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.

Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I don't mind complexity in a game. However, what I do not like is taking a simple game (i.e. 3rd edition 40K) and then piling on 15 years of bloat, making it into a complex game.

If you're going to do a complex game, make it complex from the beginning - at the core rules. This means that army lists and entries can be simplified while the game is still as complex as people want/like.

It's borderline comical listening to podcasts about new 40K releases:

"Well this is the new HQ unit. He has immaculate ejaculation, eternal consternation, feel no popsicle, 'they shall know no pandas', blessed fecality, and glorious cream cheese..."

They really, desperately need to get rid of the dozens upon dozens of special rules and simply rely on stat lines again. Rules can be more complex across the board, but I can imagine the frustration of a new player showing up to a game and running into a wall of:

"Oh, he doesn't suffer instant death because..."
"Oh, he ignores any enemy weapons AP2 or less..."
"Oh, he always gets cover, even in the open..."
"Oh, he can't suffer more than one wound..."
"Oh, he comes back to life even when he's killed..."
"Oh, he ignored all of your special rules agains him..."
"Oh, he can't be hurt by X, Y or Z..."
"Oh, you suffer Terror if you try to attack him..."

I'm exaggerating, slightly but you get the point. There's a fundamental problem with your game when you stick to the core mechanics for way too long - so long that you have to start creating an enless list of rules which break those exact core mechanics --- because the design has locked you into a narrow box of outcomes/possibilities.

Lord Kragan wrote:

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

i've had a bit of a thought about the whole archers into combat thing and i reckon that it should be if you rolled and missed the missed ones should be wounds against your own models.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

To be fair, those companies are not dealing with the same scale as warhammer games are.

And your rule books is not getting over ruled by a cheap jpg, its getting balanced or corrected.

Fact is if you run a warp spider army because you know its broke, and you are butt hurt that a cheese army gets nerfed, thats your own fault. .

 Grimgold wrote:
They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

The problem here is that what you're describing with codex updates is exactly like errata, except you have to pay for it. A new codex that includes a new version of the librarius conclave is going to have the exact same result as changing the rules by errata/FAQ, a player that builds an army under the old rules can easily have that army gutted by a new edition of the codex. So you have two choices: you can have rules printed once and never updated (unless the core rules have a new edition), or you can have post hoc balancing. If you choose the second option you're getting errata/FAQs, the only question that remains is whether you're going to pay $50 for the errata or download a free pdf.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

Nothing is going to convince me because you've created a false dilemma between bad options and ignored the one where errata is done right.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

That sounds like an extremely subjective statement, reading through Warmahorde's Errata it appears that there's a fair number of wording changes, rules adjustments, etc over 13 pages of Errata, just not points costs changes. If your estimation of their errata is that they aren't making significant balance changes via points (as opposed to removing special rules or changing rules wording) then I would posit that it's probably because they don't have the scale of the balance issues that GW allowed 40k to get to in the first place and the fixes are primarily minor ability and wording adjustments to fix abilities that are not functioning as intended and to make things fit their points costs as opposed to changing them, which if the issues are minor is fine.

Right off the top of my head however we can also look at something like Dropzone Commander (since that's the one I'm most immediately familiar with) that does errata about once a year, with rules wording changes, points costs updates, etc.

http://www.hawkwargames.com/blogs/errata

They also publish an army builder program that's updated with the latest releases and errata within a couple of weeks and their new print runs have the errata already edited in. I've never seen Errata or updates prove to be a major source of friction.

That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes.

When was the last time they tried such a thing for 40k? 2E? A couple minor things in 3E? Certainly they didn't in 4E, 5E, 6E or 7E where all they've done is FAQ.

Even going back to 2E, GW have really never done proper Errata for 40k, they did things like suggest banning of virus grenades and the like, and a couple minor changes (depending on which print version of the book you got) in the 3.5E CSM codex, but I honestly can't recall GW ever really doing major balance errata to their games that wasn't in the form of a new product.

That said they did do a living ruleset thing for BFG for a while, and that actually worked rather well, nobody seemed to have any issues, until they just stopped all activity related to specialists games and let them wither for a couple years and then just closed down the lines entirely without much comment.

People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

They don't seem spectacularly annoyed when other games do Errata. I've yet to see anything of the sort with Dropzone Commander, or Firestorm Armada, or FFG's 40k RPG's. Likewise, literally every videogame ever works this way through patches.

The idea that balance changes through occasional errata is supremely destructive and fun killing is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't kill all those other games.

I would suggest that if this is an issue for GW, it's probably because they historically have done little or nothing to let people know where to find updates, when they have published updates, or reached out to the community regarding what they think issues are until literally this year, and they've gotten themselves dozens of pages of FAQ but no errata and don't seem to be learning from their mistakes with their releases.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains.

You mean how most other games do it? That's called patching. Formations are hamfisted band-aids that miss fixing the fundamental issues but take just as much, if not more, effort to produce and distribute, especially given that you have to buy them and they're coming from multiple different sales channels in a dizzying array of different releases. I'd much prefer my balance fixes to be in a nice easy PDF than have to buy an expensive band-aid that requires me to run an army through formations just to have an chance at an even game, particularly when they could have just released a new codex with that same effort

You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements,

I don't see issues with that in other games. 40k is literally the only game people think that's a problem with. Given how many supplements, expansions, dataslates, campaigns, etc ad nauseum GW is asking us to *buy* to ostensibly fix these issues (assuming they're not just sales vehicles, and that there actually is an intended balance component to these) I don't see how formations are any better.

with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

Now this is getting off the tracks and putting words in my mouth. For semi-serious or non-serious games, people can do whatever they want, they can run their own house rules and errata or no errata. That's an entirely different conversation. But I would assume that released errata would be "standard" unless otherwise agreed upon (like other games that do Errata), not that people can't agree not to use them.

There are a few other AoS changes that might make it in as well that aren't bad when you stop and think about it, especially from the point of view of speeding up play.

There are no template weapons in AoS, and instead you simply have a random number of hits on the unit affected. Given that templates are very much 'gotcha' weapons for people who deploy badly due to mistakes or circumstances, this makes them more reliable at a higher level of play, while not punishing newer players quite as badly. A blast may inflict 1d6 wounds, or a flamethower might inflict 2d6 wounds. Quick and simple without having to worry about extra dice or templates.

The other thing is mortal wounds, which honestly are a much less obnoxious way of doing D weapons. For reference, a mortal wound requires only a hit, and no armor save is taken against it. Most normal troops are wiped out very quickly by mortal wounds. Others might have defenses against them, or a block of wounds that keep them from being wiped out by a few stray mortal wounds. It's not a bad system, and helps exemplify very powerful attacks and weapons.

The other thing is simplifying magic to a 2d6 roll that you have to beat the target number for your spell to go off - other wizards can counter and need to beat your 2d6 roll and be within 18" of your caster. Powers only last until your next hero phase, but commanders all have a command ability that boosts their troops that is usable for free each hero phase. Plus a generic inspiring presence they can use to allow a unit to ignore morale rolls if needed. Good times.

Back to the original topic:

What does "Sigmarification" even mean, to you that is?
It's meaning changes from person to person depending on if they view AoS is a positive or negative light and a what stage that person cemented their view of AoS.
For example: someone who does not like AoS and stopped keeping track at release seems to think "Sigmarification" means simplifying the rules into a child's game without points.

This does not make sense and is rather unhelpful. What AoS is; is a simple core that provides basic mechanics that other layers can be added to (scenarios, balancing systems, whatever narrative pleases you, etc.), aimed at casual gamers (i.e. are looking for a fun time rather than a chess-like mental challenge, a.k.a "Jimmy") and is accesible/easy to get into (several game sizes and modes supported, rules easy to learn and access).
Instead of taking the vague mention of Sigmar as an opportunity to take cheap shots at a game that you don't like for whatever reason, could we please have a term that describes adding the above characteristics.

Yes AoS has problems (and things I dislike, fixed to wound and the LOS rules), but it has good qualities too.
The warscroll system and simple "foundation layer" core rules in 40k? YES, all the yes.
Fixed to wound and shooting at units you're not engaged with during close combat? Not so much.

 RuneGrey wrote:


The other thing is simplifying magic to a 2d6 roll that you have to beat the target number for your spell to go off - other wizards can counter and need to beat your 2d6 roll and be within 18" of your caster. Powers only last until your next hero phase, but commanders all have a command ability that boosts their troops that is usable for free each hero phase. Plus a generic inspiring presence they can use to allow a unit to ignore morale rolls if needed. Good times.

Well this remembers me the older psychic powers in 40k. You know, discipline test and all that jazz. Before they introduced a dice system like the WHFB one, after it was clear for years that was the most broken part of WHFB.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:


I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

I think you should visit PP forums. I remember when the Pistol Wraith was patched in MKII. Oh my. It was like being on the wrong side of a.. Broadside.

The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

I don't know if you were annoyed, but when they kind of fixed the Dark Eldar with WD and Capitulum Adprobavit back then in 3rd, that was a more than welcome change. They made an unplayable army just hard mode. Yes, I would prefer those hack frauds of the designers knew more math and made better rules on the first place, but an errata could fix some of their biggest missteps.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

What happens now is that we have supplements with formations that enhance armies with already good or OP rules, and do not do enough for armies with a codex written by an intern not caring or not knowing enough. Think about Riptide Wing vs Orkurion. Or the fact that we have barely playable CSM after (1) Codex (2) Bumbling Black Legion (3) Crimson Whocares (4) Daemonkin of the Usual God (5) Traitors' Slight Resentment

That's five book of failure. Yes, yes Daemonkin can work but still has most of the original's codex issues. A codex written of a guy that cares only about Eldar.

In 3rd, I had a better CSM book half the size of one of these. And no, I did not abuse that one. And errata exists for that. But the same CONCEPT, with a balance codex, is better than this crap.

Now we will have a Thousand sons book, because they have to sell the new Magnus the Action Figure. With a chance of having the same not-functional TS in the original codex. Or a formation to make them functional that requires X of this and Y of that, in perfect SpamHammer 40k. And that does not work in a 1000 pts battle, useful to teach a kid to play. In a book with probably other factions, like PP does. And that's the thing I like the least of PP, so no thanks GW, do not imitate that.

THEY ALREADY MAKE ERRATA. IS JUST NOT WELL THOUGHT THROUGH, IS DUMB, THE FLUFF THAT GOES WITH IT IS A DUMBER FILLER, AND FACTIONS ARE OVERLOOKED AND WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT.
This is a borderline criminal behaviour. And BT this means 40K is already Sigmarified. Actions figure style new minis? Magnus, Wulfen of the Space Furries. High volume, crap content books? Check. Worse is yet to come.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

Again complete nonsense - Errata has been issued for all those games directly because of balance - that's why they have free downloadable pdfs of FAQs and errata - something that GW refused to bother with.

So let me get this straight you want to "enhance armies via paid for supplements etc " but not allow changes via FAqs and errata (as pretty much every other game does) - how weird is that world view? Its fine to change everything as long as its in book.

You don't think players can look at an errata every six months?
You want people to use broken or exploitative rules, army creation.......because?
You are stating that people pay $50 for their rules and don't want it to be fair and balanced but prefer it to be broken - one or another - guessing you and your friend preferred the exploits such as the Conclave.

Do you read the forum - one of the most constant sources of irritation and arguments is that 40k did not have a faq errata system in place and whilst not at all perfect the recent faq's have been seen by the vast majority as at least a step in the right direction.

Now I would agree that it can be irritating that points and rules change - Dropzone Commander is a bit of a prime example but the changes have been made with best intentions - to made a better game.

Grimgold wrote:People who are worried about the sigmarifcation of 40k think it's just going to be a copy paste of the sigmar rules, but that seems like an oversimplification. There are lots of good ideas in AoS, and more than a couple of bad ones, but the same could be said for 40k. Here are some areas I think 40k could benefit from taking some ideas from AoS:

Rend - AP is a horrible mechanic, this weapon is 100% effective at bypassing armor or it isn't at all. Rend allows a more organic way of dealing with this concept.

Cover benefits - in AoS being in cover gives a benefit to your armor save (+1 generally), which when combined with the rend change gives even space marines a reason to seek out good firing positions rather than standing in the open. This would require modifying saves so that space marines (and their equivalents) have a 4+, and terminators and such have a 3+. Marines would of course have two or more wounds a piece, because they are supposed to be tough, more on that in the next section.

Toughness as wounds instead of layers of defenses or absurd saves - there are currently 4 types of saves in 40k, and rerolls for some of them, and some of them can be stacked. That's not even counting defenses like invis, or toughness buffs. It's this nasty rats nest of rules that was intended to add nuance, but in the end just adds complication and makes the system vulnerable to exploitation. AoS just piles wounds on things that are supposed to be able to take sustained fire. It's simple and much harder to exploit to get things like superfriends.

Multiple profiles for for MC and vehicles based on wounds taken - Picking up from the last point, we have this lame vehicle damage chart, but no equivalent for MCs. The intent is to reflect damage taken over the course of the battle, and I think it's a mechanic that would be as valid for a carnifex as a leman russ battle tank. You reflect that by a diminishing stat line as wounds accumulate. This gets rid of the fine until dead problem MCs have right now which is one of the things that make them flat better than vehicles.

Alternating activations - AoS only took this half way, with alternating activations in the fight subphase, but it's a complete no brainer. Taking turns activating units adds a lot of tactical depth, and doesn't leave one player sitting on his hands for 15 - 20 minutes. There should also be some seizing the initiative mechanic that allows units with high initiative more flexibility in activations.

Fixed to hit rolls - It's a simplification, and allows certain weapons to be more or less accurate as a means of balance/diversification.

Things I do not want to see from AoS in 40k

Fixed to wound rolls - Strength vs. toughness reflects the wide variety of weapons and targets available in a Sci-Fi setting. This also means that wounds won't have to be as crazy in 40k as they are in AoS, where things regularly topped 20 wounds.

Shooting shenanigans - yeah, we all kind of think this is dumb, I wouldn't be opposed to snap firing into melee for units not engaged, but certainly not people in melee shooting out.

Destroying the setting - This was an awful decision, no bones about it. The 40k setting is one of the most cherished settings in all of fiction, and it would be heresy to mangle it like they did to fantasy.

Stupid terrain rules - This was horrendous, and nobody I played with rolled on the chart, it made it silly instead of tactical, that every rock flower or tree was "Magic".

Rolling for turns - this was a horrible idea rejected by the community, and rightly so.

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

Pretty much agree with all of this. That would be a great simplification of 40k.

Rolling for turns is actually a fun idea. After all you've a 50% chance of going first. It's not bad and it leads to hilarious results and tactics.

I would welcome Warscrolls but would want them on cards - army packs of them would be a must buy for me.

Fixed to hit is fine - we already have the situation where almost everything hits on a 3+ or 4+ in close combat. Make things that are great in CC hit on a 2+ and things that are not on 5+ or 6+.

The monsters declining in power as they suffer wounds is intuitive and works well. Use for both vehicles and Monstrous creatures

Shooting out of combat I would avoid.

I'd fully back a sigmarification of 40k. I even had a thread about it.

AoS isn't perfect but it does a lot of things very right. And more importantly, it's much easier to get into. Yes they had to destroy the setting to bring it in but there's good reasons for that (that I won't get into at the moment). They wouldn't need to destroy the 40k universe because it works just fine. Brilliantly even.

Trimming the core rules down to a four page booklet and giving all units a warscrolls (data slates?) with vehicles using the same characteristics as everything else (with them and monsters getting weaker as they lose wounds) is something I completely support.

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is lots wrong with 40k

The rules are bloated and a mess - look at Walkers vs Monsterous Creatures alone.

The Army books are the same - the rules for a single faction are now often spread across codexes, campaign packs, supplements, exclusive packs etc - then multiply by how many allies you use.

The balance is shot to pieces - both in terms of army versus army and internally. There are Power Codexes that tower above the others - Necrons, Tau, Marines and Eldar - that then haev formation bonuses heaped on top to make the other codexes even worse.

Randomness has spread to too mamny areas of both army creation and in game.

All of this needs addressing.

You've basically mentioned my exact thoughts. Right now playing 40K can be a real chore, unless you're not running a Riptide Wing or a Skyhammer & Raptor Wing combo. I don't want a major fluff overhaul, since I think that it's fine as it is, but the rules must change, or the game will really go down the drain completely.

 Grimgold wrote:

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

PP made errata that made major changes to some of the most broken characters and theme forces in the latter years of Mk2. They made regular errata a cornerstone of the new edition, and have already announced that in the first balance errata, the top and bottom 5% of models will be getting looked at, and two underperforming factions will be revamped. So you clearly haven't spent much effort in looking.

Judging by the linked rule sheet, the change will be along the lines of single attacks being able to inflict multiple wounds, and a general reduction in dice throwing. That is in no way a bad thing.

I actually can see GW going the route of data-slating every unit in the game. I can't believe anybody thinks the current codex/supplement system is working...as evidenced above by needing 5 books to play CSM...oh wait, 6 counting Chaos Daemons: Demonic Incursion, which you need for many of the formations.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bigger push into digital rules. It's functionally that way now since so many FAQs and erratas are needed to play official games.

 WhiteBobcat wrote:
Judging by the linked rule sheet, the change will be along the lines of single attacks being able to inflict multiple wounds, and a general reduction in dice throwing. That is in no way a bad thing.

I actually can see GW going the route of data-slating every unit in the game. I can't believe anybody thinks the current codex/supplement system is working...as evidenced above by needing 5 books to play CSM...oh wait, 6 counting Chaos Daemons: Demonic Incursion, which you need for many of the formations.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bigger push into digital rules. It's functionally that way now since so many FAQs and erratas are needed to play official games.

I fear you are misinterpreting my example. You do not need 5 books to play Chaos Marines. You need one book, written by competent designers, or by designers that do not care only about Eldar like Mr Kelly. Or, giving those hack frauds the benefit of the doubt, not overworked designers that have too many deadlines to properly playtest. I had 1 book in 3rd edition (yes, yes I know but is beyond the point).

ONE book and occasional errata is enough. But I guess you make less money than writing crap, and than fix it with other crap, and make people pay for it. With proposed fix as "spam X, so you get a bonus!". Thank you for the model diversity on the table GW. Is what I expect from the company with the bestest minis in the world evar.

Warscroll fix nothing if the skill and effort put into game design is at the same level of the current one. People advocating AoSification ignore the moon and look at the finger.

I agree on the digital, 'tough.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I agree on the digital, 'tough.

Someone had mentioned a Digital Subscription you can pay for where you get everything as long as you are subscribed. This would be alongside other options. But If I paid a reasonable amount for get all the books and constant updates through an App or other means, it could be worth while?

 Vash108 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I agree on the digital, 'tough.

Someone had mentioned a Digital Subscription you can pay for where you get everything as long as you are subscribed. This would be alongside other options. But If I paid a reasonable amount for get all the books and constant updates through an App or other means, it could be worth while?

If handled professionally (so: not like it is now) and with a reasonable price, I can see it.

Now an RPG is apples to orange but didn't WOTC did something similar with DnD insider?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


Now an RPG is apples to orange but didn't WOTC did something similar with DnD insider?

I can't remember if it was only for their Monthly magazines, online play and character builder though. I am not sure they actually put source books in it, just the rules. It has been a while and I can't quite remember.

Case and point Skitarii. I absolutely love this model range, IMHO the best that currently exists. But instead of making a well written army book GW split the army into two books with rules that don't synergise in the least and make for a completely awkward play. There was no good reason for this in the least, none. Then they release a formation that makes the army play as it should....as one dex, but also is so insanely OP and stupid with free upgrades that it's sickening, and this formation just so happens to require you to buy every model in the range plus a knight. Is there a more obvious example of purposefully writing crap rules to scammily sell models?

*I actually like the concept of formations, probably one of the best additions to the game in a while when done right, so I'm not decrying formations themselves. They let you build different flavors of armies from any given codex and can give a lot of variety. They can make an army play the way the fluff reads, giving you essentially different army wide rules within one dex depending on how your force is composed. I like that, i just don't like how most of the time it seems GW only uses it as a sales tool and breaks the game by doing so. One good example I think is the genestealers cult, i don't know who wrote it or why it's different but that whole book the rules reflect the fluff perfectly, and each formation makes sense, adds something cool and isn't stupidly powerful or asinine. It's one of the best written codexes i've seen i think.

Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

SNAAAAKE wrote:
Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

Go back even further and take some ideas out of second, like the return of a movement stat.

Another 'sigmarification' suggestion: simply make difficult terrain half the models movement value. No more random rolls.

The removal of the Movement stat was easily one of the stupidest design decisions GW ever made with regard to 40K.

Eh, I don't know about that. Having movement defined by unit type isn't a terrible implementation. The bigger issue is how wonky a lot of that movement implementation has become, like everything else with GW, but in and of itself ditching the movement stat wasn't a terrible concept.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, an Eldar moving 6" while a Space Marine moves 5" isn't adding a whole lot of tactical depth, you're talking about 6" of extra movement over an average game. To get real variety that actually matters, you either need gargantuan movement distances in general, or you end up with some armies that have movement so gimped they're functionally stationary to make the "fleet" armies feel fast.

Ive been playing 40k since 2nd edition... let me say it is a mess now. Formations with free benefits have created massive imbalance. Second, formations, superheavies, fliers, etc, should have stayed in apocalypse. They have diluted the game. Third, the cost of the game. This is what has caused the game to decline. Many of us with large armies can easily stay in the game, but getting new folks to buy in can be a challenge.

I also like aos. However, I don't want to see 40k become aos. The strength and toughness aspect has been around for a log time. If they were to do anything, it would be to go back to a mix of 5th and 6th edition... without formations, fliers, or superheavies.

SNAAAAKE wrote:
Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

We are still playing third edition. This is not 7.0 we are playing. We are really playing 3.4 right now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Eh, I don't know about that. Having movement defined by unit type isn't a terrible implementation. The bigger issue is how wonky a lot of that movement implementation has become, like everything else with GW, but in and of itself ditching the movement stat wasn't a terrible concept.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, an Eldar moving 6" while a Space Marine moves 5" isn't adding a whole lot of tactical depth, you're talking about 6" of extra movement over an average game. To get real variety that actually matters, you either need gargantuan movement distances in general, or you end up with some armies that have movement so gimped they're functionally stationary to make the "fleet" armies feel fast.

Nope, it was a stupid move (badum, ching!)

A Space Marine (and most humans) used to move 4". Running or charging was 8". Extremely simple, and still fast enough to cover reasonable distances in a game. Need to go further? Use jump packs or (gasp!) a transport like a Rhino (capable of 20-30" movement, I don't remember the datafax). Most Eldar were around 5" with a few like the Banshees being 6". Almost every Tyranid was 6". So when running that's 12" which is plenty quick. It provided simple, real differentiation without resorting to stupid random dice rolls or complete chance. That Tyranid army? It's going to chase you down on foot and there is crap-all you can do about it. The only thing you can hope for is the other player misjudging when declaring charges (or relying on overwatch). It also meant that faster moving units would inevitably move faster through terrain - making it even more useful.

You don't need Fleet rules or any other fancy movement rules. Just a simple stat.