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.

So the idea for 8th was to streamline the game and here a lot of us want to complicate it because it just doesnt work like we expect it to. Why dont we pitch to games workshop that they could make a real advanced rules book that goes into the details of how to play the game in much the same way that seventh did. Masses didnt like seventh because nothing was suppose to be left to question, every thing was supposed to have a rule, lots of rules meant a large learning curve and long games for those that couldnt retain the vast amount of information at least enough to wing it.

Before you say the book has advanced rules in it, those are not as much rules as they are formats. They dont tell you how to play the game as much as they just give options for tailoring a little bit of flavor. Imho they need to either be the rules or not rather than optionals.

You have the wrong reason people didnt like 7th.

Nobody cared if rules were all there and there was clarity. Clarity and exacting rules is all anyone wants. The issue with uth was tons of nonsensical rules that over complicated what should have been simple with random nonsense, book keeping, and the exact opposite of clarity.

If your refering to how formations ruined 7th, i didnt ever get to use those. I was stuck with a cad for all of 7th edition becasue i couldnt get my hands on 9 models till the edition was finished.

As for book keeping explain.

I am not reffering to formations, though those were bad.

7th ed had like... 5 different resolution methods. Str vs AV with pen or glance. Str vs toughness. Scatter dice. 1d6 tests. 2d6 tests. In some of those tests you want to roll high. In others you wanted to roll low.

Then you roll a d6 when generating powers. Then you roll a d6 when generating warlord traits. Then you roll a d6 when you enter terrain. Then you roll a d6 when you find an objective. Then you roll a d6 when you get a pen. What result did you get on that pen? better find some way to write all this crap down somewhere so everyone can remember what random ass result you got on all those d6 rolls.

What special rules do you get for being jump infantry? What special rules do you get for being jet infantry? Beast, mc, fmc, vehicles, heavy, skimmers, flyers, etc etc...

7th ed was a logistical nightmare.

Nobody gave a gak that there were rules. Everyone cared that those rules sucked.


I would be fine with a little more nuanced rules. But for 8 pages of core rules there are already like.... 4 pages of FAQs and Errata. You want GW.... who still have the RAW where assault and pistol weapons don't work as intended, to write a book with more complex rules? Those are going to be more complex rules that they still cannot figure out how to write properly so we can double the number of pages of FAQs with it.

Oh. I just placed a dice on everything. But as for special rules. At least everything had a rule that had the same name. So when my opponent said this model is doing this i knew what it could do without having to find an index and read its specific rules. Your saying that one rule l set is better than the ten different rules for the same type of model then. Universal rules is what made the game simple in 7th.

As for faqs and errattas. They shouldnt need to exist. As much as we have to pay for books that are obsolete within weeks they should be complete at publishing. I dont pay gw hundreds of dollars for plastic models. I pay spend that modey because they are publishing a game system that is suppose to work.

8th edition games in my club over 7th, takes longer, is full of incomplete rules, and is far more unbalanced.

My biggest qualm with the rule book is that what are the rules. You litterally need to sit down before every game and read your opponents whole index to know what there units have (due to saking universal rules) you have to decide on what game type (open, narrative, matched) decide on power level or points (and points are not even on the index) you need to decide if your using terrain rules and which ones count and dont count. You need to decide if your using those other things(cities of death dogfight and whatever those are) you need to see if your adding battlezones. Oh we still need to pick game type.

Are you serious that 7th had more book keeping. At least the game had only one set of rules to structure your games around. That what i want. A single uniform ruleset that has all intended rules within its core.

I appreciate that you're trying to make it sound terribly complicated...but 8th is not. If anything, as you mentioned, it's a bit too easy.

Game type? That's a 3 second decision.

Power level or points? Again, 2-3 seconds at most.

Terrain rules? A tough one, perhaps almost 10-15 seconds of saying "do these trees block line of sight?"

Game type? You threw that in twice for some reason.

Sorry you feel 8th isn't fun or balanced...but the fact that you're arguing that 7th was a good and simple game immediately draws into question your entire argument. 8th could very well end up being as bloated and crappy as 7th, but it will take a little while to get there. It's tough to genuinely consider someone's opinion when they hold 7th edition (arguably the worst received and most disliked edition of 40K since it started) as some kind of litmus test for quality, balance or ease of play.

I even say that as someone who is less and less enthused with 8th edition.

vaurapung wrote:
Oh. I just placed a dice on everything. But as for special rules. At least everything had a rule that had the same name. So when my opponent said this model is doing this i knew what it could do without having to find an index and read its specific rules. Your saying that one rule l set is better than the ten different rules for the same type of model then. Universal rules is what made the game simple in 7th.

And also longer. Don't forget length. Additionally, 7th was nowhere NEAR simple at all - the vast amount of tables, charts, damage mechanics, dice, redundant USRs (Zealot), and bookkeeping made it a nightmare, alongside Formations adding further rules bloat.

If you want to know your enemy's rules, read them (either by getting your own hands on the Index, or using other versions, OR, just asking).

As for faqs and errattas. They shouldnt need to exist. As much as we have to pay for books that are obsolete within weeks they should be complete at publishing. I dont pay gw hundreds of dollars for plastic models. I pay spend that modey because they are publishing a game system that is suppose to work.

Going to be pedantic, but how do you play the games of that system without models?
If you're in 40k for the gaming alone and not the modelling, there are far more comprehensive rulesets out there - why did you go for 40k in the first place?

Books don't go obsolete - no more so than the VERY frequent changes and updates of 6th/7th. An FAQ isn't great, but at least it's fixed quickly. Having one is better than having none.

8th edition games in my club over 7th, takes longer, is full of incomplete rules, and is far more unbalanced.

Gonna need to back up that unbalanced point, and 8th being longer. It's far quicker, as most people will attest to, and the game is FAR more balanced without Formations. Right now, we don't have a situation wherein Eldar Scatbikes, Space Marine Gladius and Tau Stormsurges are foregone victories.

My biggest qualm with the rule book is that what are the rules. You litterally need to sit down before every game and read your opponents whole index to know what there units have (due to saking universal rules) you have to decide on what game type (open, narrative, matched) decide on power level or points (and points are not even on the index) you need to decide if your using terrain rules and which ones count and dont count. You need to decide if your using those other things(cities of death dogfight and whatever those are) you need to see if your adding battlezones. Oh we still need to pick game type.

Hardly any different from 7th then.

Are you serious that 7th had more book keeping. At least the game had only one set of rules to structure your games around. That what i want. A single uniform ruleset that has all intended rules within its core.

Yes, 7th had absolutely more book keeping.
I recently taught my girlfriend to play her first game a few weeks ago in 8th, and there was plenty of studying the Index mid game to see what a unit could do, what the stats were, movement, special rules etc etc. The game would have taken even longer if she'd then have had to look in the Index, THEN go to the rulebook (which was very poorly laid out) to find the rule, THEN play. Keeping it in the Index is simpler and faster.

If you want to know about your enemy's army, ask to see his Index entries, or revise it before the game to get an idea.
8th HAS all it's rules in one place. How the models interact with those rules is in the Indexes.

In 8th, the process goes "this is what the rules want me to do, then I consult the index to see how my guys interact with it"
In 7th the process goes "this is what the rules want me to do, then I consult the codex, then I look in the rules to see what this USR in the codex means"
It's longer and more cumbersome, as opposed to having all the rules on the unit entry itself.

Are you serious that 7th had more book keeping. At least the game had only one set of rules to structure your games around. That what i want. A single uniform ruleset that has all intended rules within its core.

So you can buy a new rule book every time GW releases a new model with a new way of working in the field? Great idea!

That being said, not having point costs on data sheets is the worst #*&§% south of Pluto.

Did no one else memorize the USRs at least somewhat. We all know fnp is and how it works because it was a standard rule. That was the point of usr was they always work the same.

8Th you do choose game type twice. Open narrative matched. Then each of them have their own table for game tyoe again.

We now have multiple rules for terrain depending on which page of the rule book you want to use.

And yes 8th is great for begginers and those who are happy with only war and the battle primer.

The battle primer does stand on its own 2 feet. I just want the rest of the book reworked into real advanced rules instead of a puck and choose gambit.

The simolest way to put it for me is that i still cant play checkers but i love chess.

vaurapung wrote:
Did no one else memorize the USRs at least somewhat. We all know fnp is and how it works because it was a standard rule. That was the point of usr was they always work the same.

8Th you do choose game type twice. Open narrative matched. Then each of them have their own table for game tyoe again.

We now have multiple rules for terrain depending on which page of the rule book you want to use.

And yes 8th is great for begginers and those who are happy with only war and the battle primer.

The battle primer does stand on its own 2 feet. I just want the rest of the book reworked into real advanced rules instead of a puck and choose gambit.

The simolest way to put it for me is that i still cant play checkers but i love chess.

I literally cant see how you think its more complicated now. Every aspect of the game has been sped up and streamlined for a much better playing game. There is less checking of rules, especially when you dont know it or haven't had it in your army so you have to triple check everything. Blasts are gone, the psychic phase is much easier to understand, movement is simplified.

If all you are bringing up is that you have to choose a game type and there is different rules for terrain(?) then you dont have a leg to stand on. Because I could bring up a raft of serious problems 7th had with its gameplay, all seriously effecting game play, length and enjoyment.

I would like greater realism e.g. vehicle facings, flamers that don't kill flyers, templates or at least template like weapon effects, terrain effects and especially cover, and so on.
Call this advanced I guess, I just want less abstraction, less superhero hammer, and so on.
Much of seventh is good to have gone but eighth went too far with the dumbing down.

I wouldnt do this.
The people at GW are good at making simplified rule systems, see 8th ed of 40k, AoS, and Blood Bowl. But the 7th ed of 40k was a horrible failure as was the last ed. of WH fantasy.
Making a balanced rule system including codices is a difficult problem. In my book, it is intractable (at least NP hard).

GWs best rulesystem is Lotr. With minor tweaks the rules of that game work since 2001 and never had a need to be overhauled. 8th ed brought 40K just a bit closer to lotr, in that it's easy to learn, yet hard to handle and you have to make tactical decisions unlike 6th/7th. edition.

Did they go too far with simplification of rules? Maybe. Some rules like Deep strike I could see in the main rulebook, just like Fly made it into the rulebook. Things that you find in every army and work the same in every army. But on the whole 8th is in a much better position than 7th.

I also wouldn't be surprised if GW released expansions like "tank war" or something similar that introduced additional vehicle rules, like Battle in the skies or how it was called did at the end of 7th (the rules there were rubbish so nobody used them, though).

I have the feeling the OP should simply stick to 7th, nobody tells you to burn that rulebook, you know .

Ever tried to teach someone seventh? It's pretty much impossible. Even if they are interested enough to be willing to spend hundreds of dollars on models and dozens of hours painting them; the majority of people will look the sheer volume of unintuitive crap they had to learn and wash their hands of the whole thing.

 wuestenfux wrote:
I wouldnt do this.
The people at GW are good at making simplified rule systems, see 8th ed of 40k, AoS, and Blood Bowl. But the 7th ed of 40k was a horrible failure as was the last ed. of WH fantasy.
Making a balanced rule system including codices is a difficult problem. In my book, it is intractable (at least NP hard).

FWIW, it wasn't complexity that killed WHFB. It was the fact that 8th made the game a purely attritional horde meatgrinder, due to the addition of hordes, steadfast, ability to take leadership checks to ignore marchblock, "anything can wound anything on 6s", and TLOS making it way too simple to snipe out "big monsters" which were horridly overcosted for the most part. It's hard to get people to buy into your system when you only sell troopers in boxes of 10, and most units need at least 20 (if not 50) grunts to function, said grunts mostly being there for the static CR rather than actually *doing* anything. Add in "Save or Die" spells (Purple Sun, Final Transmutation, Dwellers Below, etc) as a "balance" against giant unit-blocks (while said powers are also excellent at killing monsters, cavalry, most things...what, you thought Eldar D was bad?), and an overt fascination with mysterious terrain, alongside a massive removal of magic items (as an example, the much-maligned "underpowered" 7th Mat Ward Orcs & Goblins armybook had 40 items and many of them were actually rather useful. The 8th Vetock book has 8, and you're only using the Warpaint), and the majority of armybooks being lazy copypaste jobs with the odd monster added in (see pic related) and no wonder the enthusiasm was that much lower:



As for USRs, USRs are fine...done competently. As an example, Relentless in 7th was "count as stationary for purposes of shooting." (which was FAQd not to work with a Gitfinda, which gave +1 BS if you didn't move, because reasons). Slow & Purposeful was "count as stationary for purposes of shooting. Cannot Run or Overwatch." So what did Kataphractons get?

Heavy Battle Servitor: Cannot run. Count as stationary for purposes of shooting. May fire 2 weapons. (No "cannot overwatch.")

Had GW gone for more "atomic" and more "wildcard" USRs, they could easily have done something like:

Centurion: Ignore(Move&Shoot Penalty), Cannot(Run, Overwatch), Fire Control(+1)
Crisis Suit: Ignore(Move&Shoot Penalty), Fire Control(+1). (On another note, I found it odd that the Multitracker just let you fire 2 weapons, but the Target Lock let you shoot at a separate unit. Shouldn't the Target Lock give Missile Lock, or +1 to-hit if focused on a single target? Shouldn't a multitracker let you track multiple targets? Eeeeee).
Heavy Battle Servitor: Ignore(Move&Shoot Penalty), Cannot(Run), Fire Control(+1)
Obliterator: Ignore(Move&Shoot Penalty), Cannot(Run, Overwatch)

There's something to be said about nomenclature, and definitely something to be said for rules/USRs that "say what they do". For example: Multiple Shots(4) means you can shoot 4 times with a weapon (though with a hit penalty, because GW shoots themselves in the foot and adds little things like that to have to remember), but something like Crusader ("may roll 2 dice, pick highest for Run & Pursuit") versus Zealot ("Fearless & Hatred") doesn't make innate sense. ("But wait, weren't all Crusaders Zealots?" "Technically, the Zealots were a Jewish uprising...")

I think right now most stuff can be house ruled these days and pretty easy as well. An advanced rules for this all ain't worth much it's worth in pages. Probs maybe some extra in Chapter Approved.

Indeed, the 7th ed has been a mess. It was not just the rulebook and the codices. They released several supplementary books with addtional rules, formations, and whatnot. I guess nobody has an overview over the game as a whole. It was a time where players thought about quitting the game, not playing it anymore. A dark age of 40k.

7th was a complex pen and paper type game that required study and strategy to play.

8th ed is more like a phone app.

Pancakey wrote:
7th was a complex pen and paper type game that required study and strategy to play.

8th ed is more like a phone app.

Scatterbikes, Wolfstar, and Gladius required strategy to play?

As 8th proves power gamers break the game no matter what the rules are.

8th is way simpler and much easier to keep track of. I only got back into 40k this year after a break of around 25yrs (!). Had to teach myself 7th from scratch and was looking things up left, right and centre right up until 8th. Basically months of headscratcbing. I felt on top of 8tb within weeks and while I still have to look things up, it's simply looking at a unit dataslate on a few occasions in a game.
The only time I wish for a bit more complexity is terrain rules. Naturally. I never find myself wishing for less.
Even my 5 and 8 yr old boys are picking 8th up, 7th was almost unfathomable to them. I wrote out several quick reference sheets for our armies in 7th and still had to constantly refer to various books, notes and even Google while playing.
I do agree that USRs like FNP don't need a thousand different names but it is fluffy and have zero problems getting my head round them.

It is not the lack of detailed rules that is the issue, it is GW who dont know how to write things in a simple way that cant be misinterpreted or abused.

It WAS the 400page+ bible of a rulebook that turned majority of the players away!
less rules = simpler game = more humans wanting to try it or activly play it.

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.

Something I've been kicking around (since 6th ed actually) is trying to put together a community 40k ruleset that just completely tosses out the idea of house-ruling a thing here and there, and instead tries to be a full stand-alone ruleset. I'd probably base it heavily on 5th, with rules for everything else they've put out brought into it.

Problem is that I don't have the time to play 40k anymore, let alone sit down and write a giant block of rules out for it.

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.

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.

8e still very much has that "RTS likeness."

7th was a mess.

Here are a few things that were fixed:
Vehicles vs. Monstrous Creatures
Formations
Psychic Powers
Summoning
Arguing Over Where The Blast Template Went
Super Heavies
Destroyer Weapons
Nonsensical USR's

7th still had special rules found on unit entries, too. IE, you wouldn't find Summary Execution in the BRB.

In retrospect, I'm also really glad that everything had been moved to the index/codex from the BRB. I think it's better this way. Having all the functions right there on the unit reference pages, is really nice, especially because my armies are all in the same index.

7th wasnt hard to learn, it was just a pain having to look everything up all the time.

Look, you can have all the rules for the unit on a single page inside a single book.

OR, you can have a single page in a book list references to other locations inside the book, with artifact profiles potentially being listed in the back of the book, or on a page before wargear, or on a different page talking about the character who has their unique atrifact. And then a different page inside the same book having all the rules for the army itself.

And then the core rulebook with over 80 USRs that may be referenced on the units sheet directly, or, be a part of the units type, which are listed on a different page of the core rule book from the USRs CHAPTER.

Then you might have supplements that add new units. Like... The Toxicrene.

So... to attempt to summarize this 7th ed nightmare. If you want to play a toxicrene you need to look at the dataslate in the levithan supplement. Which references rules and wargear on different pages in the nid codex, unit types in the BRB which references USRS in the core rule book, and it's own USRs that return back to that core rule book.

For someone to read for the first time the toxicrene unit entry and understand what it does it needs to see 1 page in the data slate, 2 pages in the codex, and 3 pages in the brb.

6 pages in 3 documents to run a single unit.


And we are not even getting into the mechanical problems of 7th yet. This is just trying to play a regular unit.

Imagine if there was a wiki. Or the USRs did what they said they did, or weren't repeated. So rather than "Stealth, Shrouded, gain Syealth unless you have it, in which case you replace it with Shrouded", etc, just call it Improved Cover (X). Rather than explicitly stating a model in a Camo Cloak has +1 Cover instead of Stealth due to RAW regarding "if at least one model in a unit", then create Granted<Stealth> versus Stealth.

I mean, WMH figured that out long ago.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Imagine if there was a wiki. Or the USRs did what they said they did, or weren't repeated. So rather than "Stealth, Shrouded, gain Syealth unless you have it, in which case you replace it with Shrouded", etc, just call it Improved Cover (X). Rather than explicitly stating a model in a Camo Cloak has +1 Cover instead of Stealth due to RAW regarding "if at least one model in a unit", then create Granted<Stealth> versus Stealth.

I mean, WMH figured that out long ago.

Or Bulky X instead of bulky, very bulky, and whatever the 3rd one was called.

Also, does anyone have a completely clear and concise list of which USRs transferred to independent characters and which did not from an official GW source?