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.

At the beginning of 8th, rules were nice n streamlined. Granted there were some issues but I only needed an index and the rule book.

Now, to use all the rules I need for an army, I need the rule book, the most recent chapter approved, the big FAQ, 2-3x codex (because any imperium the is competitive uses 2-3 factions), FAQs for those armies, and vigilus.

Anyone else feeling fatigue from content bloat like I am? I do thank GW for so much attention, just it is a lot to keep track of.

Yeah, in a way. It feels like they just bloated the game right back to what it was the tail end of 7th edition (maybe worse) in a very short amount of time.

So much content!

But much of feels like bloat. And, worse, much of it retcons or limits what was.

I'm impressed by their release schedule, but not by the quality or internal consistency of the content itself.

(Not that I could do better - I'm actually quite impressed overall.)

I do wish they'd slow down a little (and they have) if only for their own sake lest they trip over themselves.

That said we're still in a development period for this edition. The Vigilus detachments do a lot to open up the game and everyone needs their treatment in that respect.

I do feel a bit like that. I'm really enjoying the release schedule they have and the engagement with the community but the amount of rules I need to make an army now is ridiculous and they will never combine rulebooks to make things more streamlined. I was out of the game around the time when things went mad in 7th but I remember 6th edition I needed 3 books and cards to play my army. The point of streamlining was to remove that, but here we are again.

*Looks at the Dark Eldar codex, from which yet more units and gear have been cut.*

What content?

Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!

im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.

We need an 40k 8th Edition 2.0 (similiar to what they did to AoS 2.0).
I was actually pretty baffled that Shadowspear wasn't the 2.0 starter set.

Tell the truth. Or at least some sort of grand compendium of all the little rules/faqs.

Remember to feed this back in the upcoming community survey.

eh...a little. It's the constant release of stuff that changes all things in the game, or adds tons of new stuff to existing armies forcing you to change your gameplan.

The whole BRB is essentially useless at this point (makes me thankful I skimped on it and just played with the free packet).

But, at the same time, it REALLY killed my enthusiasm in older editions when my army was crap and I knew it'd stay crap forever, and couldn't hold out hope for Chapter Approveds/FAQs to fix things.

The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).

Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.

And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.

I think if Chapter Approved contained the prior year's worth of add ons it would be fine. Ideally they'd do something digital, but barring that, Chapter Approved can at least limit it to a year's worth of random documents.

Ideally the FAQs should be tagged by faction (or tagged ALL) so I can input my list of factions on the FAQ section of the website, and get given a list of FAQs that I need.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).

Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.

And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.

The present can be better than the past but still not anywhere near what a reasonable person would desire.

In response to your "CA is a book" I would say "ALL the rules are BOOKS and it's 2019".

That seems utterly silly to me. If I were running a game system I wanted to be a living rulebook...man oh man would it be way freaking easier for me to just have everything in an electronic document. Charge for that publication if rules need to be a revenue source (which I get, you need to pay designers and playtesters after all...) but dressing it up as a "premium game play product (tm)" rather than just saying "yeah we get it it's just an encrypted E-book but we need to pay our employees so you need to pay this subscription fee" is dumb.

I do understand that a tabletop wargame by definition will have a lot of people who will say "no I like my books I need something I can hold in my hand" but I think you can either have a living rule system, or a print rule system, and trying to combine the two leads to some serious madness....see BCB's pedantic and obnoxious but very much real list.

Sure, that's the amount of documents needed to play """"""""""""in theory"""""""""""" but the situation in reality, where everyone pretty much plays with a partial ruleset and most players aren't playing the exact same game leads inevitably to lots of conflict and confusion.

Yeah the number of FAQs are a little ridiculous at this point, and poorly organized.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah the number of FAQs are a little ridiculous at this point, and poorly organized.

IMO the FAQs (the actual online FAQs that get electronically updated with version numbers) are the ONLY thing that are well or even decently organized.

the fact that 80% of the content in the big, official rulebook, which can be found and purchased right here: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000?N=2562756967+549075912&Nr=AND%28sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US_gw%29&Nrpp=12&Nrs=collection%28%29%2Frecord%5Bproduct.startDate+%3C%3D+1554192360000+and+product.endDate+%3E%3D+1554192360000%5D is out of date.

First thing on the "rules" subsection of the website.

the_scotsman wrote:

In response to your "CA is a book" I would say "ALL the rules are BOOKS and it's 2019".

I was going to say that a living rule-set needs to be electronic, but you and I both know how poorly that goes down with some people so I didn't think it was worth the argument lol.

I will keep saying this.

We need a rolling FAQ PDF/Compedium of the rules updates.
One big PDF FAQ that is updated regularly and has all the diiferent fixes in one place would make things sooo much easier and could be so much more reactive to updating game balance.

CA/codex releases for point tweaks/profile changes.

I implore all to ask for this at the next commnity survey.
However I have no answer to WD rules... I think its a sucky idea all around and should be left for CA.

I'm fatigued with the Chaos stuff. It's been weeks and this week is only the discordant. There easily could have been more releases this week

I still stand by that index, while somewhat bland, was by far the most balanced version of 40k to date.

 skchsan wrote:
I still stand by that index, while somewhat bland, was by far the most balanced version of 40k to date.

"Somewhat"?

 MinscS2 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I still stand by that index, while somewhat bland, was by far the most balanced version of 40k to date.

"Somewhat"?

Plenty of people argued that the Indexes were a fantastic way to play game when it released. But really, we all know it was there while everyone waited for their codex. They're almost all out (barring Ynarri that were designed for this edition) and it doesn't really seem like the game is better off for it. There's been a trade-off for the faster release of codexes and inclusion of stratagems has certainly lead to a lot of bloat and some powercreep too.

I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.

Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.

Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.

Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.

However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.

In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.

At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?

In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.

Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.

I preferred the Index rulessets. There were certainly some things were bonkers (and I didn't enjoy paying 17ppm for Dire Avengers), but it felt much less bonkers than now.

I don't agree with a lot of what GW does, but complaining that they have given us too much content than our little brains and arms can deal with it, is the most '1st world problems' thing I could imagine for 40k.

I like seeing content come in waves, with a period of calm so people can adjust.

I tend to hop between games, so a big surge and a break is nice for me.

Nope, I hope the new content train continues and gets even more content rich!

I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.

Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.

Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.

Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.

However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.

In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.

At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?

In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.

Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.

I think it is hard to keep arguing on this thread after your exposition. You explained it perfectly.

 Wibe wrote:
I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.

Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.