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.

I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.

How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about

And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.

vaurapung wrote:
How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about

And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.

GW made an 8 page rulebook. How much simpler do you want it. All those problems are on your players, not GW.

So denial of the rest of the book the codex and chapter approved and the faqs is the answer for consistency.

And i dont need simple i need all disagreements to be able to be looked for in the index and referwncable in the core rulebook.

vaurapung wrote:
How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group.

Locally - play to win without being WAAC.
So if someone makes a mistake like forgetting to finish moving before deepstriking we let it slide, but we don't throw games or try to drag them out with deliberately bad choices.

It means there is some extra work to be done in the list building phase, at least until GW gets its act together. Mostly just not going full LVO with the lists unless it's pre-agreed on.

 Sim-Life wrote:

vaurapung wrote:
How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about

And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.

GW made an 8 page rulebook. How much simpler do you want it. All those problems are on your players, not GW.

8 page rulebook that you can't actually use without house ruling to actually play. GJ GW.

Ideally it would replace the rulebook, and incorporate changes all into the single book so it cuts down on what needs to be lugged around. Re write existing rules to cut down on the size of the errata and FAQ documents. As is it’s just yet another rulebook layer on top of everything else with lots of padding, little focus, and small,adjustments that could have easily just been a 4 page pdf download.

It would probably make sense to keep it focused on matched play, and release campaign books and such for the other methods.

craggy wrote:
I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.

Like your gaming system and your games, once you purchase the models and books, you own them forever. You can play that ruleset forever as well, even if new rules come out. In the event that new rules do come out and everyone starts playing by them, you have the option to purchase the new rules, or continue using the old ones. Using your video game analogy, its like a new Soccer (Football) game. They come out with one every year, but it doesn't mean last years is no longer functional. It just means that if you wanted the updated stats/graphics/etc you need to get the new one.

GW needs to give up on 8th, hire some proper rules writers who understand mechanical writing plus game systems, and make a new edition from the ground up instead of this mess they patchworked together from bits of 7th (and everything before). No amount of chapter approved can fix the broken foundation that GW built for 8th.

You can make user friendly rules and keep both ease of entry and gameplay depth without making a clunky mess of a game. it's only going to get worse once GW starts to try and go down the inevitable route of supplements (stuff like death from the skies) that are optional and yet sorta not.

 Vankraken wrote:
GW needs to give up on 8th, hire some proper rules writers who understand mechanical writing plus game systems, and make a new edition from the ground up instead of this mess they patchworked together from bits of 7th (and everything before). No amount of chapter approved can fix the broken foundation that GW built for 8th.

Your opinion. 8th is wildly accepted as a big success and drew in a large amount of new players.

Is it a perfect ruleset? Well, no. But compared to the CF that was the previous edition it is heading in the right direction and much more enjoyable to play.

I think Chapter Approved was worth it just for the missions. My only real gripe is that they didn't just repost all of the points values like the Genera'ls Handbook. That was a fail.

Video games are not even the same technology so it is moot.

Xwing is an LCG with miniatures so more false equivalence.

How about comparing with a Warlord Games title?

So far the best mission ive seen played was a capture the flag ising modified 7th edition relic gametype.

But how can i use missions if me and seems to be everyone cant even agree on the rules that we should be using.

I would have loved to stick with 7th but when companies roll out new versions your kinda forced into ot if you want to play with a broad group.

Look at what apple and microsoft does. If you want to be compatable with everyone else you have to buy that upgrade that you dont want and dont need.

Gw has done just that, forcing us to buy the latest rules if we want to play with everyone else. I dont like it and i really dont like the inconsisty foind among different playgroups. Why cant we all just use the same exact set of rules for every type of game?

I'm pretty sure you can still call and message others even if your iPhone is 3 generations old.

Every ducking game with editions ever forces you to buy and use the current rules. GW is actually one of the exceptions until 7th since you'd just use your codex from the previous edition.

In our club we all agreed (unspoken) on Matched Play and that's it. We do add open/narrative stuff if we feel like it. The rules aren't nearly as broken as 7th was. What actual rules do you have issues with understanding?

craggy wrote:
I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.

Since you made the comparison with videogames I'm assuming you're mostly interested in the gaming part of 40k rather than the hobby. Those 300£ plus 50 or less for any game you want becomes easily 800£ish in 4-5 years and after that period you'll end up with a console that aged and games that worth 1/5 of their value. You probably want to buy a new console then.

Buying 3000 points of miniatures plus their books and the hobby material, including painting, is not particularly more expensive or at least several factions can be collected for a similar amount of money, only 4-5 factions are really significantly more expensive than the other ones. Second hand models, scratch built vehicles, conversions and pdf rules can let you save some money, maybe even a tons of it. And if you get tired of the hobby and want to sell the army you'd probably get back more than selling an obsolete console and its games.

The issues with understanding the rules that i have is that narrative play and most terrain rules are not part of the core rules and i think open play has some special rules too. Plus if you play narrative or open then matched has rules that those dont use and then chapter approved came out and changed some of those rules with gw making promises to change more of those rules every 6 months.

The problem i have is that all the rules are not in the rules section. Every game type has its own rules and then every many missions seem to have more special rules.

Why not just have all those rules in the rules and then every game type use all of those rules with simply different objectives.

I would love to play narrative games but why does narrative have different rules than matched? And why is matched not balanced but narrative can be?

vaurapung wrote:
The issues with understanding the rules that i have is that narrative play and most terrain rules are not part of the core rules and i think open play has some special rules too. Plus if you play narrative or open then matched has rules that those dont use and then chapter approved came out and changed some of those rules with gw making promises to change more of those rules every 6 months.

The problem i have is that all the rules are not in the rules section. Every game type has its own rules and then every many missions seem to have more special rules.

Why not just have all those rules in the rules and then every game type use all of those rules with simply different objectives.

I would love to play narrative games but why does narrative have different rules than matched? And why is matched not balanced but narrative can be?

That's less a problem with the game and more with your group not communicating what they want.

Some rules are very dependant on the style of game you want. Like Psychic Discipline, aka only one psychic power of the same name every turn besides Smite. It is there in Matched to incentivize tournament games to use wide variety of powers or to push people to Smite, which is somewhat predictable in what it does. Basic stuff when you want to try and have a competetive game (which 40k still really isn't). This leads to the balance problem you see between Matched and Narrative: Matched should be done to ensure random pick-ups start on reasonably similar footing, an objective GW isn't yet very good at reaching. Narrative, on the other hand, leaves this more in the hands of the players. The players playing the game are tasked with the burden of handling their own balancing, like for an example talking about their lists with their opponent before the game. "Want to try out that sweet all-termie list of yours? Cool, lemme see what would be interesting against them..." And note that this isn't anything that special, Matched games can of course do the same. But because this is utterly essential to Narrative, you don't really play Narrative with people who don't share your view of what's cool and thus you can use wackier special rules like Firestorm Attacks, psychic storms and whatnots in Narrative without breaking anyones expectations of the game.

Basically, Matched isn't balanced because 40k isn't currently written as tight as a tournament game should be but that is the intent. New GW is apparently trying to get it to be like that, maybe they will in a few years with annual CA tweaks. Narrative is balanced because you ought to play it with different expectations. 1000 points in a fortress trying to stop 3000 points, perhaps as a part of this hex-map campaign I just drew last week? Heck yes, count me in for that, though I won't expect my poor 1000 points to fare like they would in a Matched game. Give me artillery strikes, give me stratagems to blow up my own buildings, give the attacker weird tunneling devices for one unit every turn or what ever we can come up with and I'll probably enjoy my time with that slaughter though it isn't balanced in the typical sense of the word. It is still balanced relatively to the expectations of what game we are playing, which is the important part.

On terrain rules, I agree it is a tad silly to have them in the Advanced section but once again, the pre-game conversation of how much you like the terrain to affect the game is as important here as it was in previous editions. Do you like it having a great effect? Suggest to your opponent that you use all the terrain rules or that at least all scatter terrain counts as statues (if Infantry is within 3" and at least 25% covered it has Cover), barricades are used, vehicles 50% out of sight have Cover and charging into rubble and such imposes a -2" penalty. Gets you pretty far, personally I like to take it further with my pals and say intervening terrain gives Cover too.

Then again, I might be a tad biased towards DIY spirit and discussions, seeing that designing and running all sorts of games both miniature and rpg are like breathing air to me. Just finished converting Zone Mortalis to 8th, playtesting starts tomorrow

mokoshkana wrote:

craggy wrote:
I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.

Like your gaming system and your games, once you purchase the models and books, you own them forever. You can play that ruleset forever as well, even if new rules come out. In the event that new rules do come out and everyone starts playing by them, you have the option to purchase the new rules, or continue using the old ones. Using your video game analogy, its like a new Soccer (Football) game. They come out with one every year, but it doesn't mean last years is no longer functional. It just means that if you wanted the updated stats/graphics/etc you need to get the new one.

Not entirely the point I was making, but a valid one. I'm looking to get friends into the gaming side of the hobby and plan on starting off with small games using Index lists and rules, keeping CPs as only for re-rolls. If folks like it and want to expand we'll add more points and look at using Codex lists, stratagems and stuff once everyone has one.

Blackie wrote:

craggy wrote:
I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.

Since you made the comparison with videogames I'm assuming you're mostly interested in the gaming part of 40k rather than the hobby. Those 300£ plus 50 or less for any game you want becomes easily 800£ish in 4-5 years and after that period you'll end up with a console that aged and games that worth 1/5 of their value. You probably want to buy a new console then.

Buying 3000 points of miniatures plus their books and the hobby material, including painting, is not particularly more expensive or at least several factions can be collected for a similar amount of money, only 4-5 factions are really significantly more expensive than the other ones. Second hand models, scratch built vehicles, conversions and pdf rules can let you save some money, maybe even a tons of it. And if you get tired of the hobby and want to sell the army you'd probably get back more than selling an obsolete console and its games.

I'm actually entirely the opposite. I bought all the Index books, and have the BA and Craftworld Codex, but have yet to play a proper game since getting back into the hobby last year. I've always been more of a painter and modeller interested in the fluff than a gamer, at least when it comes to 40k. Even with videogames I've found a real lack of time in recent years, so whilst I own both a ps4 and Xbox one, I've only bought maybe 6 games in the past few years.

The re-sale value of miniatures is definitely more than that of old games, though, and that's a very good point. If a new edition comes out and I don't want to keep an army I've spent a few hundred on buying, I can probably recoup a much larger percentage of my initial cost selling them than I could ever hope to get back on even games only a few months old. The initial expense is a lot higher too though, and unless we're buying painted minis second hand, there's a lot more time and effort put in to get them playable.

It really is quite a poor analogy though. Like I said, I was just following up on someone else's comparison.

I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.

Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.

But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.

I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?

vaurapung wrote:
I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.

Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.

But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.

People like it for many reasons, including: better flow than previous editions, less flipping between books, less clunky engine, stratagems feel nice and add depth to play, perhaps someone likes the feel of their new codex and so forth. We pay for those rules because it is GW's business to sell them. Why do I buy regular books if I could just write my own? Because there is something interesting in it, that I might not have thought of. With wargaming rules, one can argue they ought to be free and while I agree it would be awesome, that isn't necessary. GW is free to ask us money for its product as it does.

I understand that you want to have fun with your friends without much of a hassle. And you can. Just ask your opponents what do they think of the rules like terrain and such and with regular playmates it'll become routine in a few games. Yes, GW could have done that for you, but they chose not to, which is understandable as they chose to write the very basoc rules of this edition with a complete newbie in mind. For the rest of us, when has it ever been too much to ask that people read a few extra pages like BRB's Advanced rules? I learned old WHFB-rules when I was eight years old and their page count was in the hundreds.

I find it a bit of a hyperbole to say you can't find people who play by the same rules. Yes you will, as everyone uses the same engine for their game. Matched restrictions like Psychic Discipline and Boots on the ground are the defaults, from where people can then deviate if they agree to with their opponents. These are not major problems: few questions before the game and you are ready to go.

The point I'm trying to say isn't that GW can sit on their laurels and leave balancing to the players, but that while they're doing that, one can take the game as it is and make of it what suits them best. I've never had any innate respect for appealing to authority and if me and my pals are happier with our game after tweaking some rules, we'll do it. It's not a burden, it's fun.

Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?

 Sherrypie wrote:

vaurapung wrote:

Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?

This. I don't know why people think that they can't talk to opponents. I have a game on Tuesday and I wanted to run the FW stonecrusher carnifex but it lacks the changes to carnifexes that the codex brought (+1 to hit on the charge etc). I asked my opponent if I can include those rules and he was fine with it.

Social interaction amd behaving like reasonable adults is part of the game. If people can't behave like grown ups then just don't play with those people.

The General's Handbook for AoS is a perfect example of what GW should be doing if they want to continue down the model of making players pay for rules. A single, reasonably sized document (not some giant hardcover monster) that contains everything necessary to play the game barring your specific army book, updated for <current year>.

...then GW tossed everything they learned away, looked at 40k and Chapter Approved, and said 'screw it, we'll do it live.'

So we got that lazy waste of paper instead.

 Fafnir wrote:
The General's Handbook for AoS is a perfect example of what GW should be doing if they want to continue down the model of making players pay for rules. A single, reasonably sized document (not some giant hardcover monster) that contains everything necessary to play the game barring your specific army book, updated for <current year>.

...then GW tossed everything they learned away, looked at 40k and Chapter Approved, and said 'screw it, we'll do it live.'

So we got that lazy waste of paper instead.

It could have been because of the short duration between 8th release and the CA. Maybe they will do it for the next one.

 Silentz wrote:
Despite posting my defence of Chapter Approved and my acceptence and approval of it as a step forward...

It was a disappointment.

Why, when they already create General's Handbook, did they not copy the GH2017 method of listing all points for all units, and marking the ones that changed?

Probably because unlike in AoS, points were already available in the Indices and Codices that had thus far been released.

That's the important thing to remember. The Grand Alliance books for AoS did not have point values in them. There were no points in the initial books either. It wasn't until Matched Play and GHB2016 that we saw points added in.

It's partly why Blades of Khorne and Stormcast Eternals were redone despite being relatively recent books--the other part being that each book compacted two armies(Daemons of Khorne and the Khorne Bloodbound for Blades of Khorne and vanilla Eternals and the Draconis/Stardrake stuff) into one book.

 Sherrypie wrote:

vaurapung wrote:
I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.

Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.

But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.

Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?

GW already did that for Tactical Marines in 7th. Remember something called the Gladius Battle Demi Company? Remember how much fun that was? You required literally free units to compete with the other armies?

nekooni wrote:
I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?

Look at ynnari they are horrible in matched as a single army did to the nerfs, but in narrative they have their original strength from death.

Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.

You're not just buying point costs. Chapter Approved has much more content than that - whether or not you feel that it is worth it, is up to you.

I've always thought that the points should be released as a free 'data slate' similar to AOS and they also put a copy in CA with the rest of the extra content they add (missions, narrative elements etc)

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.

You're not just buying point costs. Chapter Approved has much more content than that - whether or not you feel that it is worth it, is up to you.

I've always thought that the points should be released as a free 'data slate' similar to AOS and they also put a copy in CA with the rest of the extra content they add (missions, narrative elements etc)

You just defeated your own argument, the Landraider rules and missions worth is highly subjective to a lot of people they hold zero interest so even mentioning their inclusion is pointless.

The only thing I would of wanted is points values, those are fixed for products I already paid for I should not have to pay to have a faulty product fixed that's not acceptable in any other industry.