Switch Theme:

40k is at its worse point since 7th edition.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 09:51:58


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Canada

Don't forget that well designed rules are antithetical to GWs business model of churning out rules to fix other rules, in order to sell more models, and more rules.

Old World Prediction: The Empire will have Clockwork Paragon Warsuits 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a great example, D&D 3.X has the relatively lightweight d20 core mechanic but every indidivudal character, NPC or Monster can just be completely buried in the endless amount of options between skill, feats, (prestige-)class features, templates, etc. that it's just a giant pain to deal with when running a game. Not so bad if you're a player with only one character to worry about it.

Applying that to 40k, it's okay to have layers upon layers of rules if you're a Custodes or other ultra expensive ppm army. But for everyone else there's just a headache of rules to have to remember.

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


That's why, for me 3.5 was the best D&D ever. I loved feats and prestige classes. I loved that the open gaming licence gave me hundreds of supplements to choose from- D20 Rokugan!

Simple to me is flavourless and boring. I hate the way skills don't mean jack in D&D 5.0. The game shouldn't even be called D&D- it should be called "Proficiency Bonus" because that's almost the only thing in the game that matter.

As for waiting 1-2 years for books, again, before 8th sometimes we'd go whole editions without getting a faction update- 2 years is nothing. Don't get me wrong, I hate edition churn too, and I think it's the biggest problem with the game. But I've seen people complain about this, and in the very next line, talk about what they want in 10th edition. The only way this doesn't happen is if we finally get a persistent edition.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran





Goose LeChance wrote:
Don't forget that well designed rules are antithetical to GWs business model of churning out rules to fix other rules, in order to sell more models, and more rules.


And thankfully we have this confirmed from a first-hand source now, too.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 xttz wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?


Yeah the only reason we don't get updated digital rules is because that would cut into $50 book sales. Good ol'greed.


50$ book sales that are produced for a quarter each and written by someone being paid less than the starting pay being advertised at the mcdonalds near my house.

there's been a post on reddit circulating from the guy who originally wrote the Titanicus rules (probably the best ruleset of any current GW game) talking about how much he got paid yearly as a lead rules writer. All I can say is...if I was getting paid that much, that's about the level of quality of work I'd put out too.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

People bemoan USRs, but USRs would allow you to have all your fancy splashy silly named rules whilst keeping everything in a sensible order.

I mean imagine if there was a rule called "Accurate". This rule allowed you to re-roll to-hit rolls of 1.

Then you could have:

"Twisted Senses" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"Master Tactician" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"The Flan of Ages" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"MASSIVE FEET!" - The unit has the Accurate USR.

It means you have one source of rules, requiring you to update only one thing (rather than tracking different variants/wordings of the rule across multiple units in multiple books), but you can keep the race-specific flavouring of rules so that it fits with the theme.


I agree in part but in most cases I'd just skip the first part altogether and simply give the unit Accurate.

The reason I suggest this is that I don't think every single USR needs to be given a different name for each unit its put on. The reason I used 'reroll 1s to hit' as my example is not just because of how pervasive it is but also because of how unimpactful it is with regard to how a unit plays. A unit with a 36" gun will play differently from a unit with a 12" gun. A unit that can Deep Strike will play differently from one that can't (or at least has the option of doing so). A unit that freely fall back from melee will play differently from one that can't. However, a unit that rerolls 1s will play exactly the same as one that doesn't reroll 1s because rerolling 1s changes nothing. If the unit was melee before it rerolled 1s, it will still be melee when it rerolls 1s. If a unit deep struck before rerolling 1s, it will still deep strike when it rerolls 1s. etc.

What I'm trying to get at is that not every ability a unit has needs to be a defining part of its fluff, if that makes sense. Hence, I'd actually far rather just see USRs use their standard names and save the unique names for abilities that are more unit-defining, if that makes sense.


drbored wrote:
GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.


I keep hearing this but then I look to other companies and game systems and see plenty of rules that manage to be clear and concise without ever needing to resort to a wall of legalese.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.


If you want to prove this 1000% correct to yourself, try getting a group of 40k players to try out Apocalypse!

"....b-but I don't get my army-wide rerolls or to stand still and shoot at full range or my stratagem, my favorite stratagem that makes my unit shoot nine times with rerolls to hit and wound, or my doctrines that make my weapons stronger or my super-doctrine that gives all my intercessors Fly and 20" movement or my..."

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.


40k has been streamlined since 8th. Its the surrounding rules in codexes and supplements that have added complications and bloat. You can have streamlined asymmetrical games. Plenty of games have done it at this point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 11:58:19



 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I'd agree that USRs don't need unique names at all.
This would be even less relevant if every unit had a blurb/fluff text.
That way you'd know from the blurb that they have twisted senses and logically extrapolate that that's where Accurate comes from.

Why not just give them +1 BS? They'd be more accurate, but his way there's no rerolls needed!
Granted this depends on the system you're using, +1 might not work mechanically or be too much.

The reason we have reroll 1s is because GW wanted a special rule they can throw out that gave on a small buff. That way they could throw it around everywhere and let everyone feel all fluffy and warm because they're special and get to dab on their opponent as they reroll those 1s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.


40k has been streamlined since 8th. Its the surrounding rules in codexes and supplements that have added complications and bloat. You can have streamlined asymmetrical games. Plenty of games have done it at this point.

Define "40k".
The core rulebook has been streamlined. But they've pretty much only achieved that by carving out a lot of what used to be in the rulebook and dumping it as a spaghetti mess into codexes.
I consider 40k as the whole system, including the codexes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 11:59:44


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.


   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Star Wars Legion has a great approach to USRs.

Most are "Mcjiggy X" meaning there's flexibility within the rule for different values.
Nothing like "Shrouded" and "Stealth" or even "Shrouded AND Stealth" like 7th had.

Secondly, on every unit's datacard* they have reminder text. This is a brief synposis of the rule. It won't satisfy the rules lawyers but it's good enough 90% of the time.
*units with lots of rules don't have space for all the reminder text, and instead just list the complex/rare ones.

Thirdly, the full 'legalese' definition of the rules are contained in the Rules Reference Guide. When in doubt about a rule, check the RRG!
The RRG is a free online PDF, regularly updated and each entry has useful hyperlinks to take you to similar entries you may need.
Reading the rule about Pinning? There will be a link to Shooting and Morale at the end for example.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Not Online!!! wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.


GW removed summary pages though.


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Sim-Life wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.


GW removed summary pages though.


sure, however noone ever said that gw is competent or even interested in balance.

I think the discussion about the pay of the rulesdepartment have shown that pretty extensively.. as has the wraithknight nonsense.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






The summary pages are still there chief. The final page in the SM Codex is a reference page for special rules like Bolter Discipline and ATSKNF.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 vipoid wrote:

"Acute Reflexes" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Twisted Senses" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Master Tactician" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Unrivalled Duellist" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Chosen of the God Emperor" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"EMPOWERED BY THE DAEMON LORD DRAKHOSTVXH, DREAD RULER OF THE NIGHTMARE LABARYNTH OF CHAOS" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
Reminds me of the 5? or was it 6 edition Blood Angel codex where everything was just given Blood before it.
Blood Missiles on aircraft.
Dreadnoughts with Blood Fists that then simply read 'see Dreadnough CCW' in the rules.
Why the F not simply call it a DCCW.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I don't think any unit had a DCCW in 5th ed, even Dreadnoughts have "Dreadnought Powerfist: See DCCW".

My favourite was the Dreadknight, whose sword counted as a DCCW. Except it couldn't use it since it wasn't a walker! Seems pretty clear it was a walker until the last moment.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






USRs would be so easy to implement in a smart waym just put this on the datasheet and at the end of every codex and the core rulebook:

Accurate - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.

You also need to make sure that there is no nested rules

that way you see "Accurate" and know what it does through repetition and for the times you don't know the USR, its written out on the datasheet.
Same thing as keywords in MTG, you get reminders (on commons) to tell you what the keyword does, that way you learn them all just by playing the game without needing to refer to the rulebook.

Then you can apply this to bolt weapons and give them the "Bolter" keyword for example.
Or give "Flamer" and "Melta" to every variant of these weapons and the Avatar of khaine could now just have a rule that "Ignores damage from Flamers and Meltas"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 13:47:30


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play

   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play


You don't get it, if you play with proxies or unfinished models in Poland, the government comes and beats you up, steals your minis then put you in prison for the rest of your life

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


The latest GW box was sold out in mere seconds. Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales, because GW has pretty much tapped out their sales potential based on their current production.

Maybe if they go through another sales contraction like they did during 7th we will see better written rules, but at least for now GW doesn't really has an incentive for that.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Tyran wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales

Yes it would.

Just for myself I have like 7 armies in 40k and 4 for WHFB and haven't bought anything in years. When I was really into 40k/WHFB during 6th/8th I'd buy basically anything for an army just cause I could. I would get my pay and pick up stuff I didn't need just on the off chance I might use it some day. Sometimes I'd start new armies on a whim because some art inspired me. Now I don't buy anything at all because the rules are poopy and I know I'm not the only vet like this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 14:18:13



 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales

Yes it would.

Just for myself I have like 7 armies in 40k and 4 for WHFB and haven't bought anything in years. When I was really into 40k/WHFB during 6th/8th I'd buy basically anything for an army just cause I could. I would get my pay and pick up stuff I didn't need just on the off chance I might use it some day. Sometimes I'd start new armies on a whim because some art inspired me. Now I don't buy anything at all because the rules are poopy and I know I'm not the only vet like this.


Better rules might make more people want to buy, I agree. I think Tyran's point was that since you can't actually sell more copies than "Every copy printed", nothing can increase sales until production is also increased. Good news: the latest GW report said they were looking to add 13 new moulding machines, so production should be ramping back up again... Unless a variant spike causes another UK lock down and they can't let enough people into the factories to run all of the machines at once.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


I disagree on that approach for the simple reason that not everyone uses the app so learning the symbols would be pretty tedious. Once you know them, its for sure a good system tho

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






9th edition has largely paralleled 5th edition in that the Core Rules are good, but the codexes have fethed up the whole thing. Also it doesn't help any that the 9th edition missions are absolute garbage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 14:47:04


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


I disagree on that approach for the simple reason that not everyone uses the app so learning the symbols would be pretty tedious. Once you know them, its for sure a good system tho


I'm with Vlad. I hate apps and app culture. I like computers and books. I think phones should be used for phoning people.

Don't get me wrong; making things available on the phone is great for people who like that sort of thing. More options is always better than fewer options (from my perspective- I know that some people get paralyzed when they have too many options). But there's a difference between making something available on a phone app and replacing non-phone options with the phone app.

And personally, I hate the "replace words with icons" thing too. I get it; it's great for folks with language or cognitive barriers, I just personally don't like it. I'll take a datacard with all relevant rules text printed on it in words any day of the week. You can call all identical rules by the same name and print the full list in the rulebook too if you want; you can put them on a phone too if you want; you can add symbols so that you don't have to read the rules if you don't want to; you can also put them on a summary page in each dex if you want. None of these extras changes the fact the I still want all relevant rules written on the datacard, because that's the system that I prefer to use. Heck, I think points costs and all weapon stats should be on datacards too- cross referencing a unit's data card for it's rules, the weapons list for a weapon profile and the points list for its points is also IMHO stupid unnecessary cross referencing when ALL of that crap could fit on a datacard. Again, you can keep the separate lists for those who like it that way AND add the stuff to the datacard for those who don't.

Solutions where you get what you want AND I get what I want are always the best solutions. This is why I disagree with the premise of this thread- I feel like three ways to play and four supported game sizes are "Everyone Wins" solutions that go above and beyond the stuff that existed in previous editions. My only complaint with the game in it's current state is that I have no reason to believe there won't be a 10th edition, where everything is reset so we have to go through the same crap all over again.

I like 9th a lot. It's my favourite edition so far. But I would be happier with any edition that is permanent and persistent, because I genuinely believe that every problem in this game is not the result of a given ruleset- it's the fact that every rules set comes with a lifespan, and once it expires, you're always stuck in a ridiculous "This faction has its new book, that faction doesn't" cycle.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






You're focussing too much on the app part. I mentioned that as a counter to the "multiple sources" (which frankly is a load of hogwash, Nowhere in god-know how many years have the rules been in one place for any major system. You're gonna have a bad time if you want to find a game with everything in one place...). PP used exactly the same system in Mk2 (and maybe Mk1. Can't remember off the top of my head), without an app in place for some time. They were easy to remember and intuitive.

The same can be said for the (original) Heroclix system. You could see simply by looking at a model's base what USRs they had based on the colour of the dial. Then they introduced white powers...
White powers made for more comic-accurate powers, so you could have more than one USR attached to a stat, you just referred back to the (newly introduced) mini's card, but it skewed the whole game. The whole point was you could look at a model's base and know exactly what they were capable of at a glance. In the newer system, you had to constantly refer back to the cards to see what bespoke rules they had. It made for more fluffy depictions, but it was overly complicated and a major departure from what the game began as.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play


You don't get it, if you play with proxies or unfinished models in Poland, the government comes and beats you up, steals your minis then put you in prison for the rest of your life

Sounds preferable to playing in Karols meta!!!!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not to defend Karol, but if you play in tournaments they generally don't let you use proxies that often and if you don't have a 100% completely painted army you are automatically losing points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: