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.

 Jidmah wrote:
My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.

Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.

Warboss on Warbike is not in legends, it's in the index right now and will probably be in the new FW books.

 Jidmah wrote:
Warboss on Warbike is not in legends, it's in the index right now and will probably be in the new FW books.

Along with Sky Slashers and Shrikes, the Warboss on Warbike did not make it into legends. This means Index: Xenos 2 is the only index still "legal" or "relevant" as everything else has been superseded.

There is an argument that the Leman Russ Demolisher datasheet can still be used, but it's really a Moot Point since it loses Grinding Advance so no-one will take it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.

Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.

Legends is official, and has been from the start. The only thing "special" about Legends is that GW explicitly state they are not tailored for Organised Play. They are legal in matched play. People often conflate Organised Play suggestions for actual Matched Play rules (Rule of 3 being the biggest offender).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...

What purpose does this serve?

It kills the model for Plasma, which are primarily 1 Wound Infantry, while causing a bit of damage to multi-wound Tau Battlesuits. There is a real difference and I think the purpose is rather obvious.

Yes, there is a difference and that is fine, but why can Plasma get hot on 2's and Ion weapons don't? At the very least they should all not be affected by modifiers.

That being said, I don't think there needs to be a difference, all the Plasma thing does is cause issues with Vehicles such as Chaos Rhinos and Leman Russes.

 alextroy wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
...Second, you are assuming that GW actually wants specific rules to work the same. Imperial Plasma weapons and Tau Ion weapons both have different version of "Gets Hot" and I think it is intentional. So by your solution, they need to have two different USRs to reflect the different version of the rule...

What purpose does this serve?

It kills the model for Plasma, which are primarily 1 Wound Infantry, while causing a bit of damage to multi-wound Tau Battlesuits. There is a real difference and I think the purpose is rather obvious.

No, why is it important that they be different? Why does Imperial plasma need to RFP your Razorbacks? Is the game made more interesting in some way by having two versions of the rule?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Warboss on Warbike is not in legends, it's in the index right now and will probably be in the new FW books.

Along with Sky Slashers and Shrikes, the Warboss on Warbike did not make it into legends. This means Index: Xenos 2 is the only index still "legal" or "relevant" as everything else has been superseded.

There is an argument that the Leman Russ Demolisher datasheet can still be used, but it's really a Moot Point since it loses Grinding Advance so no-one will take it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My biker warboss is now spread across three books - index for the datasheet, codex for the relic klaw and SotB for the biggest boss stratagem.

Small upside is that's shortly going to be 2 books once legends becomes offical.

Legends is official, and has been from the start. The only thing "special" about Legends is that GW explicitly state they are not tailored for Organised Play. They are legal in matched play. People often conflate Organised Play suggestions for actual Matched Play rules (Rule of 3 being the biggest offender).

Well with no flow chart to allow wargear etc to carry over and index's not being sold why should they be seen as valid anymore?

People are quick enough to shout that forgeworld should be banned but taking units from books that are no longer available to anyone is okay.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
No, why is it important that they be different? Why does Imperial plasma need to RFP your Razorbacks? Is the game made more interesting in some way by having two versions of the rule?

Agreed. That being said, the difference does have a "balance" reason. For whatever reason T'au overheats can be tanked by the Intern carrying a single Burst Cannon while Bi'gdic'kmarty can fire all 3 of his CIB all day with no issues, but when Brother Aximand gets yeeted out of existence by venting plasma Brother Iamnotalpharus can't pick it up to keep shooting at the enemy. To me it really should be the other way around, a Crisis suit can't mid-battle slap on a fallen comrade's weapons to their hard points. But this is all due to GW's poor writing and wanting to avoid the Nob Bikers of yore. All overheats should simply just cause a mortal wound per 1 rolled and if this lets you tank them on grunts, so be it.

Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Ok, tell me, without looking, how Ynnari or Cult Ambush are meant to work. Or what a Battle Sister squad has. Or whether I can use the Quantum Deflection stratagem to ignore wounds from Bolters.

8th is a Gordian Knot of Special Snowflake Rules and Special Snowflake FAQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah. Let me take my recent Codex: Sisters of Battle.
So, let's look at, say, my literal only troop choice.
I got all the rules on my datasheet, I don't need to look at other pages!! All on page 82!
Oh but wait, I don't have the profile for half of the weapons available. Those are on page 96 and 97.
Oh but wait, I don't have text for the Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites and Shield of Faith rules! I need pages 75 and 76 too!
But wait, it's not written on the datasheet but I need to know that I have the Strength of Faith special rule from page 100!
But wait, it is also not written on the datasheet, but I need to know the rules for my order conviction, on page 101 too!
I also need to know page 102 to 105 for the stratagems.

I only need 11 pages to play a basic troop from my army. With USR maybe I would need 12 and that's totally unacceptable.
Oh if I had chosen a basic HQ the rules would have gone up to requiring 13 pages at least because one extra page for the warlord trait, and one extra page for the relic. Nice!

Don't forget needing CA19 to find out how many points each Battle Sister costs.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

That has unequivocally not been my experience. The core rules are simple, yes, but I think people overlook just how difficult it can be to get a handle on how an army functions without playing it week-in week-out or studying all the disparate rules for it that are often scattered all over the place. As I mentioned previously, one of my regular opponents has recently picked up Sisters of Battle and one of the things he struggles with is figuring out all the nuances of the army. It's not because 40k is in any way deep or difficult to master, it's entirely down to the way the rules are spread out across multiple parts of the Codex and every unit has bespoke rules, which makes it unnecessarily difficult to figure out what each unit does, and that's before you take Stratagems into account, which are often actually required to get the full effectiveness out of a unit. This is an experienced gamer who's been playing various different games for years.

40k has managed to become a game that is both massively complicated and ridiculously shallow at the same time. It's actually quite an impressive achievement.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

I guess the GW fanboy has spoken. Discussion is over.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget needing CA19 to find out how many points each Battle Sister costs.

No, the codex came out after CA19 so I don't need CA yet.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

I mean sure, if you ignore the multiple books full of Errata and changes, dozens of web forums here and elsewhere on the internet devoted to interpreting rules, and continually expanded rules base spread across dozens of sources that few can keep track of.

40k is a very complex wargame. It's not a "deep" game, tactically it's about as shallow as is possible to get for a wargame, but that does not make it a simple game.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget needing CA19 to find out how many points each Battle Sister costs.

No, the codex came out after CA19 so I don't need CA yet.

But the Limited Edition Adepta Sororitas: Sisters Of Battle Boxed Set (2019-11-29) came out before CA19 and MFM19 (2019-12-07). The codex that released "after" CA is just a cover variant, not a new book (as opposed to the SM and CSM books which were new books altogether, although the CSM one might not be who knows it's a moot point anyway), thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.

My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.

I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.

I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.

Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.

I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.

A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.

I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.

the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing gamers that 12 pages of rules was all you needed....

40k 8th ed is basically Stone Soup.....

 BaconCatBug wrote:
thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.

Wait, there are MFM points? I'm not even sure what MFM stands for. Are they different from the points in the codex? What are the differences?

Blastaar wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.

I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.

Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.

I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.

A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.

I pretty much only consult the Codex for my main army to confirm a Wounds characteristic or perhaps to confirm the Explodes characteristic when I roll a 6. My point about having your Codex is that there is no debate in a game when we both have our books and we have different wordings for abilities (Azrael vs Cawl reroll for instance). I play in two 40K communities and rarely have rules debates (usually regarding new Stratagems). I also play Flames of War and every game seems to be a rulebook search.

Having said that, I won't try to convince you to admire 40K. If its not to your liking then its not to your liking! I walked away when I no longer found 40K fun, and came back when it looked promising and found 8th to my liking.

Card games require less imagination and interpretation. Point and click. Trouble enters when one wants more than a card game.

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.

 jeff white wrote:
Card games require less imagination and interpretation. Point and click. Trouble enters when one wants more than a card game.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. MTG, at least, is a rich, deep, tactical game. With extremely specific wording for rules, down to the presence or absence of the word "may."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
My interest in 40K waned towards the end of 5th Ed and by 7th I had walked away. 8th brought me back because of its remarkably clean core design. By pushing the complexity to the Codexes you only have to manage the rules in play and there is minimal cross-referencing. If both players actually have their Codexes there is not much to argue about. When a player does not have a Codex in their possession for their army they are playing, though, I could see a game being harder.

I play regularly and with only three armies, so perhaps it is easier for me to keep current on my rules. I can recall very few rules disputes this edition, especially compared to previous editions. Purely anecdotal to be sure, but that is my frame of reference. Games are much cleaner than my Flames of War (FOW) games with their USRs and attempts to have tight player-proof rules. A game of FOW is a constant journey to the rule book.

Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.

I wouldn't call the core of 8th "clean." Shallow, more like.

A game can be complex, and clean and accessible simultaneously. GW's rules team simply isn't competent enough to do so.

I pretty much only consult the Codex for my main army to confirm a Wounds characteristic or perhaps to confirm the Explodes characteristic when I roll a 6. My point about having your Codex is that there is no debate in a game when we both have our books and we have different wordings for abilities (Azrael vs Cawl reroll for instance). I play in two 40K communities and rarely have rules debates (usually regarding new Stratagems). I also play Flames of War and every game seems to be a rulebook search.

Having said that, I won't try to convince you to admire 40K. If its not to your liking then its not to your liking! I walked away when I no longer found 40K fun, and came back when it looked promising and found 8th to my liking.

Yeah, I quit 40k a few months before 8th was announced, and am waiting for a tactically deep edition (unlikely, I know).

Blastaar wrote:

Odd.... USRs minimize the frequency of consulting rulebooks due to the standardized wording and consistent names. Players should be able to remember the core rules as well as the stat lines, weapon profiles, and common rules for their own army without needing to open the codex. Otherwise they haven't learned their army's rules at all.

This has not been my experience at all. I've played since third edition and throughout 4th and 5th edition I was the only person in my gaming groups (there were 3 of them) that knew my own army well enough to even remember my own weapon stats to not have to look them up every time I rolled the dice. I would often have people just make up what a USR did based on how they vaguely remembered it working and if I didn't know it was wrong I'd have the choice of either bringing the game to a grinding halt to look it up, or let it slide.

6th and 7th were worse - the people I played with were much better at knowing their own rules but having "nested" USRs that provide other USRs, or codex-specific exclusions was a real drag.

I much prefer 8th. Maybe my mindset has changed over the years, I no longer have the time to read and re-read rulebooks and have lengthy discussions about how X interacts with Y. I don't play nearly enough to memorise everything. All I have to remember are the rules that apply to my whole detachment and weapon stats. Other than that everything is right there in one spot on the datasheet. Nowadays when I do get a game in I spend more time actually playing and less time cross checking USRs between the BRB and Codex.

That said, I also play Star Wars Legion a little which makes heavy use of USRs. USRs CAN be good if implemented well and in a consistent manner. Consistency isn't GW's strong point. For 40k, I'm glad they changed away from that model. I just wish they stuck with it a little more...

Blastaar wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Card games require less imagination and interpretation. Point and click. Trouble enters when one wants more than a card game.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. MTG, at least, is a rich, deep, tactical game. With extremely specific wording for rules, down to the presence or absence of the word "may."

As a long time MTG player, nah. The rules writing is on point. I'm not sure that its fair to say the depth of 40k is responsible for all the rule feth ups either, they could easily be written more cohorently. However MTG has nowhere near the depth of 40k or ANY tabletop miniature game I've seen. It's effectively poker with more player interaction, deckbuilding has depth (depending on the format), but actually playing the game is one of the most straightforward 'competitive' games out there.

Funnily enough, it has been scientifically proven that MtG is more complex than WH40k

Also note that when you argue that deck building doesn't count towards the game's complexity, then nether do any armies or any units, relics, warlord traits, powers or other rules that are not on your army list, as well as stratagems you cannot use because of your army selection.

I'm also very sure that WH40k rules can be written with the exact same amount of precision as the MtG comprehensive rules, eliminating all RAW discussions for all times.

The only big difference between playing a TCG and a tabletop game are the natural imprecision of measuring, moving and checking LOS - and none of that has anything to do with game rules.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.

They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
thus the MFM points overrule the codex ones as they are more recent.

Wait, there are MFM points? I'm not even sure what MFM stands for. Are they different from the points in the codex? What are the differences?

MFM means Munitorum Field Manual, it's the second book in the Chapter Approved 2019 double pack. The MFM, unlike previous CAs, replaces ALL points costs, not just ones that have changed. The MFM 2019 is the single repository for all points costs for books released before it (books released after will have their own points costs except when the MFM also has those points in advance maybe and, presumably, superseded by MFM20).

I think there are a few changes to SoB points.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Are people confused about rules, or is it a case of some strange OCD?

This edition is so simple to play.

Many people are legitimately confused about very similar rules playing different for no reason.

They shouldn't be. Know your army's rules, trust your opponent to know theirs, communicate clearly during a game. Simple enough.

As for RAW v RAI, this isn't something that comes up frequently at all anymore, especially with the regular FAQs that clarify things.

I really don’t know what to say. No one can legit be that naive and in denial...