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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 20:19:18
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
vaurapung wrote:I see that every says 7th was complicated and hard to learn but i cant comprehend that because how easy itbwas for me. I started playing during the final months of 6th and my first rule book was a 7th edition book. A couple read throughs and keeping the book open to the reference page and i was playing in the local tournaments within a couple weeks.
What drew me to the game was the rts likeness of it. So now that 8th came out and everyone pushesses its greatness im at a loss for what was being fixed. I had no qualms with learning playing or teaching 7th edition to and with my friends.
It wasn't hard. No one wants to spend over 5-8 hours (depending on armies involved) playing a 2000 point game, and I personally resented the feth out of needing to carry around more rulebooks than I did when I played 3.5 D&D. Adepticon was getting unwieldly with how long games took. It was A Problem.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 20:40:22
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Here is a good example of how nonsensical 7ths core rules were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaV3ku2aGOc&list=PL5xjyNnFNOoXLoYJ6RYbwvIjfJ3BGiJVd
Total run time to learn the basics of 7th 1 hour 40 minutes and 57 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVJ2hQTltqw&list=PLKKv4020nrHEp84nNmjHamdPJodhxAgXb&index=1
Total run time to learn the basics of beyond the gates of antares 22 minutes 30 seconds.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 21:05:06
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Lance845 wrote:Here is a good example of how nonsensical 7ths core rules were.
7th was a joke, you couldn't even fire all your tank's weapons from its antenna or shoot down planes with flamers. 7th even had rules for terrain, who has time for that?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 21:05:32
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 21:12:13
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
Crablezworth wrote: Lance845 wrote:Here is a good example of how nonsensical 7ths core rules were.
7th was a joke, you couldn't even fire all your tank's weapons from its antenna or shoot down planes with flamers. 7th even had rules for terrain, who has time for that?
8th has rules for terrain, and you can't fire from an antenna, because an antenna is a decorative trinket. You can fire everything from the front drive sprocket, though.
Removal of fire arcs is good and bad.
We've had a lot of discussions over whether a weapon was actually in arc, and in which armor arc of the vehicle a shot was coming from. That all going away is a good thing. However, the vehicle's actual shape and weapons layout doesn't matter anymore, which definitely affects the power of some vehicles.
|
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 21:40:11
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Does anyone remember that one flyer that had an 18" weapon that was hull mounted in such a way (= almost parallel to the ground) that the unit you wanted to shoot at had to be more than 16" away because it was out of arc otherwise?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 21:41:40
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
Complexity doesn't make a good game on its own. If you absolutely can't wrap your mind around abstractions and need to have every single little variable represented in as literal a fashion as possible, then join the Army and work your way into Operations staff. See how much fun that is.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 21:46:22
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
What could have made sense while being abstract would be: Sponson? Measure from the side of the hull that sponson is on. Wing? Measure from anywhere under that wing. Turret? Measure from anywhere. Still abstract, but it's simpler than fiddling with measuring from the gun itself, and there's no need for going "but wait, what do you mean that Imperial Bastion is a Beyblade?"
AOEs? Just plop the blast down, roll to-hit anyone underneath it. No need for scatter arguments, no edgecases like anti-aircraft flamethrowers, or Napoleonic musketlines of conscripts that don't care about AOEs, because d6 hits is d6 hits.
Psychic Powers? Gee, shall I take Infernal Gaze or shall I take Warptime? The powers are still imbalanced, you just never see the crap powers taken because you have lists like the 13-Maelfic Lord smitespam.
Characters? Add a "cannot Look Out Sir! onto another character" clause or so. So much simpler than this "nearest model" targeting that led to the "nothing but characters" army that janked Wargames Con, by going "neenerneener, you're only allowed to shoot at my Culexus Assassins because this is the most playtested edition!"
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 21:47:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 22:16:34
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
MagicJuggler wrote:What could have made sense while being abstract would be: Sponson? Measure from the side of the hull that sponson is on. Wing? Measure from anywhere under that wing. Turret? Measure from anywhere. Still abstract, but it's simpler than fiddling with measuring from the gun itself, and there's no need for going "but wait, what do you mean that Imperial Bastion is a Beyblade?"
AOEs? Just plop the blast down, roll to-hit anyone underneath it. No need for scatter arguments, no edgecases like anti-aircraft flamethrowers, or Napoleonic musketlines of conscripts that don't care about AOEs, because d6 hits is d6 hits.
Psychic Powers? Gee, shall I take Infernal Gaze or shall I take Warptime? The powers are still imbalanced, you just never see the crap powers taken because you have lists like the 13-Maelfic Lord smitespam.
Characters? Add a "cannot Look Out Sir! onto another character" clause or so. So much simpler than this "nearest model" targeting that led to the "nothing but characters" army that janked Wargames Con, by going "neenerneener, you're only allowed to shoot at my Culexus Assassins because this is the most playtested edition!"
Your complaints seem to be more about balance than complexity. Yeah, there are some flaws with 8th edition, just as there always have been. I agree with your general sentiment about those issues and how they could be better balanced to reduce exploitation, but in the first two cases especially (firing arcs and AoE) I just don't feel like making it any more complex would add anything of value to the game.
Vehicles not having firing arcs is what it is. I can suspend my disbelief over it pretty easily - if your brain shuts down due to the fact that your tank is firing its front mounted weapon from its left-rear corner then I don't know what to tell you. It just seems like a silly thing to get (and stay) upset about.
Likewise, using templates just for the sake of having templates seems kind of pointless. AoE weapons are actually much easier to balance the way they are now; they have a margin for the amount of hits they can dish out that is consistent and isn't reliant on situational outliers. It also makes certain that a massively destructive attack which can kill scores of single-wound infantry doesn't leave characters and vehicles with naught but a scratch. It's very simple, thematic and it works very well. It also allows for a lot of variation between different AoE weapons so that each can have its own flavor.
Other than that, I agree that certain psychic powers are pretty much always an auto take, but it's up to GW to write more cool ones that force you to make decisions. I think the psychic phase itself is alright the way it is. You pick a power, you roll to see if you beat the warp charge value, then your opponent can roll to see if they beat your roll. There are few reasons to make it more complicated than that.
The loophole mongering that brings about stuff like assassin spam is always going to be a problem, but yes they should look at closing that particular loophole.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/16 23:21:08
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Tanks moving to fire their weapons during their activation is no less silly than infantry or monsters doing the same. It was always more weird to me that vehicles were the only unit not abstracted in fire arcs and facings. I always wanted infantry facing to matter so I could actually flank enemy units and such.
There are other games for that. Trying to make this one into something it isn't is rather futile. It's much easier to find a game you like to begin with.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 00:06:12
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
Insectum7 wrote:7th wasnt hard to learn, it was just a pain having to look everything up all the time.
If you had to look it up then you didn't really learn it, 7th was hard to learn
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 00:19:19
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
My 10-years old cousin (That has played many times with me both at Warhammer Fantasy 7th and 8th and W40K 7th and 8th, yeah, he is a small nerd  ) played a game of 8th with my smaller brother of 14 years that had just watched my cousin and me play a couple of times.
They used the 8th edition starter forces. They did some mistakes, but they did get a fun game that lasted two hours (They reached turn 5).
With 7th that wasn't possible.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 00:23:50
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
8th edition will end up a bloated sloppy rules mess like 7th. Give it time.
That being said, a lot of players don't find the "simplified" version of 40k as engaging or stimulating. Hobby focused people can't keep up with the pace of rules "fixes" and unit "adjustments". And codexs litterally being week one invalidated via FAQs is starting to get under the collector types skin.
Every "plus" argument for 8th seems to be a "minus" argument for 8th depending on who you ask!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 01:18:02
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Pancakey wrote:8th edition will end up a bloated sloppy rules mess like 7th. Give it time.
That being said, a lot of players don't find the "simplified" version of 40k as engaging or stimulating. Hobby focused people can't keep up with the pace of rules "fixes" and unit "adjustments". And codexs litterally being week one invalidated via FAQs is starting to get under the collector types skin.
Every "plus" argument for 8th seems to be a "minus" argument for 8th depending on who you ask!
I don't find IGOUGO engaging or stimulating. The fact that 7th had me constantly looking up rules to fill the downtime didn't make it anything but a drag. Now that the looking everything up is done you quickly realize just how much down time there really is.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 01:43:24
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
A good game in 7th or 8th has no down time. If theres down time someone is just not playing.
For instance in the last local tourny i played (8th edition) here were my rounds.
Game 1 eldar vs necrons. Finished turn 2 at 2.5 hrs
Game 2 eldar vs tyranids. Finished turn 2 at almost 3hrs
Game 3 eldar vs imp gaurd. Played 6 turns in 2hrs. First table to finish.
In the first 2 games my opponents dragged butt in movement and shooting taking easily 2 to 3 longer than me per turn.
The 3rd game was a whirlwind. We both had lots to do and knew how we wanted to do it.
I played many games exactly the same in 7th.
8th is no shorter than 7th it just seems like it because the skill required to play is so much lower that its hurting my head to try and get back to what i fell in love with when i chose to play 40k.
|
PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 02:13:07
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
SideshowLucifer wrote:Always love the argument of people wanting realism by replacing vehicle facings. If your not going to abstract vehicle movement, then you shouldn't abstract infantry movement either and facing should matter on everything. Every model would also need a Def value as well to represent their training in using cover and not getting shot in the face by lasgunner #317.
The more realism you add to a game, the more it gets bogged down and the longer it takes to play. It also becomes harder to teach people the game and keep the hobby alive in an area.
I'll take abstract over highly realistic any day. I'd rather the game flow with less complexity. 40k has never been a strategy game, it's a tactical game. Trying to make it into say Flames of War or something is like trying to turn Super Mario Bros into Call of Duty.
I disagree.
The more realistic, the more intuitive, e.g. look at the table and see what is happening, rather than having to interpret the state of affairs through a rules system however simple. It will always be easier to see the world for what it is than for what the rulebook tells you that it is, especially for someone coming from the real world into the game system for the first time.
The more intuitive, the easier to understand.
AND, the more fun, IMHO.
|
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 02:13:24
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
vaurapung wrote:A good game in 7th or 8th has no down time. If theres down time someone is just not playing.
Bull gak. Any game where the opponent moves psychic shoots and assaults his entire army before you get to make any decisions is 50% down time.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 02:13:48
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Pancakey wrote:8th edition will end up a bloated sloppy rules mess like 7th. Give it time.
That being said, a lot of players don't find the "simplified" version of 40k as engaging or stimulating. Hobby focused people can't keep up with the pace of rules "fixes" and unit "adjustments". And codexs litterally being week one invalidated via FAQs is starting to get under the collector types skin.
Every "plus" argument for 8th seems to be a "minus" argument for 8th depending on who you ask!
It already is...
|
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 05:46:06
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
On another note, I find it weird people will defend oddball game mechanics in the name of "abstraction" but they're fine with having Boltguns, Storm Bolters, Special Issue Bolters, Bolt Carbines, Bolt Rifles, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Angelos-Pattern Bolters and Maxim Bolters and all other sorts of minute "it's a Bolter".
You know what was an abstract game? Epic. And yet it was able to model flanking and cover as relevant to a proper battleplan. Hmmmmmmm...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 06:14:05
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Fully-charged Electropriest
|
jeff white wrote: SideshowLucifer wrote:Always love the argument of people wanting realism by replacing vehicle facings. If your not going to abstract vehicle movement, then you shouldn't abstract infantry movement either and facing should matter on everything. Every model would also need a Def value as well to represent their training in using cover and not getting shot in the face by lasgunner #317.
The more realism you add to a game, the more it gets bogged down and the longer it takes to play. It also becomes harder to teach people the game and keep the hobby alive in an area.
I'll take abstract over highly realistic any day. I'd rather the game flow with less complexity. 40k has never been a strategy game, it's a tactical game. Trying to make it into say Flames of War or something is like trying to turn Super Mario Bros into Call of Duty.
I disagree.
The more realistic, the more intuitive, e.g. look at the table and see what is happening, rather than having to interpret the state of affairs through a rules system however simple. It will always be easier to see the world for what it is than for what the rulebook tells you that it is, especially for someone coming from the real world into the game system for the first time.
The more intuitive, the easier to understand.
AND, the more fun, IMHO.
This is complete nonsense. Fire arcs aren't any more intuitive than the current version, especially when they were an exception to the basic rule of 360 line of sight. You're just used to them.
|
“Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. I am Rogal Dorn, Imperial Fist, Space Marine, Emperor’s Champion. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me.”
-Rogal Dorn
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 06:21:49
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
MagicJuggler wrote:On another note, I find it weird people will defend oddball game mechanics in the name of "abstraction" but they're fine with having Boltguns, Storm Bolters, Special Issue Bolters, Bolt Carbines, Bolt Rifles, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Angelos-Pattern Bolters and Maxim Bolters and all other sorts of minute "it's a Bolter".
You know what was an abstract game? Epic. And yet it was able to model flanking and cover as relevant to a proper battleplan. Hmmmmmmm...
As another poster pointed out, it's doesn't actually matter what gets abstracted and what doesn't so long as the mechanics add something to the game that keeps it fun.
Having vehicles have to pay for all their guns and then not shoot them was crap. Having vehicles care about facing while nothing else in the game did was crap.
I feel like paying attention to every models facing and firing arc in a game where a single unit can be made up of 30 individual models would REALLY drag the game down into nonsense crappy game land. And if everything isn't doing it then nothing should be doing it. It IS easy to understand that a vehicle can be shooting while on the move so the weapons don't have to be facing the target when it stops to shoot.
Could actual fliers have some "airborne" keyword that adds extra inches to their position when targeted in shooting effectively making them immune to most flamers? Sure. And then units with "fly" could ignore that so something like a helldrake can still bare down on a dakkajet and cover it in eldritch flame.
It's not about abstraction vs meticulous comprehensiveness. It's about what makes a better game. Firing arcs don't make a better game at this scale with this number of models. 8ths got problems. But that isn't one of them.
Shooting from antennae is though. That is dumb as gak. They should have kept the rule about wings and flags and doo dads all not counting as part of the model.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 07:38:33
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
vaurapung wrote:
8th is no shorter than 7th it just seems like it because the skill required to play is so much lower that its hurting my head to try and get back to what i fell in love with when i chose to play 40k.
This is nonsense. There was no skill required to play 7th, in order to make it faster you simply needed to remember rules. 7th edition games were usually decided in the planning phase, when you thought about your army as there were few actual tactics in that game. Remembering to pivot your tank in a way that it can fire its weapons when it can pivot as much as it wants is no tactic. It was fun, yes, like a big action movie. You put your armies down and watched everything explode and yes, it was also fun sometimes to roll on all the random tables, in the end we even played with the empyric storm table, as that was what 7th was about. It wasn't a strategy game, it was about hilarious explosions in a ridiculously over the top universe. What was good about it is that it hardly was about winning. Often enough the game was decided when one side rolled invisibility on the psychic table.
In 8th on th other hand you have to actually think about what you do. There's some balance in the game and especially the fightphase is where you really have to think about how to position your units, when to pile in and when not, which models to remove and when to use your command points and in what way.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 07:56:20
Subject: Re:Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 08:12:30
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Pious Palatine
|
7th was fetid doggak top to bottom. It was broken down to it's very core. It doesn't even really work in 30k where everyone plays the same army.
If you don't like 8th, fine I can see why people might not. But 7th was objectively way worse. It wasn't even more realistic. Venom can only shoot in front of it but a knight, wraithknight, riptide, stormsurge can spin like a top. Land raiders could die to bushes. Every vehicle in the galaxy loaded to the top with nitroglycerin, weapons that can put a spartan assault tank down instantly barely scratch a Tau Suit commander or Carnifex, etc, etc, etc. Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus wrote:I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.
Oh yeah, because knowing how long your hand is thumb to forefinger is sooooooo tactical. Without premeasuring you're basically playing ringtoss, except no one's around to stop people from leaning further and further over the counter.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/17 08:15:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 09:24:51
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
Remember when we used to poison Riptides because a Lasercannonshot into the pilot didn't work? Good times.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 09:42:05
Subject: Re:Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
daedalus wrote:I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.
Premeasuring helps games in so many ways - it speeds it up immensely, reduces arguments and promotes actual game play rather than gamesmanship. Of course some peoples self -proclaimed "skill" was how to cheat and get away with it - "Skill"
To the OP - seriously you just want to use house rules or 7th Ed - no ones stopping you but raging against the new edition is not likely to get many people to agree with you.
6th and 7th had so many isseus it was actally painful to play and required massive amounts of assistance to make games work. Balnce was non existant within adn between codexes, the rules were a complete mess and required vast amoiunts of books to play a single faction plus donwloads, web exclusives and of course there werre no FAQs to clear up the mess it became - a powergamers paradise.
8th started pretty well even if we are now suffering through the Codex system.
Games we have played as a club so far are significantly smoother and terrain is the only issue so far - and thats house rulable if we like - using "hard" area terrian block LOS and "soft" provides cover seems to have solved most issues.
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 11:42:26
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Its not just 7th vs 8th for me like it sounds.
The reason i dont like 8th is because im not playing by the same rules as the guy two cities over a state over a country over. We are all playing with different rules.
What i want to propose is that gw puts out a rule book (advanced rules) that is the standard format so that everyone who is using that format is playing by the exact same set of rules.
8Th is full of pick and choose rules and foster the idea that if you dont like it house rule it. 7th didnt. When you picked up a game of 7th with a stranger you knew they played with the same rules that you played by.
|
PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 12:03:16
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
..Different rules? What.. Power Levels vs Narrative vs Matched Play?
Narrative's always existed, Power Levels is for quick play, matched play has stronger rules.
And your thoughts are "We aren't playing the same rules" as a result?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 12:08:59
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Or, you know, you can just read the book a lot so you know what all those rules are without having to look them up all the time. Seriously, 7th was a hot mess but nobody I know had to flip through multiple books for every rule. It isn't that hard to memorize the core rule book of a game you play all the time.
More on topic, there is an "advanced rule book." It's called The Horus Heresy. All 7th edition armies are compatible and it disallows formations so you don't have that nonsense in play. Eventually it'll even be updated and hopefully clean up some of the issues with 7th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 12:21:46
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
orkychaos wrote:Or, you know, you can just read the book a lot so you know what all those rules are without having to look them up all the time. Seriously, 7th was a hot mess but nobody I know had to flip through multiple books for every rule. It isn't that hard to memorize the core rule book of a game you play all the time.
Nothing's stopping you from memorizing the rules for 8th too. The core rules are easy. Even in 7th, things like FNP weren't Core Rules - they were Advanced, in the Advanced section of the book. So, the core rules are just as easy to learn in 8th (if not easier, due to vehicles being removed and treated more like MCs), and you can STILL memorize the rules models have. However, if you struggle to memorize, or are just starting out, then having all the rules you need on the datacard is far better and slicker. More on topic, there is an "advanced rule book." It's called The Horus Heresy. All 7th edition armies are compatible and it disallows formations so you don't have that nonsense in play. Eventually it'll even be updated and hopefully clean up some of the issues with 7th. HH doesn't disallow Formations. It just doesn't give them as options to the actual 30k armies, so Orks, Eldar, etc etc can still use all the Formations and Scatbikes as they please. Furthermore, HH suffers with the issue of psychic powers, and Blasts, which people can struggle to agree on how it falls ("no, it covers three models!" "no, four!").
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/17 12:24:36
They/them
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/09/17 13:21:51
Subject: Should we propose to gw about making an advanced rules book
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote:..Different rules? What.. Power Levels vs Narrative vs Matched Play?
Narrative's always existed, Power Levels is for quick play, matched play has stronger rules.
And your thoughts are "We aren't playing the same rules" as a result?
Yes that whole extra section after the core rules that says pick and choose which of these you want to use. Thats my issue. I want all that in a proper standerdized formatted book.
|
PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.
|
|
 |
 |
|