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.

My general impression is that they are thinking about it and trying hard to do a good job.

My worry is two things.

1. That they will not do a tidy job on explaining all the rules and tying up little loose ends like intermixed units, LOS over units, grenades, and so on. This will simply lead to a lot of arguments that could be resolved by timely FAQs so it would ntbe too bad.

2. More importantly, there are a lot of changes in a lot of different areas of the game. Understanding the full effect of these changes is going to be as hard for the designers and testers as the players. There is a good chance of some kind of unexpected large effect of a change or combination of two changes which might totally unbalance the game but not get noticed during testing.

The big IF is the FAQs. They can solve a lot of issues by doing some good FAQs, even in the system they have. They just don't.

FAQs can tidy up loose ends. They can't fix a bug created by two or three variables combined, that are key to the system.

For example, vehicles have been reduced in firepower, troops have been speeded up and made more important to winning conditions. This may be a combination of factors that allows horde/assault armies to dominate large parts of the game. It may not of course. But if it did, it would be something that couldn't be fixed by a simple FAQ.

Yep, sweeping changes like that can't. But it would have been relatively simple to fix a lot of the small issues we had with the last rulebook. Even the falcon issue could have been toned down.

Well, that requires Adobe, the ability to enter text, and a way to publish the material.

All 3 is asking too much.

Boy, I sure sleep better knowing that they won't relaease things in Chapter Approved anymore. Rather than having to check out White Dwarf every couple months for rules adjustments, or even buy a yearly compilation, I would much rather wait 5 years between core book editions.
[/sarcasm]

Not only was a forum for rules changes, fun trial rules, and fluffy special unit rules nice to have, those yearly Chapter Approved summaries must have made them some cash on the side. I mean, most of the material was already written. And that would be anice place to stick FAQs. Most of us wouldn't even begrudge the $20 per year, if it makes an easy reference tool.

On the other hand, i understand why they felt the need to consolidate their design efforts and stop constant versioning of codicii, etc. But now that that's well under control, it would be good to see the pendulum swing back towards the middle a bit.

With all due respect, isn't that what Apocalypse is for?

GW generates and allows Datasheets for all of those fun / trial / unofficial things that they don't / won't / can't support in regular 40k.

The problem is when you need Rulebook along with 2 Chapter Approved, Codex, and sub-Codex. The sub-Codex overrides the Codex which overrides the Rulebook. The both Chapter Approved also replace or change portions of the Rulebook, along with the Codex & sub-Codex. Trying to figure out what ruleset we should be playing by is Fun? NOT!

GW finally has clear separation between official and non-official rules. Let's not have them muddle the two up again.

I'd rather that special/unoffical rules not just be for
Apocalypse, though. The removal of all unofficial army
rules from 40k is one of my least favorite parts of the
tourney everything must be balanced scene.

The removal of all unofficial army
rules from 40k is one of my least favorite parts of the
tourney everything must be balanced scene.

In addition to the 2/3rds of official codices that are left out of this "balanced [tourney] scene".

I agree with Kyoto.

I spend alot less money now that GW has cubbyholed everything into neat little vanilla packages of boredom.

Hell I bought a Sisters army (yeah, 2 grand) just cause of CA 2002.

Now? Not a chance I'll spend any serious amounts of money, reason? I have every army. New Codex comes out, and despite all attempts at bland/forced comp; my armies generally don't change.

What, a new uber unit comes out and somehow I don't have it? Fine, I'll spend...25-50 bucks.

Not exactly sustainable economics, ya know.

If you don't play tournaments, then you shouldn't care whether GW outlaws LatD for tournaments. You play with your friends and it's no big deal.

The point of the removal has nothing to do with tournaments, because GW finally hit on the fact that 90% of the games are friendlies, not tournament.

The point of removing the excess dreck is that it is a lot of effort for basically no real playability gain. If you're playing friendlies, you don't need a zillion options - you just need your minis and a simple list. You won't be looking for rules exploits, because you need to say "hi" to your opponent next week. And the very idea of spending a lot of time trying to figure out whether a list is legal, or a rule is legit is simply undesirable. So GW makes stuff largely idiot proof and we're done.

JohnHwangDD wrote: So GW makes stuff largely idiot proof and we're done.

In more ways than one!

Well John I disagree with you 100%.

I don't want to waste time and effort on illegal lists.

I don't want to waste time and effort on lists no one will play, regardless of how much *I* might think they are balanced.

I want more options per army type, not less. Dreaming up some crap list on table napkins at the pub is NOT game design. I don't mind a 'simplified' list so long as a playable army comes out of it.

More choice with existing armies drives sales, not less choice with more of the same crap models we already have plenty of.

It's not difficult to do. If LATD, (or insert any army list here) is too confusing for players; please don't play the game it's a serious threat to your life as you are incredibly stupid and you might forget to breathe.

Jesus.

I can wait to hear what did/did not get changed when someone actually has a printed copy of the final book in their hands.

I am with Stelek, I prefer choices, not lists that seem to exist for tournaments only, not regular play.

GW could do us all a favor and make a 40k Tournament Book that contains all the rules used at tournaments and the tournament valid lists. Then they can make an actual Warhammer 40k game system for those of that want to play/model/etc. in that universe.

Stelek wrote:I agree with Kyoto.

Ok, when did Kyoto change nicks? I looked everywhere for Kyoto's name/old avatar except Titles.

temprus wrote:I can wait to hear what did/did not get changed when someone actually has a printed copy of the final book in their hands.

I am with Stelek, I prefer choices, not lists that seem to exist for tournaments only, not regular play.

GW could do us all a favor and make a 40k Tournament Book that contains all the rules used at tournaments and the tournament valid lists. Then they can make an actual Warhammer 40k game system for those of that want to play/model/etc. in that universe.

I don't think this will happen... It would split the marketplace in a way that probably wouldn't benefit GW enough to warrant it.

Kind of like how the golf ball companies will fight to the death vs. the PGA/USGA if (when?) they try to set up two sets of rules in the world of golf ("tournament" and "everyone else")...

Er, yeah, sort of...

Wow, and again things come full circle. A couple of years ago all people wanted was lists made for tournies. They didn't like these wide open "fun" lists because balance wasn't always there.

One thing I do like that they are doing with the books is settling down and figuring out what the army is, and making sure it plays that way, along with being different than any others. I see apoc as a place they can play around now. Who knows, we might get other variants out there. But really the core books need to be solid first.

Toreador wrote:Wow, and again things come full circle. A couple of years ago all people wanted was lists made for tournies. They didn't like these wide open "fun" lists because balance wasn't always there.

One thing I do like that they are doing with the books is settling down and figuring out what the army is, and making sure it plays that way, along with being different than any others. I see apoc as a place they can play around now. Who knows, we might get other variants out there. But really the core books need to be solid first.

I agree. You need a solid foundation to build on. A clear and balanced set of core rules sets the stage for allowing all sorts of cool stuff to be tacked on, but you need that basis first.

temprus wrote:GW could do us all a favor and make a 40k Tournament Book that contains all the rules used at tournaments and the tournament valid lists.

Then they can make an actual Warhammer 40k game system for those of that want to play/model/etc. in that universe.

GW is doing this. They call this the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook and supplement it with Codices.

The thing for those who want to actually play/model is called Apocalypse.

I don't see what's difficult about understanding this.

You don't have to like it, but it is the direction GW is going.

____

edit - removed hyperbole that could be construed as personal attack.

I am hoping that this PDF is an early version and that changes have been made to make it better. I really hope this is true. I am not going to be happy if the rules for glancing hits are true, then my zilla army is nerfed and I am pissed!

As a side note, does the PDF have rules for flyers in this new edition!?! I was wondering if GW are going to put them in with the recent rumors of Valkyries becoming a plastic kit and possible new addition for IG as a viable transport...

Thanks,
Chappy P!

I think people need to stop throwing around the word stupid, as pertaining to (even theoretical) players.

John, Apocalypse would be a logical place to throw in funky units and lists, if it wasn't specifically the niche game for 3000+ point games.

I want a balanced and clear core rule set. I want codices for regular and competitive play which have both clarity and variety. I don't think this is honestly asking that much. Any given person's opinion on how much variety is "necessary" is inherently subjective, but Lost & the Damned was a darn characterful army, it specifically exemplified a major aspect of the 40k fluff, and there's honestly no good reason that the units from it couldn't have been incorporated into C: CSM and/or C: Daemonica. Even if GW decided to err on the side of caution by jacking up the points cost on them and/or imposing additional force org restrictions, at least people would still have the option of playing it against strangers and at tournaments, which are the showcase of the hobby.

JohnHwangDD wrote:You don't have to like it, but it is the direction GW is going.

Agreed. GW pushes tournaments as the core of "The GW Hobby" and therefore sales, so that is why they use it as their basis for play.

GW freely admits that stockholders are their first priority, selling minis are a somewhat near second, and that rules/"good" game play seem to be a very distant third. I remember when games were first and minis were second, "The GW Hobby" seemed to be doing much better back then.

I freely admit that I happen to like GW models and fluff, so GW will still get my money anyway.

[quote=temprusAgreed. GW pushes tournaments as the core of "The GW Hobby" and therefore sales, so that is why they use it as their basis for play.

GW freely admits that stockholders are their first priority, selling minis are a somewhat near second, and that rules/"good" game play seem to be a very distant third. I remember when games were first and minis were second, "The GW Hobby" seemed to be doing much better back then.

I freely admit that I happen to like GW models and fluff, so GW will still get my money anyway.

wuestenfux wrote:No, GW is a company in the first place that needs to make money:
New rules means new armies, means selling new models, means making money.
Its not about the specific kind of rules in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with that, its what they do to existing customers to make money which is counter productive, alo0ng with much of the rest of their business strategy.
There is nothing wrong with a highlighting profit margin as any companies primary goal with exception of a monopoly utility and public transport.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with it.
But if the product (40K) lacks permanence and provides too much obsolescence, customers might move to another product (WHF?).

Mannahnin wrote:
I want a balanced and clear core rule set. I want codices for regular and competitive play which have both clarity and variety. I don't think this is honestly asking that much. Any given person's opinion on how much variety is "necessary" is inherently subjective, but Lost & the Damned was a darn characterful army, it specifically exemplified a major aspect of the 40k fluff, and there's honestly no good reason that the units from it couldn't have been incorporated into C: CSM and/or C: Daemonica. Even if GW decided to err on the side of caution by jacking up the points cost on them and/or imposing additional force org restrictions, at least people would still have the option of playing it against strangers and at tournaments, which are the showcase of the hobby.

In fact, a balanced and clear core set of rules is what players should expect from GW.
GW seems not able or doesn't want to accomplish this...

I think the real reason we have rules problems is that we have peolple with English literature degrees responsible for both the fluff and game mechanics, and game mechanics should have been handled by someone with a math background and enough common sense to get a degree in something more usefull than English Lit

Mannahnin wrote:Apocalypse would be a logical place to throw in funky units and lists, if it wasn't specifically the niche game for 3000+ point games.

I want a balanced and clear core rule set. I want codices for regular and competitive play which have both clarity and variety. I don't think this is honestly asking that much.

Lost & the Damned was a darn characterful army, it specifically exemplified a major aspect of the 40k fluff, and there's honestly no good reason that the units from it couldn't have been incorporated into C: CSM and/or C: Daemonica.

Just as 40k can stretch to 3000+ pt games, Apocalypse can play at 2000 pts. Remember, Apocalypse is a friendly game by mutual consent. If you agree to remove the Apocalypse Superheavies & Flyers, then you've basically got 40k with a couple small tweaks. Apocalypse is no more a niche than you want it to be.

I think everybody wants a balanced and clear ruleset, with clear (but competitive, and varied) Codices. The problem is that people disagree on what "balanced" means, they disagree on what "competitive" means, and they disagree vehemently on how variety ought to be achieved. The only saving grace is that GW's recent Codices shine some light of hope that this time, they're doing it right. Tighter tournament-style lists, with fewer restrictions on friendly play, allowing players to choose how they want to theme their armies. From an objective viewpoint, CSM is a really good Codex, far superior to the Eldar book in terms of playability.

Don't tell HMBC, but I actually agree it would be nice to have some sort of LatD as a Codex. Along with GSC, PDF, AdMech and the rest of the "evil" Guard forces. *Especially* AdMech. In the mean time, C:IG and the rest will have to do. At least GW isn't leaving LatD players hanging. But really, they never should have released the list the way they did. If they can continue to show discipline in Codex vs Datasheet, 40k will be a lot healthier long term.

Chaplain Pallantide wrote:
As a side note, does the PDF have rules for flyers in this new edition!?!

I was wondering if GW are going to put them in with the recent rumors of Valkyries becoming a plastic kit and possible new addition for IG as a viable transport...

Nope, not in my version. I can't imagine they would add Flyers, as they're a major rules break from a conceptual standpoint.

If (when) the plastic Valk appears for 40k, it'll be a Fast Skimmer Transport or a Skimmer Transport, not a Flyer. And that will be awesome enough for my Guard.

temprus wrote:GW pushes tournaments as the core of "The GW Hobby" and therefore sales, so that is why they use it as their basis for play.

The notion that all 40k play must be tournament-style is perhaps the biggest mistake that GW made in pushing and showcasing their GTs during 3E. They're really paying for it now. BTW, did you see the poll on WarSeer? When you look at the numbers of games played, only a handful are about Tournament play. And that's WarSeer. Expand that to the population as a whole, and Tournament is a flyspeck.

Thankfully, Apocalypse seems to be gaining traction and people are playing it. It's like 40k is finally getting back to its roots of fun games with wild, wacky stuff happening.

Fun and wacky can go with rules that are clearly written and make sense and are balanced.

adamsouza wrote:I think the real reason we have rules problems is that we have peolple with English literature degrees responsible for both the fluff and game mechanics, and game mechanics should have been handled by someone with a math background and enough common sense to get a degree in something more usefull than English Lit

That's a good point, mathhammer is lacking.
Another point is that they should more emphasize playtesting.

Playtesting needs to be done in a properly organised way, testing extreme and unlikely cases and so on.