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 i get the main rules are short and overly small. That's not my issue. The fact general rules in 4th and 5th kept most of the rules in the main rulebook and you could read through them and get what you were facing was nice. In 8th we don't have that.

There's a bunch of unit special rules for some units, psychic abilities (i don't have these sadly), crap ton of stratagems (a good 30 maybe in my army), sub-faction rules (10 in my army alone), wargear (2 full pages), warlord traits (2 pages), command abilities, auras, etc., etc. My issue is it feels like a lot to take in all at once and you have to read each codex just to know what your enemies can hit you with. This doesn't even take into the fact soup lists where people can mix the dumbest of each army with each other.

My issue is a lot of this feels very bloated. I wouldn't mind a big rulebook if 70%-80% of what the enemy could do was represented in some way in the main rulebook rather than needing to read like 16 codexes or at least 8 for a store meta just to see all the special rules each army can do. Not to mention some of the codexes don't seem to have the best layout.

I dunno maybe it's just me. What do you guys think?

Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.

I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.

No, its no where near as complicated. The only complicated thing is all the FAQ's etc, the actual game isn't. I just wish the rule book was more thought through, its terribly organised, the solved that problem with the codex's but not the rule book, the main rules book needs re-done.

Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.

40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phydaux wrote:
Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.

I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.

A thousand times this. If GW would commit to hiring proper people to write the rulebooks instead of badgers, 8th would be fixed in a week.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.

40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phydaux wrote:
Not overly complicated. in fact if anything it has been too dumbed down to allow it to appeal to younger kids.. The problem is that the rule books are poorly written & organized.

I honestly think that a decent game designer with some experience as a layout editor could "fix" 8th in under a week of work.

A thousand times this. If GW would commit to hiring proper people to write the rulebooks instead of badgers, 8th would be fixed in a week.

If you have played 2nd edition, nothing is complicated lol They do need to bring back more of the special rules, rules for terrain stuff like that and they need to bring back templates. I like the rules for charging now but I think they need to bring back Initiatives, like if the enemy charges you they go first unless you have double their Initiative something like that would be cool as its stupid that an ork can out strike an eldar. Also the need to go back to the moral we had before, this new moral is total bs, the penalty for failing moral is far too devastating, especially when you sink so many points into multi-wound models.

It's actually still too simple.

My point is that it needs more Universal Special Rules in the main rulebook rather than spreading a million different things in each codex. It just feels like a layout issue to me.

Let's not start the USR argument in another thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.

This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.

jcd386 wrote:
Let's not start the USR argument in another thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.

This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.

I'd like to see a 8.5 for Christmas at the latest.

There's nothing wrong with different rules. The problem was complicated rules. Those are nowhere near as present thankfully.

We need to get back to simple, uncomplicated rules sets, like 7th edition.

meleti wrote:
We need to get back to simple, uncomplicated rules sets, like 7th edition.

You had me there for a second

meleti wrote:
We need to get back to simple, uncomplicated rules sets, like 7th edition.

Well played!

I really think that Chapter Approved should contain an updated set of the core rules. Because if the last one was anything to go off of, I have ZERO reason to buy it, besides taking a picture of the updated points costs and throwing it into my Codex after printing it out. CA: 2017 had nothing in it I cared about except for a few "almost-ITC" missions.

That, or make a rules digest like what comes in the AoS 2.0 starter that is packaged with future Chapter Approved books. With how quickly 8th is changing, a yearly update is mandatory.

8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.

Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.

 Thargrim wrote:
8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.

Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.

Its got a long way to go, but I agree so far its going well. There are big issues that need fixing, however.

Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.

I do prefer the days of 20-25$ softback codex books, back then I bought codexes for armies I didn't play...I just bought them for the artwork and lore (40$ is too much for me). Digital however...for tabletop gaming...I hate it. I can't count on my phone or whatever to stay charged long enough for a full gaming session. To me it's no less clunky, it might save storage space, but honestly I like buying physical things and items...thats what this hobby is about anyways using physical components on the table, otherwise we'd be playing digital versions of these games entirely, like BB2 which is a good game...but a totally different experience than handling the rules in person.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.

Couldn't agree more, selling them a 5-10 quid a go, I'd be happy to pay that. Free pdf's though I think, they can make their money on the codex's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thargrim wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Ditch the hardbacks and have proper digital products updated regularly. Broken record, but the format is holding the game back in a major way.

I do prefer the days of 20-25$ softback codex books, back then I bought codexes for armies I didn't play...I just bought them for the artwork and lore (40$ is too much for me). Digital however...for tabletop gaming...I hate it. I can't count on my phone or whatever to stay charged long enough for a full gaming session. To me it's no less clunky, it might save storage space, but honestly I like buying physical things and items...thats what this hobby is about anyways using physical components on the table, otherwise we'd be playing digital versions of these games entirely, like BB2 which is a good game...but a totally different experience than handling the rules in person.

I think options is the key, they should cater to everyone, so if people want to spend more then they can have the hardbacks. Softbacks are so much better, you don't need a hard back I don't see the point of them.

I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.

I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.

 Thargrim wrote:
8th is a big step in the right direction from 7th. Honestly to me 8th seems actually playable without pulling my hair out. Whether or not it is enjoyable though....whole other thing there. I honestly prefer there not being chapter rules, or little special rules and things that add up like that. AoS is starting to suffer from the same thing with 6 or so nighthaunt allegiance things that you have to keep in mind at all times.

Honestly this is an issue that has plagued GW games for years. As i've said in the past, this is why blood bowl was probably the best game GW has ever made, it doesn't suffer from these problems.

Warmaster was really good too. There was also no subfactions in that game, you could paint minis however you wanted and they still had the same rules. Even though warmaster had a lot more than 8 pages of rules it still felt way more streamlined as a game than 40k 8th ed.

Karol wrote:
I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.

I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.

Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.

I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.

Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.

@delvarius lol are you kidding? Rules does not equal fluff. Even if the rules would be changed all the fluff books about factions, conflicts, characters and anything else would remain unchanged. The armies are currently absolutely not as streamlined you could make them. Gw has made their design choice to add hundreds of special aura rules, subfactions in most codex, strategems etc. You can agree or disagree with that design, but to claim a more streamlined design is impossible is just silly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lol. Anyone who thinks 40k is "complicated" must have never played another game.

40k has been horrifically dumbed down STREAMLINED. 90% of special rules are some variation of a re-roll and nothing else. Now, is it better than 7th? Of course it is, and a lot of the streamlining was welcome, but they've gone too far in that direction.

You're confusing "complicated" and "deep". 40k is a very shallow game that seldom involves more a contest to see who can bring the most powerful list and roll the best dice, but it's also a very complicated game. It's a bloated mess of rolling to see how many dice you roll, obsessing over tiny details like the difference between a sword and an axe in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit in one shot, utter failure to use the USR concept to cover all of the countless versions of the same rule, pointless clutter like the stratagem mechanic, units full of special snowflake rules that don't really matter, etc. It's a textbook example of never using a single elegant rule when a half-page pile of incoherent nonsense will do the job. And it makes 40k an awful game to try to learn as a new player, you have to be incredibly dedicated to the idea to slog through learning all of the rules to finally be able to play a game.

I'd love to be able to pop into my local store and try a reintoductory game, but honestly, given how much the rules for everything have changed since any material was printed I'm very apprehensive that I've got half the rules wrong. I get the reasons for all the FAQs. But they don't make it easy to jump in.

Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.

It's when people feel like they HAVE to pile on Codex, Chapter Approved, Errata, etc. that things start to get clunky and unwieldy. If the game feels like it's getting to burdensome, chat with your friends and see if all the extra baggage is REALLY adding to the game or just dragging it down.

Likewise, I find having the rules on the datasheet a lot less confusing and time-consuming that having to consult the BRB or various parts of a Codex/Index midgame. (I'd like more standardization than the 100 forms of Deepstrike, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). It's a lot better than it has been in many an edition (since at least 3rd).

My son and I play with the rules pamphlet & indexes, and have been enjoying it very much (only keeping the points & datasheets current via Battlescribe). We avoid using Stratagems and don't keep up with the likes of CA or the Errata. That makes the game go a lot faster and more enjoyably than I've seen at the local FLGS.

 Stormonu wrote:
Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.

Or playing narratively, or playing casually. The idea that you can play 40k with just the free starter rules and an index is just laughably out of touch with reality. Even the casual/narrative players are going to want to use their fluffy chapter tactics rules and such. You are in a tiny minority here, probably because you play with your kid and get to choose how everything goes instead of playing at a store where your opponents will have bought more of the rules and not be amused if you try to tell them they're only allowed to use the index.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think we should separate stuff like core rule set, which IMO is as others said "streamlined", and stuff like army rules.
Yestarday I played against what we call a REAL army, and my opponent had 3 codex, the rule book, 2 prints outs of FAQ on his part of the table. He was super efficient with the rules, and anwsering my questions, and was even helping a noob like me with some of my rules, and it still took a lot of time to get through all of the interactions.

I think the rule sets should be inverted. The core rules, something that all should learn, should be as deep and interactive as possible. Maybe with added layers for stuff like ladder or narrative games. The armies themselfs should be the stuff that is streamlined. Not boring of course, but I think the balance would work much better, if GW instead of focusing on single units though in armies or formations. They should first make an army the way it should work, and only later adjust the points costs of single units. It would be safer for game balance too, because it is easier to make a jump pack marine army with the sub theme of vampire dudes work the way it should work, then make units for such a list and then find out that people are taking 1-2 of the models from that army and using it with units from 4 different books, to create some sort of behemoth of a list. And then to react to this your constantly either nerf the next books or uber buff them.

Streamlining the armies would mean getting rid of the fluff, that would be a horrendous idea. Part of the reason we all love the game so much is because of the rich lore involved in it. Plus the armies are as streamlined as you can make them now.

@delvarius lol are you kidding? Rules does not equal fluff. Even if the rules would be changed all the fluff books about factions, conflicts, characters and anything else would remain unchanged. The armies are currently absolutely not as streamlined you could make them. Gw has made their design choice to add hundreds of special aura rules, subfactions in most codex, strategems etc. You can agree or disagree with that design, but to claim a more streamlined design is impossible is just silly.

They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies. They are as streamlined as you can make them, GW have streamlined enough.

You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules

Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.

total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......

BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.

 Stormonu wrote:
Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.

It's when people feel like they HAVE to pile on Codex, Chapter Approved, Errata, etc. that things start to get clunky and unwieldy. If the game feels like it's getting to burdensome, chat with your friends and see if all the extra baggage is REALLY adding to the game or just dragging it down.

Likewise, I find having the rules on the datasheet a lot less confusing and time-consuming that having to consult the BRB or various parts of a Codex/Index midgame. (I'd like more standardization than the 100 forms of Deepstrike, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). It's a lot better than it has been in many an edition (since at least 3rd).

My son and I play with the rules pamphlet & indexes, and have been enjoying it very much (only keeping the points & datasheets current via Battlescribe). We avoid using Stratagems and don't keep up with the likes of CA or the Errata. That makes the game go a lot faster and more enjoyably than I've seen at the local FLGS.

Yeah its SOOOOOOOOOOOO simple and easy to play now, I hardly have to look at the rule book now, in 7th you had to have the rule book glued to your hand.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies.

What does exclusivity have to do with fluff? If you paint your models as Ultramarines, write up a bunch of fluff for your army, and always use themed lists appropriate for Ultramarines are you really going to say that the fluff isn't there and they aren't Ultramarines unless they get a special rule with the word "Ultramarines" in the title? There is plenty of room for streamlining, you just have to lose the unimaginative assumption that anything which doesn't have a specific rule named after it doesn't exist in the fluff.