the new norm. Eventually it made its way into 40k too.

Just apropos of nothing, this bit of history.

I'm not sure the current ruleset is any better. I'd like to see Battle-Shock be a bit more negative, like offering penalties if the shocked unit wants to shoot, not allowing them to Charge, or even forcing them to make a Fall Back move towards cover or their own DZ. Not sure it would make a ton of difference though, as right now it seems like the current ruleset is geared towards total obliteration of units, just deleting them from the board before they even have to take a BS test.

BanjoJohn wrote:First, a small Joke. I do not know what 11th edition will be like, but 12th edition will be with sticks and stones.

I don't mind vehicles having toughness instead of armor value, if it makes it easier to check one less thing. I think vehicles having wounds and armor saves is a bit much. I prefer the old damage table system, so I'd like to see something like the damage table return instead of pre-selected reductions in vehicle power based on wounds.
I do think the more damage the vehicle has taken from the damage table should be reflected in bonuses on the table, like +1 on the table for each weapon destroyed, +1 on the table if the vehicle has been slowed down, etc, make it harder or impossible to destroy the vehicle in 1-2 hits, but the more hits that get through the more likely it is to result in the destruction.

Meanwhile in 30k which still has AV, damage table and hullpoints, vehicles suck.

I don't believe GW has ever gotten the classic vehicles rules right, they either are too fragile or dominate the game with cheap transports (5th ed), no middle point.

Tyel wrote:
But I'm not exactly itching for it to come back.
Its a bit like the discussion of how they should bring initiative back. I'm pretty sure only factions with high initiative think that - no one with initiative 2 thought it was a good system. (And GW themselves had to keep adding work arounds to the point where they should clearly have just scrapped it.)

IMHO initiative could work if you made initiative modifiers more common. For example if you got +1 initiative on the charge, if you got a -1 for being surrounded and/or pinned, if charging through terrain was a -2 instead on automatically reducing to 1.

 PenitentJake wrote:


To say that "tag you're dead" made sense because it was a core rule, and that was just how you defeated units in assault doesn't make any sense to me at all. You can scare me off the board, but if you catch me before I get to the edge of the board, I am going to turn around and fight, not just die of fear- that's fething ridiculous.

You're mixing two different mechanics here. Sweeping advance was when your unit got immediately wiped if they couldn't get away. If a unit successfully fled from the combat and were later caught in an assault, they'd have to make a test to regroup (except marines of course) and if successful, they would do as you describe, turn and fight.

For the sweeping advance that used the initiative roll, I suspect that the entire mechanic was ported over from historicals. In actual warfare, most casualties occur when one side breaks. The rout is on and the fleeing side gets cut down. That's what the sweeping advance is trying to simulate. Remember, not every casualty is actually a fatality. Removed models represent a variety of conditions. In the sweeping advance rules from 4th edition, it says as much:

"The falling back unit is scattered. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively defeated, ripped apart and sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded, and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit(s) is removed immediately. No invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the We'll Be Back special rule) can save them at this stage; for them the battle is over and they can take no further useful part in the fighting."

Periodically I see complaints about the lack of meaty moral rules in modern 40k. Here we are discussing one from past editions and everyone seems to hate it. I think morale rules are rules that people like in theory, especially when they apply to the other guy's units, but not so much in practice when their little soldiers stubbornly refuse to fight to the last man for the glory of the klan, coven, craftworld, chapter et al.

It created a situation where in order to be a good close combat unit, leadership was almost as important as your ability to fight, which again, is just kinda dumb, core mechanic or not.

Not really. If you were good at combat, you'd typically win the combat and have no danger of getting swept because you won. In various editions being too good at combat was a problem. You wipe out your target and then get deleted in your opponent's shooting phase. Skilled players learned to pull their punches so the melee unit wouldn't win too hard on the first round of combat. You wanted them to win during the opponent's assault phase. Then wiping out the enemy wasn't a problem.

I honestly didn't mind the old morale rules as much as a lot of other stuff, it was just annoying that whenever an edition went on, everyone just straight up ignored morale. IG shot someone, Tyranids had Synapse, Orks had Orks, SM were SM, even Tau had their knife and eldar came in small squads of 5 so never survived until morale anyway or punched anything dead because of Initiative.
In every edition morale penalties usually were the fluff players' option (hello, Nightlords!), because they only came to bear when the Stars aligned or you were winning through other means already.
So, I liked it when at the start of 8th and in 10th morale actually counted and weren't straight up ignored (as in every prior edition at the end of 8th and in 9th we were at that point again and morale was nonexistent). On the other hand, 10th edition morale rules aren't worked around by every faction, but their penalites are so small that you can outright ignore them.

 Arschbombe wrote:


You're mixing two different mechanics here. Sweeping advance was when your unit got immediately wiped if they couldn't get away. If a unit successfully fled from the combat and were later caught in an assault, they'd have to make a test to regroup (except marines of course) and if successful, they would do as you describe, turn and fight.

Thanks for the heads up- the roll to rally is better than no roll to rally, and I'm surprised I didn't remember it; I didn't keep all of the 40k books I accumulated over the years, so I wasn't at liberty to double check before I posted.

 Arschbombe wrote:

For the sweeping advance that used the initiative roll, I suspect that the entire mechanic was ported over from historicals. In actual warfare, most casualties occur when one side breaks. The rout is on and the fleeing side gets cut down. That's what the sweeping advance is trying to simulate. Remember, not every casualty is actually a fatality. Removed models represent a variety of conditions. In the sweeping advance rules from 4th edition, it says as much:

"The falling back unit is scattered. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively defeated, ripped apart and sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded, and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit(s) is removed immediately. No invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the We'll Be Back special rule) can save them at this stage; for them the battle is over and they can take no further useful part in the fighting."

I get all of that- it just isn't fun for me.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Periodically I see complaints about the lack of meaty moral rules in modern 40k. Here we are discussing one from past editions and everyone seems to hate it. I think morale rules are rules that people like in theory, especially when they apply to the other guy's units, but not so much in practice when their little soldiers stubbornly refuse to fight to the last man for the glory of the klan, coven, craftworld, chapter et al.

I feel like an inability to hold objectives and use strats IS a sufficient penalty. But I also don't object to pinning (unable to shoot or taking a penalty), or running away.

My problem was "Remove your models if you fail morale."

I feel like I said "I don't like hurricanes" and you somehow heard "I think wind sucks!"

 Arschbombe wrote:

Not really. If you were good at combat, you'd typically win the combat and have no danger of getting swept because you won. In various editions being too good at combat was a problem. You wipe out your target and then get deleted in your opponent's shooting phase. Skilled players learned to pull their punches so the melee unit wouldn't win too hard on the first round of combat. You wanted them to win during the opponent's assault phase. Then wiping out the enemy wasn't a problem.

This is a fair point.

BanjoJohn wrote:First, a small Joke. I do not know what 11th edition will be like, but 12th edition will be with sticks and stones.

I don't mind vehicles having toughness instead of armor value, if it makes it easier to check one less thing. I think vehicles having wounds and armor saves is a bit much. I prefer the old damage table system, so I'd like to see something like the damage table return instead of pre-selected reductions in vehicle power based on wounds.
I do think the more damage the vehicle has taken from the damage table should be reflected in bonuses on the table, like +1 on the table for each weapon destroyed, +1 on the table if the vehicle has been slowed down, etc, make it harder or impossible to destroy the vehicle in 1-2 hits, but the more hits that get through the more likely it is to result in the destruction.

I also like when psykers have more than 1 power available, it just feels better, I haven't worked out a good system yet but I think it should be done.

My wish for a change to moral is that there should be some units that are Fearless. I can't imagine a squad of lobotomized Servitors running away.

Just like they need to bring back the Psyker Assassin being immune to Pschic powers, instead of giving him FNP vs. PSYCHIC... guess he kinda has a soul after all.

Same with the Sisters of Silence... Soulless no more in 10th.

It would definitely be nice if Battle Shock/Morale had a bit more of an impact on the game. A penalty to the unit's BS or -1 To Hit with shooting as they keep their heads down, an inability to move closer to enemy models, or something similar. But, again, it also seems like a lot of the time people are just picking up entire units that are getting deleted wholesale.

I think the biggest failing for me in 10th is the general "dumbing down" of things like Battle Shock/Morale, terrain, and a few other items while at the same time ramping up the complexity to the tune of outright confusion with special rules. Is there a datacard, anywhere, that doesn't have a special rule on it? Any models at all? Or multiple special rules in many instances? And then you tack on that all 27 factions have multiple detachments, with special rules for every one of them, and 6 "unique" Stratagems (even if some of them, like fight on a 4+ after death, get repeated with new names, so not every one is unique).

There's literally no way for a normal human being, especially a dim one like me, to keep track of all of this. At a certain point, instead of going through every unit, their special rules, and the Stratagems before a game, it feels like it's time to just throw your hands in the air and say "Whatever. Let's just play. If I get screwed by a bunch of stupid add-on rules, I'll blame GW, not you. Don't feel bad if some of mine catch you by surprise."

I mean, it has reached a level of ridiculousness that's astounding to me. Every datacard has some additional printing on it that allows that unit to bend or break some basic rule, adds some modifier, or gives it a special ability. It feels like a desperate attempt to differentiate units just for the sake of doing so. Why?

 Kagetora wrote:

There's literally no way for a normal human being, especially a dim one like me, to keep track of all of this. At a certain point, instead of going through every unit, their special rules, and the Stratagems before a game, it feels like it's time to just throw your hands in the air and say "Whatever. Let's just play. If I get screwed by a bunch of stupid add-on rules, I'll blame GW, not you. Don't feel bad if some of mine catch you by surprise."

I mean, it has reached a level of ridiculousness that's astounding to me. Every datacard has some additional printing on it that allows that unit to bend or break some basic rule, adds some modifier, or gives it a special ability. It feels like a desperate attempt to differentiate units just for the sake of doing so. Why?

This is why I'm play Imperial Knights... I essentially have 3 different unit types (with different weapon loadouts).

There is nothing easier than big dumb robots.

 Tyran wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:First, a small Joke. I do not know what 11th edition will be like, but 12th edition will be with sticks and stones.

I don't mind vehicles having toughness instead of armor value, if it makes it easier to check one less thing. I think vehicles having wounds and armor saves is a bit much. I prefer the old damage table system, so I'd like to see something like the damage table return instead of pre-selected reductions in vehicle power based on wounds.
I do think the more damage the vehicle has taken from the damage table should be reflected in bonuses on the table, like +1 on the table for each weapon destroyed, +1 on the table if the vehicle has been slowed down, etc, make it harder or impossible to destroy the vehicle in 1-2 hits, but the more hits that get through the more likely it is to result in the destruction.

Meanwhile in 30k which still has AV, damage table and hullpoints, vehicles suck.

I don't believe GW has ever gotten the classic vehicles rules right, they either are too fragile or dominate the game with cheap transports (5th ed), no middle point.

I didn't know 30k still used that, I'm not really familiar with that rule set. I do wonder though what you think of the "toughness, wounds, armor save" system of rules that vehicles are using in mainline 40k?

 Arschbombe wrote:
Periodically I see complaints about the lack of meaty moral rules in modern 40k. Here we are discussing one from past editions and everyone seems to hate it. I think morale rules are rules that people like in theory, especially when they apply to the other guy's units, but not so much in practice when their little soldiers stubbornly refuse to fight to the last man for the glory of the klan, coven, craftworld, chapter et al.

I think this is the rub of all these debates.
I think you've got numerous schools of thought.

1. 40k "as a competitive game". And by competitive, I mean two players intelligently engage with all the tools they have available to them with the objective of winning the game. Rules need to be tight and clear. You want a bit of luck perhaps so its not just chess or checkers - but not so much there's no explicitly right or wrong decisions.
2. 40k as a mashup ("fun" could work - but the above is fun for many people). Put perhaps unfairly/crudely, you want a system which works where two players "don't" intelligently engage with all the tools available to them. You want a system where two players can run their units towards each other, sort of mashup in the middle of the table, one player falls over but both have a good time getting there.
3. 40k as a simulation. This is perhaps the one that gets into the weeds - because everyone has a slightly different idea of what they are trying to simulate. You can take almost as far as turning the game into a limited RPG where armies are controlled by rules or even an interventionist DM/GM than the players themselves. You wind it up and watch it go to a "realistic" conclusion - whatever that is.

"Meaty morale" which takes control away from the player really comes under 3. Players more concerned with 1 and 2 aren't that interested (and in fact actively hate it most of the time). I seem to remember GW saying that it was one of the major complaints they got from players.

 Kagetora wrote:


There's literally no way for a normal human being, especially a dim one like me, to keep track of all of this. At a certain point, instead of going through every unit, their special rules, and the Stratagems before a game, it feels like it's time to just throw your hands in the air and say "Whatever. Let's just play. If I get screwed by a bunch of stupid add-on rules, I'll blame GW, not you. Don't feel bad if some of mine catch you by surprise."

I mean, it has reached a level of ridiculousness that's astounding to me. Every datacard has some additional printing on it that allows that unit to bend or break some basic rule, adds some modifier, or gives it a special ability. It feels like a desperate attempt to differentiate units just for the sake of doing so. Why?

This is an odd take considering how much more complex the previous edition was by comparison.

And you're literally not supposed to memorize anything- you're literally supposed to have it right in front of you on a convenient card- whether one of the overpriced GW premades or one you create yourself on a cheap 3x five index card. You can use them from directly from the book or app too, but cards are faster because you can spread them out and pass them to your opponent as needed. And the fact that every faction has more than one detachment is irrelevant since the only one that matters is the one you're using for any given game. The other ones are this old thing that used to exist EVERYWHERE in the game: they're called options, and anyone who suggests taking even more of them away from us should probably just find another game that's more in line with their personal preferences.

I don't want to sound like I'm excluding anyone, but you have to understand if the game gets any simpler, it excludes ME.

I just hope they never go overboard with the special rules like 30k.

My opponent and I spent more time reading what our weapons did to each other than actually playing the game.

There needs to be a happy balance between Streamlined Gameplay and Wikipedia Entries in the Age of Darkness.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Tyel wrote:

But I'm not exactly itching for it to come back.

I was gonna do a huge response, but this line softened me up a bit.

The rule was probably my least favourite rule out of any edition I played. Scattering deepstrike was a close second.

To say that "tag you're dead" made sense because it was a core rule, and that was just how you defeated units in assault doesn't make any sense to me at all. You can scare me off the board, but if you catch me before I get to the edge of the board, I am going to turn around and fight, not just die of fear- that's fething ridiculous.

It created a situation where in order to be a good close combat unit, leadership was almost as important as your ability to fight, which again, is just kinda dumb, core mechanic or not. Resolving combat by attacks + unit rules + possible strats makes WAY more sense to me, even if it's on the datacard rather than being a core mechanic.

Mostly it was a rule ported straight over from fantasy battle where the whole game was far more built around it than 40k ever tried to be.

BanjoJohn wrote:

I didn't know 30k still used that, I'm not really familiar with that rule set. I do wonder though what you think of the "toughness, wounds, armor save" system of rules that vehicles are using in mainline 40k?

I prefer it, I remember late 7th ed when everyone complained how easy to kill vehicles were in comparison to monsters and wanted them to have T, W and SV+. People say they want damage tables, but they also don't want losing tanks to a luckily hit. Which is why every time I have seen homebrew rules try to bring back vehicles damage tables they include ways to make one shots impossible, which at that point I wonder what is the point?

If you want simulationist vehicles rules then one shots are extremely realistic as that is often how tank warfare behaves. And if you want more gamey durable tanks then just give them T, W and SV+.

Also I just found AV an extremely poor simulation system. I mean, you had auto cannons that could one-shot tanks but couldn't penetrate Space Marine armor, and at the other extreme you had hotshot lasguns that penetrated Space Marine armor but couldn't penetrate tank armor. It was ridiculous AP didn't actually help penetrate vehicle armor.

Tyel wrote:
I think you've got numerous schools of thought.

1. 40k "as a competitive game". And by competitive, I mean two players intelligently engage with all the tools they have available to them with the objective of winning the game. Rules need to be tight and clear. You want a bit of luck perhaps so its not just chess or checkers - but not so much there's no explicitly right or wrong decisions.
2. 40k as a mashup ("fun" could work - but the above is fun for many people). Put perhaps unfairly/crudely, you want a system which works where two players "don't" intelligently engage with all the tools available to them. You want a system where two players can run their units towards each other, sort of mashup in the middle of the table, one player falls over but both have a good time getting there.
3. 40k as a simulation. This is perhaps the one that gets into the weeds - because everyone has a slightly different idea of what they are trying to simulate. You can take almost as far as turning the game into a limited RPG where armies are controlled by rules or even an interventionist DM/GM than the players themselves. You wind it up and watch it go to a "realistic" conclusion - whatever that is.

"Meaty morale" which takes control away from the player really comes under 3. Players more concerned with 1 and 2 aren't that interested (and in fact actively hate it most of the time). I seem to remember GW saying that it was one of the major complaints they got from players.

Good breakdown. I'm definitely leanings towards the second camp, personally. To me, much of the fun of 40k comes from creating a flavorful army with a theme and story that can be represented on the table in some fashion, and then mashing the action figures together. With the rules/outcome helping you tell a story. In some ways, I think of this as more of an "RPG" experience than the simulationist approach because it's less interested in getting bogged down in minutia and more interested in letting the "cool stuff" about each army shine.

Camp 2 is D&D. Camp 3 is D&D, but your group spends a bunch of time tracking carrying capacity and checking off rations and agonizing over the watch rotation.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I don't mind vehicles having toughness instead of armor value, if it makes it easier to check one less thing. I think vehicles having wounds and armor saves is a bit much. I prefer the old damage table system, so I'd like to see something like the damage table return instead of pre-selected reductions in vehicle power based on wounds.
I do think the more damage the vehicle has taken from the damage table should be reflected in bonuses on the table, like +1 on the table for each weapon destroyed, +1 on the table if the vehicle has been slowed down, etc, make it harder or impossible to destroy the vehicle in 1-2 hits, but the more hits that get through the more likely it is to result in the destruction.

So as was mentioned previously, giving vehicles Wounds and Toughness is sort of an evolution of the old problems we ran into with AV/the damage charts.
* When I started playing in 5th, vehicles were cheap, spammed, and hard to finish off because the damage chart meant that anything short of a meltagun was probably just going to stun lock them all game. Or possibly immobilize them which was either irrelevant or as good as a kill depending on the vehicle.
* In either 6th or 7th, we added hull points, which were basically wounds for vehicles. So you could still stunlock/damage a vehicle, but the vehicle would perma-die after a few good hits. So instead of stunning a vehicle 5 times, stunning it 3 times meant it was dead. But people hated that because now vehicles were seen as too easy to kill, *and* they could get debuffed by damage mid-game, *and* they were uninteractive with small arms fire making things like imperial knights (introduced in 7th) a problem.
* So then in 8th, they just kind of finished the transition. They'd already given vehicles "wounds" in the form of hull points, and vehicle skew being uninteractive sucked. So they just made vehicles work the same way everything else did. And because 8th was the edition where they cut out a lot of (often clunky) mechanics, they simplified the damage chart with its list of effects you had to track by just giving you the little wounded vehicle charts for vehicles with 10+ wounds. Which we've since streamlined even more by just making it a -1 to-hit for some vehicles.

All of which is to say that if you're going to bring back some form of vehicle damage chart, you have to contend with the problems that came with it.

I also like when psykers have more than 1 power available, it just feels better, I haven't worked out a good system yet but I think it should be done.

Absolutely. The easiest approach is just to give psychic powers a points cost.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:


There's literally no way for a normal human being, especially a dim one like me, to keep track of all of this. At a certain point, instead of going through every unit, their special rules, and the Stratagems before a game, it feels like it's time to just throw your hands in the air and say "Whatever. Let's just play. If I get screwed by a bunch of stupid add-on rules, I'll blame GW, not you. Don't feel bad if some of mine catch you by surprise."

I mean, it has reached a level of ridiculousness that's astounding to me. Every datacard has some additional printing on it that allows that unit to bend or break some basic rule, adds some modifier, or gives it a special ability. It feels like a desperate attempt to differentiate units just for the sake of doing so. Why?

This is an odd take considering how much more complex the previous edition was by comparison.

And you're literally not supposed to memorize anything- you're literally supposed to have it right in front of you on a convenient card- whether one of the overpriced GW premades or one you create yourself on a cheap 3x five index card. You can use them from directly from the book or app too, but cards are faster because you can spread them out and pass them to your opponent as needed. And the fact that every faction has more than one detachment is irrelevant since the only one that matters is the one you're using for any given game. The other ones are this old thing that used to exist EVERYWHERE in the game: they're called options, and anyone who suggests taking even more of them away from us should probably just find another game that's more in line with their personal preferences.

I don't want to sound like I'm excluding anyone, but you have to understand if the game gets any simpler, it excludes ME.

I think the point I was trying to get at was I used to be able to show up at a table, be told what my opponent was playing, and have a firm grasp on what "Special Rules" that entire army had. Differentiation came from small changes, AND the options you mentioned that you used to pick...a different Chapter of Marines having something cool (like Death Company or an Emperor's Champion), a different Force Org Chart, different units carrying different weapon loadouts, or having different move abilities (jetpacks, for instance), etc.

Now, it's as you say. Literally print out a stack of cards for every unit/detachment/stratagem and hand them out like it's a holiday, spend however long it takes to familiarize yourself with them, then go ahead and forget about them midway through and be caught by surprise anyway.

It was a bad trade...getting rid of actual equipment/unit options and replacing them with a literal encyclopedia of special rules, then trying to figure out how they interact with the normal rules, when both of them are usually worded like crap.

I don't want the game dumbed down any more. Hells, I used to play RT and 3rd edition WFB. I still play Epic. It's been nothing but one long, slow slide to the bottom of complexity for 40 years. But I think what they did in 10th was a crappy solution. If I want simplistic beer-n-pretzels, I'll go back to playing Battletech. But I don't want to have to deal with every new opponent showing up having a completely different set of rules either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

I didn't know 30k still used that, I'm not really familiar with that rule set. I do wonder though what you think of the "toughness, wounds, armor save" system of rules that vehicles are using in mainline 40k?

I prefer it, I remember late 7th ed when everyone complained how easy to kill vehicles were in comparison to monsters and wanted them to have T, W and SV+. People say they want damage tables, but they also don't want losing tanks to a luckily hit. Which is why every time I have seen homebrew rules try to bring back vehicles damage tables they include ways to make one shots impossible, which at that point I wonder what is the point?

If you want simulationist vehicles rules then one shots are extremely realistic as that is often how tank warfare behaves. And if you want more gamey durable tanks then just give them T, W and SV+.

Also I just found AV an extremely poor simulation system. I mean, you had auto cannons that could one-shot tanks but couldn't penetrate Space Marine armor, and at the other extreme you had hotshot lasguns that penetrated Space Marine armor but couldn't penetrate tank armor. It was ridiculous AP didn't actually help penetrate vehicle armor.

You're not wrong. The older AV/Damage Table rules were always problematic. But they significantly differentiated Vehicles from everything else, and that was a good thing. A good thing, poorly implemented.

T/W/Sv for vehicles though, just feels bad, man. What is the difference between a Vehicle and a Monster at that point? I'm struggling to think of any significant ones that actually make a real difference in the game. Typically Vehicles have a bunch more guns, and Monsters have fewer guns but fight well in CC. That's about it, and even that's not a hard and fast rule when you look at Walkers.

I'm not saying I have a solution. There probably isn't one that everyone, or even a majority, would embrace and be happy with. Maybe progressive damage tables for both of them. Take a few wounds, lose 1" off your move. Take a few more, Monsters move even slower, Vehicles lose a gun. A few more, start taking penalties to hit.

Maybe something like that? The problem with it would be it goes against what I was complaining about earlier, which is too many special rules on every datasheet...with this, every Vehicle/Monster would have to have a little table detailing what happened to them as they became wounded. Would that be bad? I dunno. Just spitballing ideas, because right now, Vehicles just seem very boring.

Not so much a prediction but I would really like to see the strategy rules (army rules/stratagems) be more apparent if they are essential in the game. The biggest problem is that they don't have much of a spotlight despise how important they are. The reliable way to learn about them through official GW means is through Codexes and even then, the book isn't the best to lay out. They have been improving, especially with 10th Edition stratagems being clean, having subtext, colors, and small graphics, even if its the plain DnD 4e look.

Deck of cards somewhat help, but having say art matching the stratagem can be a start.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I just hope they never go overboard with the special rules like 30k.

My opponent and I spent more time reading what our weapons did to each other than actually playing the game.

There needs to be a happy balance between Streamlined Gameplay and Wikipedia Entries in the Age of Darkness.

IMO GW pretty much nailed USR this time around. A few kinks had to be ironed out through errata (looking at you, Hazardous and Devastating Wounds), but otherwise it works really well. People hardly ever need to look up any of them unless there is a weird interaction with a bespoke rule.
A small hand full of things like sticky objectives or could probably be changed into USR or keywords, but the list is short.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I just hope they never go overboard with the special rules like 30k.

My opponent and I spent more time reading what our weapons did to each other than actually playing the game.

There needs to be a happy balance between Streamlined Gameplay and Wikipedia Entries in the Age of Darkness.

IMO GW pretty much nailed USR this time around. A few kinks had to be ironed out through errata (looking at you, Hazardous and Devastating Wounds), but otherwise it works really well. People hardly ever need to look up any of them unless there is a weird interaction with a bespoke rule.
A small hand full of things like sticky objectives or could probably be changed into USR or keywords, but the list is short.

I much prefer the way they are doing USRs this time round, the way it was in older editions was horrendous. Now, as jidmah says, you barely have to look any up, each is clear in what it does. I remember in 7th where the description of one rule would just show other USRs it granted so you have to go and look those up, it was horrible. The weapon rules are really simple and work well, when I look at heresy unit or weapon rules it makes me sad.

I never played 6-9th Edition, so when I look at the Horus Heresy books, my mind flashes back to the time I tried to learn Russian.

It's too much for my American English noggin to absorb.

 PenitentJake wrote:
It created a situation where in order to be a good close combat unit, leadership was almost as important as your ability to fight, which again, is just kinda dumb, core mechanic or not.

I don't think that's dumb at all- just a holdover of when 40K was a historical wargame with a sci-fi veneer, rather than whatever it currently is. 'Morale is almost as important as your ability to fight' is an evergreen observation of warfare.

And while I do feel that sweeping advance could have been handled differently if you prioritize some sort of simulation over ease of play, in terms of gameplay effect it was a key factor in making melee decisive and worth using. Whittling down enemies with gunfire was slow, but a competent melee unit that made it into combat could break a unit and either force them to flee or wipe them out entirely. Without that capability, melee units need overwhelming kill-a-unit-in-one-turn damage output for them to be worth taking over shooting counterparts, and multirole units like the humble Tactical Marine lost a lot of their utility.

As always, there are ways that gameplay concepts like morale could be implemented other than how 40K used to do it or how 40K does it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kagetora wrote:
I think the point I was trying to get at was I used to be able to show up at a table, be told what my opponent was playing, and have a firm grasp on what "Special Rules" that entire army had. Differentiation came from small changes, AND the options you mentioned that you used to pick...a different Chapter of Marines having something cool (like Death Company or an Emperor's Champion), a different Force Org Chart, different units carrying different weapon loadouts, or having different move abilities (jetpacks, for instance), etc.

Now, it's as you say. Literally print out a stack of cards for every unit/detachment/stratagem and hand them out like it's a holiday, spend however long it takes to familiarize yourself with them, then go ahead and forget about them midway through and be caught by surprise anyway.

It was a bad trade...getting rid of actual equipment/unit options and replacing them with a literal encyclopedia of special rules, then trying to figure out how they interact with the normal rules, when both of them are usually worded like crap.

GW basically recognized why having a ton of bespoke special rules was a detriment to gameplay and replaced them with a more concise, memorizable set of USRs... and then reimplemented a ton of bespoke special rules anyways.

You hinted at it, but the biggest loss IMO is units having WYSIWYG capabilities. You used to be able to look at an infantry unit, see that it's armed with bolters, and know just from that what its general capabilities are- 6" move, 12" melee threat range, S4/AP5, and oh look the sergeant has a powerfist so he gets double S and ignores armor. Now, you have no idea what a unit is or does without looking at the datasheet- that bolter isn't a normal bolter, it can actually shoot twice if it targets the same unit, and the sergeant's powerfist has different stats from the powerfist in your army.

It's still a step up from the gotcha 'trap card' bs of stratagems in 8th/9th because it's at least directly tied to the models themselves (and the list of stratagems is much shorter), but it's still annoyingly complex to keep track of. For all that people complain about older editions being too complicated, they were simpler to actually play in practice, because once you knew the core rules you were pretty much set. What we have now is the result of trying to pile stuff onto a threadbare core in order to achieve depth.

Eh that argument may have some weight with Imperial armies, but xenos equipment was always kinda bespoke.

I mean, most people cannot even differentiate between a Tyranid barbed strangler or a venom cannon, so I have always needed to explain regardless of edition what each does (and biomorphs in particular were never very WYSIWYG friendly)

Imperials and Chaos comprise the majority of factions in the game and the overwhelming majority of armies on the table, so yeah, that makes a pretty significant difference.

But even with xenos, there was a time when I could say 'the talons give bonus attacks and the claws give Rending' and that was consistent across my entire army. Honestly, I have enough trouble keeping track of my own capabilities now that they're so inconsistent- why do my Tyrant Guard have different profiles for boneswords, crushing claws, or scything talons, but my Warriors lump them all together as 'Tyranid Warrior claws and talons'? I find myself having to constantly double-check the datasheet to make sure I'm remembering the right stat or using my units optimally. It's not unplayable, but it isn't conducive to learnability either.

Yeah, I get ehat Catbarf is saying and it's a problem since 8th and has gotten worse with new units.
For example, in earlier times Orks had a choppa, big choppa or klaw, with named chars or relics being special. Now you have choppa, big choppa, special klaw for the Beast snagga Boss, special klaw for the trike Boss, special big choppa for the warboss, special klaw for the snagga warboss, special CC weapons for named chars. It's a point of needless complexity when at the same time in CSM World some Power fists are power fists and some lightning claws are lightnings claws but other Power fists and lightning claws are accursed weapons So the same bits having different rules. This leads to a need to look up these Profiles over and over (like you would look up the bloated base rules over and over in 6th/7th edition).

I will come out and say that people are playing wrong if they don't like rules that take their decisions away... :p

You're playing a wargame that represents living creatures with personalities, training and behaviour. If the game was robot wars where each side just moved and deployed machines based on objective programming, sure I can see why you would feel that your army should do exactly what you want it to.

but part of the deal of playing a game like this, is that you are directing imperfect warriors across imperfect terrain, with imperfect weapons under imperfect conditions.

Behaviour is a key part of this - not specifically morale, because so many people will pull 'fearless' units out of their pockets to counter that, but behaviour and reactions to events. Fearless units will still duck from incoming fire, or change the direction they move because they might lose more troops if they go directly into the fire.


The concept that rules that take player agency away are bad, is a terrible position for modern games to be in. Part of the game contract you take up when you start to play is that you don't have full control of your army. That's a FEATURE, not a bug.

How those instances of lacking control are modelled however, where the rub is. Not the concept itself.


You can roll suppression, morale, fear, etc all into 'interference' with a unit's actions. It doesn't matter how or why the unit's actions are interfered, only that they are.

A unit that isn't scared still gets slowed down by craters created by incoming artillery fire, Still wants to avoid shooting so it can survive long enough to get to the enemy, still changes direction or takes cover to maintain its numbers.


If there's one rules philosophy that I don't like about modern 40k, it's this notion that players should have absolutely as much control over their army as possible, that any random things are removed, that you should be able to judge probability of success by just the number on their stat line.

That is part of the loss of interesting gameplay.

Counterpoint, this game has both Tyranids and Necrons in it. The latter are literally robots, the former are literally hive-minded.

Like sure once a unit is out of synapse range I shouldn't fully control it anymore, but I do expect to have total control over units within synapse because that is the lore.