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.

SirGunslinger wrote:
As a relatively new player (started in 8th), in my opinion complex rules are not fun for a noob if winning or losing depends on getting them all right, like 8th Tau, but they are fun if they a just add more options to an army with a pretty straightforward playstyle, like SM.

I think this is a great perspective!

It's not a Space Marine issue per se, the whole game has been infected with unnecessary rules bloat for years. Streamlining the Core rules have helped by certain amount but any effort there is lost when the codexes are festooned with special rules upon special rules. "More is more" isn't always the best approach.

A good game designer should always ask what can can be removed instead of what can be added.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Beer and pretzels implies something so simple that you can do it while drunk and engaging in friendly banter about sports or work or whatever else, i.e. it requires about the same level of brainpower as sitting in a bar or pub enjoying a pint while chatting with a friend. All the special rules in 40k, by definition, preclude it from being a beer and pretzels game, because its impossible to remember them all and you need to constantly refer to various written materials to work out gameplay scenarios, etc.

40k exists almost in its own category where its not a beer and pretzels game but it lacks the mechanical tightness and design elegance needed for it to be a "hardcore" game.

Bolded sounds exactly like Warhammer nights here though. Sure the players have to keep chit chat limited otherwise the game would take too long but once you get the basic rules down and know your own armies there isn't much that needs a lot of thinking beyond playing the game. I think we only encounter complicated issues once or twice per game and these days most of those were quickly solved by either looking at the new and handy "rare rules" section or by looking at the FAQ. Very rarely do we run into rules issues that need a: to be resolved after the game.

 alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

Knights are a pretty fool-proof army for beginners. Very small model count, and pretty straightforward.

 skchsan wrote:
SM is by far the most straight forward as far as rules go IMO.

Yes, because a SM player can win games even if he forgets 50% of the bonuses his units have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jaredb wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

Knights are a pretty fool-proof army for beginners. Very small model count, and pretty straightforward.

Also cheaper than most of the other factions and definitely the fastest and easiest army to make it fully battle ready with just 5-6 walkers to paint.

 Castozor wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Beer and pretzels implies something so simple that you can do it while drunk and engaging in friendly banter about sports or work or whatever else, i.e. it requires about the same level of brainpower as sitting in a bar or pub enjoying a pint while chatting with a friend. All the special rules in 40k, by definition, preclude it from being a beer and pretzels game, because its impossible to remember them all and you need to constantly refer to various written materials to work out gameplay scenarios, etc.

40k exists almost in its own category where its not a beer and pretzels game but it lacks the mechanical tightness and design elegance needed for it to be a "hardcore" game.

Bolded sounds exactly like Warhammer nights here though. Sure the players have to keep chit chat limited otherwise the game would take too long but once you get the basic rules down and know your own armies there isn't much that needs a lot of thinking beyond playing the game. I think we only encounter complicated issues once or twice per game and these days most of those were quickly solved by either looking at the new and handy "rare rules" section or by looking at the FAQ. Very rarely do we run into rules issues that need a: to be resolved after the game.

Have you ever played an actual beer and pretzels game? We're talking games where the entirety of the rules fit on 2-3 pages max, maybe if its a really complex beer and pretzels type game on 6-8 pages. For 40k that doesn't even get you all the rules for your army, let alone the games core rules.

 jaredb wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

Knights are a pretty fool-proof army for beginners. Very small model count, and pretty straightforward.

Knights are only straightforward if you don't mind loosing alot.

Also everyone thinks knight lists are super cheap they avarage £400 or more for 2k.
If you can get starter boxes split marines come in cheaper actually. Like I've seen armies of essentially 3 indomitous sets thats 360 assuming you are paying for the conplete starter set every time.

 jaredb wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

Knights are a pretty fool-proof army for beginners. Very small model count, and pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, far more pieces per model to put together which could be more intimidating then the push-to-fit models in the latest starter boxes. Some may enjoy the challenge, but it could throw off others.

Ice_can wrote:


Also everyone thinks knight lists are super cheap they avarage £400 or more for 2k.
If you can get starter boxes split marines come in cheaper actually. Like I've seen armies of essentially 3 indomitous sets thats 360 assuming you are paying for the conplete starter set every time.

400£ for a full BNIB 2k army IS super cheap compared to most of the factions' prices, not to mention the lower amount of paint (and time!!) required to make it battle ready. Starter box only has marines and necrons. Necrons definitely need something else to be even playable.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


Also everyone thinks knight lists are super cheap they avarage £400 or more for 2k.
If you can get starter boxes split marines come in cheaper actually. Like I've seen armies of essentially 3 indomitous sets thats 360 assuming you are paying for the conplete starter set every time.

400£ for a full BNIB 2k army IS super cheap compared to most of the factions' prices, not to mention the lower amount of paint (and time!!) required to make it battle ready. Starter box only has marines and necrons. Necrons definitely need something else to be even playable.

Oh Necrons i totally agree, but given the amount of people I've seen with multiples of the marine side od that box, I would imagine you could probably pick up the necron side cheap enough to make the required additional purchases and not be far off having a full 2k list for £400.
The Marines if you sell the necron halfs off at £40 each is a Marine army for £240 maybe £300 for a few non indomitous models. Marines and often their partner in the starter set is often the cheapest faction of a given addition.

 skchsan wrote:
SM is by far the most straight forward as far as rules go IMO.

I think that would be Imperial Guard. Don't worry, you're not the only one who forgets we exist.

True, marine armies that are built out of multiple indomitus kits are a huge deal.

Elite oriented army with not many models to assemble and paint, extremely powerful and straight forward to play, also cheap and the shiniest new GW bunch of toys. It's no surprise that SM are so common these days.

I also agree on Necrons, the starter kit definitely puts them among the cheapest factions to collect. Especially by getting multiple discounted Indomitus sides from SM players.

 Insectum7 wrote:
SM used to be the simplest faction to play. Not anymore. Imo Nids are much more straight forward in terms of rules, for example.

Agreed. I play 4 factions and Nids are easily the most simple of them. They've dumbed down being out of range of Synapse, being in range of it means you get to ignore Morale. The good stratagems are all really straight forward, i.e. shoot twice, fight twice, move twice, bring infantry in with tunnel bug. Psychic powers are all easy to remember because half aren't worth taking. Wargear options are easy to remember.

New players pre-2.0 were mostly frustrated with their space marine armies, and post-2.0 were mostly confused, so yep. I'd say it's mostly a failure across the board there.

Custodes and Necrons I'd say are objectively better starter factions atm - similar buy-in, much MUCH MUCH MUCH easier ruleswise - have you SEEN the fething marine codex wargear list? - similar simple all-rounder playstyle.

the_scotsman wrote:
New players pre-2.0 were mostly frustrated with their space marine armies, and post-2.0 were mostly confused, so yep. I'd say it's mostly a failure across the board there.

Custodes and Necrons I'd say are objectively better starter factions atm - similar buy-in, much MUCH MUCH MUCH easier ruleswise - have you SEEN the fething marine codex wargear list? - similar simple all-rounder playstyle.

I can't speak for Custodes other than that might not be as much the case when they get their 9th ed codex, but Necrons do have a few things that are a bit tougher to grasp for a new player. Reanimation Protocols aren't as straight forward beyond 1 wound models. Command Protocols themselves do require a bunch hoops to jump through and get a little murky with Dynasty signature buffs to it. Necrons also have a number of units that aren't nearly as straight forward and obvious to how they should be used compared to space marines.

Primaris trim most of the issues with wargear all together. While there has been no indication GW is sunsetting Firstborn, I do think it is prudent to caution new players going too far with them. Not to mention all the cheap, currently available boxed sets are all Primaris. The big weapons issues really are just the Repulsor and Repulsor Executioner. With the Gladiator technically available, no player need suffer the Repulsor and its more Dakka.

The big issue with Primaris is they make use of stratagem far more than Firstborn which would be one of the bigger struggling points for a new player. At the same time, Primaris still have robust stat lines that will allow a player to make poor use of their CP and still have a chance to learn. As well as learn every aspect of 40k (I am talking mostly psychic here) compared to either Necrons or Custodes.

However, I think any of those three factions have very few obstacles for a new player to overcome if they like the models or the idea of the faction. I think there is a lot more than raw rules to consider such as general table play tactics which are much harder to have even a cheat sheet unlike a lot of rules can.

the_scotsman wrote:
New players pre-2.0 were mostly frustrated with their space marine armies, and post-2.0 were mostly confused, so yep. I'd say it's mostly a failure across the board there.

Custodes and Necrons I'd say are objectively better starter factions atm - similar buy-in, much MUCH MUCH MUCH easier ruleswise - have you SEEN the fething marine codex wargear list? - similar simple all-rounder playstyle.

honestly if people think even the most complex army in 40k is too confusing they proably aren't smart eneugh to play table top games.

I don't think SM are confusing at all, simply the bloat makes sometime people forget about a few rules.

SM are also extremely straight forward to play.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
New players pre-2.0 were mostly frustrated with their space marine armies, and post-2.0 were mostly confused, so yep. I'd say it's mostly a failure across the board there.

Custodes and Necrons I'd say are objectively better starter factions atm - similar buy-in, much MUCH MUCH MUCH easier ruleswise - have you SEEN the fething marine codex wargear list? - similar simple all-rounder playstyle.

honestly if people think even the most complex army in 40k is too confusing they proably aren't smart eneugh to play table top games.

That's a sentiment in the wrong direction if you ask me.

This also seems like a convenient time to parade out the 4th ed to 8th ed SM weapon comparison again, too. :


There's a crapload more 'stuff' in codexes currently than in other editions, it's not necessarily a "value-add", and I've definitely seen it lead to confusion.

There has to be more stuff considering a lot of marine stuff is doubled or even tripled, when GW decides to turn scout marines and their 2 versions in to 3 different primaris units.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
New players pre-2.0 were mostly frustrated with their space marine armies, and post-2.0 were mostly confused, so yep. I'd say it's mostly a failure across the board there.

Custodes and Necrons I'd say are objectively better starter factions atm - similar buy-in, much MUCH MUCH MUCH easier ruleswise - have you SEEN the fething marine codex wargear list? - similar simple all-rounder playstyle.

honestly if people think even the most complex army in 40k is too confusing they proably aren't smart eneugh to play table top games.

40k is not tactically deep, but it is incredibly complex. Recently the shop where I usually play games is closed, and I wouldn't want to play games with strangers anyway, but I've done some outdoor gaming with a good friend of mine. The latest game we played was a WW2 game called Battlegroup which shared a lot of similarities with 40k - similar model count, individual model removal casualties, points-based listbuilding with similar granularity, and a similar rolling structure to hit-wound-save with it instead being spot-hit-save. The biggest difference is that instead of having exactly 1 choice for what you can do with each unit, you have many, and many more options on your opponent's turn - you can set units up in ambush or withhold their moves and have them move in your opponent's turn, and you can limit casualties from an attack to 1 by choosing to have your units Fall Back when they come under heavy fire. Additionally when moving your units on your turn you have many more options - move twice, shoot then move, move then shoot, shoot twice, and a whole host of other special options depending on the unit's role like Spotting, Repairing, Rearming, Rallying etc.

the game is also much MUCH less deadly, with our first game ending after 8 turns with the losing player having just under half of their force still alive on the battlefield. And yet in spite all of that we got through eight turns of Battlegroup in less time than a typical 4 turn 40k 9th game, the very first time we tried the game.

mostly that's just because there's so much less to track with each unit. all infantry basically have 3 stats that distinguis them: The number of models in the unit, the gun they're equipped with, and the roll they need to pass a leadership test. Vehicles add 2 bespoke movement stats and either Wounds if they're unarmored or facing-based armor class if they're armored.

No auras, no stratagems, no army-wide traits, no doctrines, no separate melee skill/shooting skill, relatively few special rules, no re-rolls, and a much simplified Suppressive Fire system that's optimal for basically all firefights over 10-20" range and simplifies a shooting attack down to 3 single D6 rolls makes the simple act of 'resolving a decision that you have made' take much less time.

40k is almost entirely Resolving at this point. If you programmed a computer to perfectly execute every roll, reroll, and save instantly the game would take 20 minutes.

Karol wrote:
There has to be more stuff considering a lot of marine stuff is doubled or even tripled, when GW decides to turn scout marines and their 2 versions in to 3 different primaris units.

Thats exactly what they are critiquing. Only marines got this level of "new stuff" since. Most other armies lose things each editions.

alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

IDK - I think Death Guard are pretty straight forward. The new dex may change that, but the 8th ed codex was basically just Space Marines with fewer rules to recall and you only had to remember to roll your 5+ FnP. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that. They don't even have that many units to go through and memorize. Even after War of the Spider, they were a pretty simple army to play. I had actually put forward the idea at one point in 8th that they may actually be the new "starter army".

Tycho wrote:

alextroy wrote:
I say faulty premise. There are no entry-level 40K armies.

IDK - I think Death Guard are pretty straight forward. The new dex may change that, but the 8th ed codex was basically just Space Marines with fewer rules to recall and you only had to remember to roll your 5+ FnP. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that. They don't even have that many units to go through and memorize. Even after War of the Spider, they were a pretty simple army to play. I had actually put forward the idea at one point in 8th that they may actually be the new "starter army".

i think DG makes a poor entry-level army simply because of their difficulty to paint.

i think DG makes a poor entry-level army simply because of their difficulty to paint.

This depends entirely on technique and perspective. DG are actually very easy to paint with the right process. I painted 2500 points of DG in 8th faster than I painted 1000 points of Primaris, and that DG army, despite me wiping through it, got best painted at the local Armies on Parade that year. If you think they are hard to paint, you probably aren't looking at them right (that's not meant to be a shot at you btw). They are wildly forgiving.