A year on, 8th is every bit as bloated as 7th Ed.

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.

**SickSix**

Removing USR only to still use them but change their name for EVERY faction was mind boggling stupid. So as has been stated, you have to read your opponents rules to know what the hell they are talking about, when before you could just name the USR and we all knew what that was.

Also the anything can hurt anything and removing the CC to hit chart was a poor move.

**TheManWithNoPlan**

I wouldn't say it's as bloated as 7th... But it sometimes feels like it could use the streamlining it was praised for at launch.

Some factions and builds are also worse for this than others. As a Blood Angels player I see a lot of discussion about Slamguinius and obviously he's a right pain in the backside to actually play because of all the various stratagems, relics, special rules and psykic powers used to make him work. But then a simple army of Space Marines can generally get set up on the table immediately with very little faff at any point throughout the game.

**iGuy91**

I agree with most of the posters above. Eldar are the current poster child for factional rules bloat.

Other factions, much less so.
I find the rules easier to remember, and we get through larger games, with cheaper models, much faster than we used to. (Last edition was largely at 1850, now we always play 2k, and still finish at least as quickly)

Also, the rules are more friendly for non-competitive play to newcomers to the game to expand the player base.

**BrianDavion**

Jidmah wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:
Snip..

Consistent naming could open up design space for rules reacting to other rules though.

2. Stratagems aren't supposed to be memorised. They are supposed to be exciting tricks your army can pull to win the game. This is by design. You'll know the most common and powerful stratagems but the less used and less powerful stratagems you won't know off hand (making them potentially more useful). Stratagems also aren't the same thing as special rules.

When I was still playing MtG competitively I had more than 10k distinct magic cards memorized and could tell you the casting cost, rules text, type, edition and rough value just from seeing the picture. Any player that cares will have all stratagems memorized, they are in no way designed to spring unexpected effects on unsuspecting opponents.

the level of dedication to memorize ten thousand cards isn't normal man.

**Thargrim**

This is the exact kind of stuff that always kept me from getting into 40k. I was hoping it wouldn't clog up AoS so I could at least play that..but the new edition of AoS is looking to head in that direction. This is why I generally only play GWs specialist games, I still feel like blood bowl was the best game they ever did. It never changes, and never has to suffer through this kind of crap.

**ArmchairArbiter**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
kombatwombat wrote:
Snip..

Ok a few things on these points -

1. The throw away of USRs is a great thing for the game. It means that I'm not forced to buy a £75 rule book and a codex to play my army. The suggestion that it's somehow easier than the current set up is also bogus - you'd still need to know that a particular unit had the rule 'crusader' in which case you're still having to memorise another codex. The only difference is that the crusader rule is called one thing for one army and another thing for another army.

2. Stratagems aren't supposed to be memorised. They are supposed to be exciting tricks your army can pull to win the game. This is by design. You'll know the most common and powerful stratagems but the less used and less powerful stratagems you won't know off hand (making them potentially more useful). Stratagems also aren't the same thing as special rules.

3. There are much less special rules in the game now. Even with units having a variation of 'furious charge' or whatever most units don't have many special rules.

4. USRs do exist still; in a sense. They're called keywords now and there's hardly any of them.

I kind of see where you're coming from with this topic but honestly I think you're confusing 'bloat' with 'depth'. It's good for the game that stratagems exist. The game would literally be more boring and worse without them.

This. #Agreed.

**Jidmah**

BrianDavion wrote:
the level of dedication to memorize ten thousand cards isn't normal man.

Good thing that you only need to memorize a few dozen for 40k, right? It's also didn't require any dedication from my side. When I started playing less than 1k distinct cards existed, and the cards simply were added to the "useless knowledge" cabinet in my brain when new editions appeared.

I'm just saying that you just have to expect that a reasonably invested opponent to knows all your stratagems, maybe not to the letter, but akin to "there is a stratagem that improves damage if three predators are shooting the same target". It's always a valid request to ask your opponent to see his codex to look through his stratagems.

**meleti**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
meleti wrote:
I don’t understand the different Obsessions for infantry, vehicles, and “something else” you’re referring to. Each Kabal/Cult/Coven has only one ability. The only one I can think of that changes for vehicles is Black Heart, and all that obsession does is give them the first ability from Power From Pain (which itself is not a new rule) while models with that rule get one more level of Power From Pain. Simple enough.

Flayed Skull gives ignore cover and re-rolls to some vehicle weapons, as well as access to a super-overpowered Stratagem, Obsidian Rose increases range, etc..

It's not uncommon to mix. Back-line ravagers, etc.. could be Obsidian Rose for range or Black Heart for resilience, Venoms and/or Flyers be Flayed Skull for re-rolls, ignore cover and/or Stratagems, etc..

Add to that the fact that Drukhari and mix-and-match transports and people transported in ways no other army can, i.e. Flayed Skull Kabalites in Obsidian Rose Raiders and Black Heart Venoms, etc.. in ways that other armies cannot, etc...

In some tricksy, leadership-bomb soup Aeldari, usually with Hemlocks and/or Harlequins, Dark Creed vehicles can also hand out extra minuses to LD,

Did you even ever read the Codex?

I also read OP’s post, where he’s clearly stating that each sub faction has multiple rules for each type of unit, so his Cabal has X, Y, Z and his Cult has X, Y, Z, etc. And that’s pretty much just straight wrong.

**LunarSol**

It's really not bad on its own merits, but its hard to understand your opponent's rules when they're locked in a book across the table. That's just a fault of Codexes though.

There's some things that could have been better. I would have preferred to see the 6 or so +Wound strategems for DW be rolled into one. It's one in my head, but finding the card is annoying. 1kSons is probably the only time I've been like... "what's going on now? who does what?"

**meleti**

LunarSol wrote:
It's really not bad on its own merits, but its hard to understand your opponent's rules when they're locked in a book across the table. That's just a fault of Codexes though.

This is a totally fair criticism.