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.

Because clearly it is all the same people saying these things.

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

Not really, Bolt Action/Gates has managed to do random activation and reactions.

Which is different because they have per unit activations and not just alternating phases.

But there are a lot of posibilities how 40k can be a better game, we have tried a lot of them in the past 3 years

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Not everyone as I was one of the Dakka members that was happy and playing games during 5th with only minor complaints. Now we are in 7th and I play games at home only with a few select friends. And a lot of custom rules that I didn't need in 5th

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

And...?

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Well, just think how a majorly simplified 40K would allow Dakka to dust off all those jokes about Jervis's kid from the 4th edition streamlining.

And let's not forget that they've DONE massive simplification and streamlining more recently than 2nd to 3rd - Epic 40,000. While I personally think it's a fantastic ruleset, it's safe to say many disagreed. IIRC even some of the designers notes to Armageddon (or were they interviews?) pointed to the lesson being learned that their audience LOVES their fiddly little differentiations, the more granular the better. Given the way that period turned out, you could forgive them being a little gunshy about doing similar to 40k.

 oni wrote:
Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system

Not complex, just convoluted.

 gorgon wrote:

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

And...?

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Well, just think how a majorly simplified 40K would allow Dakka to dust off all those jokes about Jervis's kid from the 4th edition streamlining.

To be fair, remember how many more users on Dakka there were during 4th/5th? Or how many more players there were? People speak with their wallets; GW's sales peaked during the "simplified" years of 4th & 5th.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 oni wrote:
Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system

Not complex, just convoluted.

Time for my semi regular "complex =\= complicated" post.

40K is complicated. There is a huge amount of content, there are many things to keep track of in a game, and many events require multiple steps in order to resolve.

40K is not especially complex. It does not offer a huge amount of interactions between units, nor are there a huge number of actions a player needs to consider on a turn by turn basis.

Complexity is desirable, it is what give a game depth, complicated rules should be avoided at all costs.

sturguard wrote:
Sad Panda,
Why would they go through all this Errata process just to scrap it all in a new edition? Or will these Faqs essentially be part of the new rules? Can you speculate?

Also, will they be coming out with brand new codexes for all the factions for 8th edition?

Doing the FAQs now, in what is possibly the timeframe for writing and polishing the ruleset for printing and a 2017 release, lets them see the problem areas that people frequently have and word the rules more clearly to avoid them, while the FAQs themselves hold things over for 7th edition until 8th comes along.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Not everyone as I was one of the Dakka members that was happy and playing games during 5th with only minor complaints. Now we are in 7th and I play games at home only with a few select friends. And a lot of custom rules that I didn't need in 5th

Yah, I loved 5th at the time too. Alot of people came around to 5th ed in time. My only issue with 5th was the space wolf book, and it's OP-ness. But most only remembers the insanitiy that came at the very tail end of the edition with Grey Knights. To be fair they came out less then a year before 6th, and was not representative of most 5th ed games for it's life span.

Your experience with 7th has been alot like mine. I don't like playing agiest formations and lords of war. I gave them a try and just don't like apoc in my normal 40k.

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.

I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

I believe it's the rose tinted eyes of nostalgia talking mostly. People think back to the days of wonder when they played such and such. Oh what fun we had with lego terrain and glued toilet paper rolls playing with unpainted tin and a weak grasp of ruleset, when in actuality it was a constant fighting with your brother cause he kept cheating and it smelled funny in the basement...

 oni wrote:
This is absurd.
I feel surrounded by moody teens and man-children who all have ADHD.

Got a kid with ADHD... your tolerance is rather thin.

When 5th Ed. was in, the Dakka community bitched that things were too simple, the force org. chart was too restrictive, vehicles and wound allocation was being abused, codex creep was out of control and blah blah blah - we need a more involved and complex rules system.

The long span between codex's was causing a creep of sorts where they barely saw an update between rule updates.
BTW last edition I could buy all the rules for all the armies, it was quite nice to know ALL the rules.

Enter 6th Ed. with a more involved and complex rules system and guess what? The Dakka community bitched that things were needlessly complex and unclear, flyers and super heavies should not be in the game and blah blah blah - we need a more clear and refined core rules system where only the special rules dictate exceptions.

I like how they tried to get all the special rules itemized in the BRB.
The army and allied chart broke the game however.
It just became a rehash of changing Apocalypse into the core rules, not all that unique.
Became a huge clunky mess.

Enter 7th Ed. with refined rules and loads of special rules and the freedom to build your army however you desire and guess what? The Dakka community still bitches. There's too many special rules, too many books, I can't figure out how to build an army because the freedom of choice is too overwhelming - we need to streamline, we need to go back to 5th edition.

Yes, at this stage literally no-one who legally buys all the various rules could afford it, never mind remember it all.
Formations was a nice idea but their toying with pay to win or just too much free stuff made fast and dirty OP units in short order.
"Refined" I really have to look around and say "Where??".
Choices should have consequence.
Have some logical consideration.
Most of it is buried in too much randomization with the illusion of choice and a whole bunch of unique units that cease to have relevance other than a selected few.
Yep, lots of choice boiling down to rock paper scissors army selection.
Heck, Bolt Action activation alone could save the bloody game, it does not take much other than giving a damn about the rules.

I have played this since 2nd edition, your rage over the complaining is almost as out of place of your passive acceptance of a game that has virtually become a game of pachinko.

Two scenarios:



A book with all the rules you need to play and various optional supplements available for purchase but not required that allow for players to take their battles in various more specific directions (apoc, cityfight, planestrik, the new stupid plane thing)





A convoluted living ruleset with 4 books that are made to be a requirement for cynical gain with the possibility of even more essentially mandatory expansions.



I know kanluwan favours the second option and I won't speculate as to why as I don't think it's healthy to ascribe that clarity of purpose to evil But the first option was how the game used to work and it was better for it. The fact that 40k is apoc now and we all have to put on our gak eating grins and call it 40k makes me sad. Formations are awful, the foc is king.

I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

Sad panda said that 8th is coming in 2017, and he's about the most solid rumormonger we got.

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

The entire system needs an overhaul. A fundamental reworking from the ground up. I'm not so naive as to think slapping interlewved turn structure onto the existing system would fix it, nor was it implied.

But if they were to go for a more radical reworking of the game, this should be instituted.
I'm not bothered about how reactions work. I already know they can because I've seen them in action in gws own game that utilize this mechanism.
Lotrs WotR is an excellent example of this working well.

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

Yes, things are far from predictable now. Will I play against that White Scars' Gladius painted as Ultramarines or that other White Scars' Gladius painted as Raven Guard?

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

I felt the same way about these rumors untill sad panda just dropped his rumour bomb. When Sad Panda says something is happening, you take note.

OT, but I realy need to say. The formations are the number one thing breaking 40k right now. Mechanicus War Convocation is insane to the point, that their is no reason NOT to use it if your playing the army.

 adamsouza wrote:


WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

WTF would they even bother writing/producing/distributing a hardback rulebook if it's invalidated in 24 months ?

Dunno. But they did didn't they?

I see a faq as a working document to ensure the next version is fixed using what was learnt from writing the previous faq.

Unfortunately, GW have a habit of bringing in and making new rules each edition to ensure it sells.

So i guess imperial/tau/eldar knights will be troops, more special squads and less normal units?

And off course the new starter box will be Sisters of Battle Vs Squats!

 kodos wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
Simple thing could really improve the game would be interleaved turn structures.

This concept is not so foreign to GW as some of their game utlize it already.

You move, I move.
You shoot, I shoot.
You assault I assault.
You cast magic/psychic ppwers, then I do the same.

It would be a vast improvement over taking lunch while someone else takes their turn. As it is, it seems like a game of two player solitaire many times.

UGOIGO is flawed for this format and its outdated use doesn't fit contemporary design.

Which is not so simple as you think.
Switching from IGYG to alternate phases goes much deeper. It also removes all kind of reactions from the game, otherwise it would make it worse. So no more Overwatch, Intercept, banning psi powers, striking back in close combat etc

If you want a more dynamic gameplay it would be better to improve the current reaction system.

You don't play many other games, do you.

nah, the new rule book will be Imperial Zoats vs Ambulls.

 adamsouza wrote:
WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Try 12+ months from now. GW usually does edition changeovers in the summer

WayneTheGame wrote:
With any luck an 8th edition will really streamline like AOS and go the same route (relatively speaking) of having a "play what you want" style (which I guess already exists with Unbound), a narrative style and a "matched" style that hopefully tries better to balance points (which it remains to be seen how balanced, if at all, the AOS points are).

I sincerely hope not

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved.

Oh good for you!

(/Christian Bale)

The fact of the matter is, Kan, that you called people wishing for points "garbage players". Your black and white nonsense, as MGS so rightly put it, isn't doing you any favours here.

 Lockark wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I love the formations, for the special rules they bring. When you play with only FOC things are predictable. Formations allow for much greater diversity in army building and their special rules can make otherwise suboptimal units enjoyable to field.

I'm taking these 8th edition in 2017 tumors with a 5lb bag of salt. It seems like the same people who speculated about 40K being on a 2 years cycle when 7th edition dropped are the same ones calling 8th edition in 2017, with no new evidence.

Fritz on Youtube is confident about 8th edition simply because someone he asked refused to answer about it.

8th edition rumors are just great click bait.

WTF would they even bother with the FAQ they are currently working on if it's invalidated in less than 6 months ?

Now honesntly, I could see a (7.5?) rulebook with the FAQ changes incorporated, and updated fortifications section. Maybe even a new starter set, with armies less aweful than Dark Angels and CSM

I felt the same way about these rumors untill sad panda just dropped his rumour bomb. When Sad Panda says something is happening, you take note.

OT, but I realy need to say. The formations are the number one thing breaking 40k right now. Mechanicus War Convocation is insane to the point, that their is no reason NOT to use it if your playing the army.

It's not the formations that are the problem, but the fact that only a select few armies have acces to them. If everyone had a shiny new codex with their own decurion it would be fine. Competitive players are always going to min max no matter what the system of picking the army is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have NEVER spent more than five minutes arranging a pick up game of AoS with no points or comp systems involved.

Oh good for you!

(/Christian Bale)

The fact of the matter is, Kan, that you called people wishing for points "garbage players". Your black and white nonsense, as MGS so rightly put it, isn't doing you any favours here.

In all honesty, I laughed out loud when I read that statement from Kan. Last weekend I watched two GW employees on their off time, screw up trying to set up a balance Age of Sigmar Game. They spent like 30 min just trying to figure out what seemed like balenced forces to them, and then one side just crushed the other side so hard the winner was like "yah, we messed that up..."

Even the GW employees who's job is to sell people on age of sigmar, struggle to set up balanced games between each other. Even the manager of the location more or less said he can't wait for the point system for age of sigmar. He's sick of players asking for him and his employees help setting up balanced games of age of sigmar. (And more or less the lot of them failing at it.)

My experience when visiting local GW stores is that Age of Sigmar has put the retail sales staff of GW in the position of being game designers for players struggling to play balanced pick-up games. The only people who regularly play Age of Sigmar in the store are small groups who normally play at each other's homes. They only play at the GW store because the people in the group who normally host the games is busy that weekend. These people don't even buy from the GW store, and refuse to play ageist people outside their gaming group. (Like. They mainly play at home. So they buy online. You can't blame them for that.) This is the only groups of people I see actually enjoying age of sigmar.

Age of Sigmar has no way to hand random match-ups between people who may hardly know each, something that you can expect in both a pick up game or tournament environment. Kan may call these people "Garbage players", but the truth is clear at this point these "garbage players" make up a pretty good chunk of the player base of wargames. GW is writeing up a points system just to try and get them back after all.

They are a company under new management that has clearly seen the additional revenue that campaign books, supplements and codices bring them. A company that previously operated on a more or less 4 yr release schedule for rules editions did a new rule set in 2 years and a re-release of almost every codex.

It is entirely possible that in the foreseeable future they could switch to a 2 yr rules release schedule. The only thing that might stop that is people voting with their wallets and not purchasing it in droves.

I hope this isn't the case but if it is I will probably buy it anyway. I thin kits more likely that they will release a streamlined set of rules for casual play with a proper rule set inbound in the future. A "shake up" does not necessarily mean a new edition. Even death from the skies is a shake up.