Fresh rumors for 10th

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.

**VladimirHerzog**

catbarf wrote:

Even OnePageRules, a family of games written by like one dude, has an online army builder that lets you export the statlines and wargear of your whole army with relevant USRs reproduced in full at the bottom. Does GW just expect we're all using their app?

Agreed on all of what you said.

And yeah, the fact that OPR's app is made by 3-4 guys IIRC and is THAT much better than GW's is baffling and puts them to shame quite frankly

**Daedalus81**

Tyel wrote:
Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see it.

I've never had someone go but what does "Wraithbone Form" mean? What does "Armoured Exoskeleton" mean?

You read the datasheet once, go "okay this unit has -1 damage" and move on. I don't find that complicated. Its not rendered less complicated by just having Unnatural Resilience as an ability - that you either need to know or look up.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of the basic rules across the game could be turned into USRs. But every time this comes up we go through and find there just aren't that many of them - and they aren't the ones players have problems with. Yes there are many rules that could just be turned into deep strike. Or infiltrate. Or FNP. Or even things like reroll 1s to hit or to wound, exploding 6s to hit, no rerolls and so on. The community tends to give these abilities names based on the first time we see them or most common occurance.

I feel complexity comes from things stacking - i.e. Ad Mech which can have up to half a dozen rules effecting how you unit shoots. Making it so that unit would be acting under 6 keywords doesn't change that computation. You need to know the rules - and keep track of whether they are in effect. Or you have rules - typically the purity bonuses, but also things like stratagems etc - which are just not intuitive and so anyone not playing frequently has to check and read and possibly debate whether they are understanding it correctly and should use it now or later etc.

I don't want to go back to a system of Zealot and Crusader, Furious Charge and Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Slow and Purposeful or say Rage and Rampage.

I don't disagree that a system of USRs can work. Lets pick something like Bolt Action (which is a game I don't know as well as 40k, but know a bit). That's a USR driven ruleset. But +/- it works because infantry are 3 types of infantry - and vehicles are also sort of grouped up, as are largely the weapons. I'm simplifying it a bit but it doesn't have a 1000 (or whatever the total is) units, and maybe 1000 different weapon profiles that all sort of want to be bespoke as 40k does.

Now you can say "yeah, that's the problem" - but I don't see GW changing that.
Adding say "Deepstrike" as a keyword and putting on the units which effectively have that rule may make the game a bit cleaner - but that wouldn't change the issues people who find 9th too complicated have. Or at least I don't think so anyway.

I think GW just needs to be consistent with their rules. Like you said - it's not the deepstrikes of the world.

Name them whatever you want. Just make sure the rule that does fight first is worded the same for all rules of a similar nature. Using different language each time is what kills it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Agreed on all of what you said.

And yeah, the fact that OPR's app is made by 3-4 guys IIRC and is THAT much better than GW's is baffling and puts them to shame quite frankly

OPR is waaaaay simpler. The logic required to make an army builder for GW rules is pretty sketchy when you start considering all the exceptions.

GW's app has gotten better, but they're still falling behind on keeping it updated. Probably because of constant logic changes with army building ( *cough* AoO )

**Tyran**

kodos wrote:
players wanted less bloat as well
thing is, players always say they want a less complex ruleset with "fluffy" bespoke rules

yet what most mean is less complicated and more clear rules were units act on the table according to the background (and not the opposite)

Of course people have different impressions and interpretations of what is the background. Specially when it comes to factions that they are less familiar with.

**tneva82**

VladimirHerzog wrote:

not to derail the conversation towards a new topic but i also don't understand why GW doesnt do unit cards, they do it for AoS and it helps a lot. It's much easier to have cards in front of you than to need to shuffle through a codex and see what the various datasheet are.

Well for the about 2 weeks they are up to date

Myself using app these days for most.

**H.B.M.C.**

catbarf wrote:
Does GW just expect we're all using their app?

I think you know the answer to that.

**catbarf**

Daedalus81 wrote:
OPR is waaaaay simpler. The logic required to make an army builder for GW rules is pretty sketchy when you start considering all the exceptions.

GW's app has gotten better, but they're still falling behind on keeping it updated. Probably because of constant logic changes with army building ( *cough* AoO )

The guys behind the Battlescribe data files made it work for 40K, and they're volunteers.

But what I'm specifically praising about OPR is that you press one button and you get all the datasheets for your chosen units, with the wargear and upgrades you selected baked in, and a consolidated USR reference at the bottom showing just the rules relevant to the units you've taken, all formatted for printing. I can give GW a little bit of slack on the complexity of army-building (again though: Battlescribe manages it), but where the GW app just gives you an army list, the OPR listbuilder gives you a complete and concise printable gameplay reference for your army that eliminates the need to refer back to the actual army list (codex) or your phone in gameplay.

This- along with coherent USR schemes and avoiding impenetrable legalese- is the sort of thing you get from a group that has playtested their own game and is trying to make it easier to play, rather than just meeting the bare minimum of playable and letting the community come up with play aids for themselves.

**VladimirHerzog**

catbarf wrote:

But what I'm specifically praising about OPR is that you press one button and you get all the datasheets for your chosen units, with the wargear and upgrades you selected baked in, and a consolidated USR reference at the bottom showing just the rules relevant to the units you've taken, all formatted for printing.

Here, have a visual example so people know what you mean (any ability thats underlined can be hovered on to see its full text)

Spoiler:

**Apple fox**

Let’s be honest, if GW got there hands on OPR. They would break it by end of edition.

I do like looking at that, so good.
If only I could convince people to try OPR..
It’s sad sometimes.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Fresh Rumor: from Kenny and Wyatt's Long War stream - GW gets into STL's for bits. Mainly for their FW stuff, as none of it seems to be made properly anymore. Parts dont fit, (Arms on FW dreadnaught) models are complete garbage (Bloodthirster's 10" whip) or kits being sent out incomplete.

**kodos**

?
This is the case for FW kits since their existing

Would be great if FW finally does something about it, but just the bad quality is no evidence at all

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

No recently it's started seeping into GW. The tank with no bottom? Mono-pose models like Angron with just flat out bad molds (armor Buthernails don't match up with nails on head).

It's getting worse and worse by the day. Big multi-hundred dollar kits like Belakor being just....bad.

**Insectum7**

Daedalus81 wrote:

OPR is waaaaay simpler. The logic required to make an army builder for GW rules is pretty sketchy when you start considering all the exceptions.

Two responses co present themselves:

1: Some units in OPR have similar restrictions and exceptions in their wargear choices. GW just has more units. Doing it right just takes work.

2: Better yet, GW could just junk all the garbage lawyery wargear restrictions and provide more permissive wargear lists like the days of old. That would remove considerable complication.

**VladimirHerzog**

Insectum7 wrote:

1: Some units in OPR have similar restrictions and exceptions in their wargear choices. GW just has more units. Doing it right just takes work.

actually, units have the same exceptions for the most part considering the goal of OPR is to be fully compatible with people's existing 40k/AoS forces.

Or am i mistaken
(let's exclude squad size from the comparison since termis/devastators come in trios so they're actually playable and not super costly)

**Insectum7**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

1: Some units in OPR have similar restrictions and exceptions in their wargear choices. GW just has more units. Doing it right just takes work.

actually, units have the same exceptions for the most part considering the goal of OPR is to be fully compatible with people's existing 40k/AoS forces.

Or am i mistaken
(let's exclude squad size from the comparison since termis/devastators come in trios so they're actually playable and not super costly)

It's not fully compatible, there are some oddities (like a "Whirlwind" in OPR builds off a generic "Battle Tank" chassis that has sponson weapons). I don't know what the decision around that is. Brevity? Legal reasons? No idea.

**kodos**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No recently it's started seeping into GW. The tank with no bottom? Mono-pose models like Angron with just flat out bad molds (armor Buthernails don't match up with nails on head).

It's getting worse and worse by the day. Big multi-hundred dollar kits like Belakor being just....bad.

this is also nothing new
Just that more people acknowledged that expensive GW kits can be bad as well

No one talked about the bad mould lines from the Kill Team Orks but instead reviewer who pointed that out were called haters or lazy for no removing them

**ccs**

kodos wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No recently it's started seeping into GW. The tank with no bottom? Mono-pose models like Angron with just flat out bad molds (armor Buthernails don't match up with nails on head).

It's getting worse and worse by the day. Big multi-hundred dollar kits like Belakor being just....bad.
this is also nothing new
Just that more people acknowledged that expensive GW kits can be bad as well

No one talked about the bad mould lines from the Kill Team Orks but instead reviewer who pointed that out were called haters or lazy for no removing them

Oh I complained about those orky mold lines.
I just did it at the local shop as I was cleaning the damnrd things.