Is it actually bloat that's the problem with the Marine books?

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.

**Darsath**

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

**Darsath**

Tiberias wrote:
Darsath wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

**Darsath**

Tiberias wrote:
Darsath wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Darsath wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

Ok, I get that and call me naive, but why is the number of releases necessarily fixed. If the demand is there, as would be the case I think if they released new guard kits for the different regiments, why couldn't there be just more releases in general? Why does one necessarily have to take away from the other if the demand would be there for both?

The number of releases will always be limited by factory capacity, need to work on other games and a desire to avoid player burn-out. You can't constantly increase the number of releases. There's always going to be a bottleneck, and the reality is that new stuff comes at the cost of delaying something else.

**Darsath**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can get the core rules for free, if you felt so inclined.

Legally? How?
I'm still pissed by the "rules of 40k!" in the Sisters of Battle big box that has nothing on the whole detachment/PC/stratagem thing (which, you know, is kind of a big deal), or that just tells us : "If a whole unit is in a terrain element, it has cover and therefore +1 save" (yeah, no mention of the whole 50% visible if not infantry and all).
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40000-Rules - aka, the same thing in your Sisters box.
It's the actual *core* rules, as in, no detachments, no command points, literally just how to roll the dice, how to read the datasheets, how to actually play the basic game. Which is still a completely valid way to play. In terms of things you *need*, you only need the Battle Primer, but obviously, it's good to have the full rules.

Sure, detachments, CP, and stratagems are what *most* people play with, but you don't *need* them in the official rules.

If I were going to judge the game based on the bare minimum, I'd honestly find the game extremely boring and lacking.

**Darsath**

The problem, again, is that you can't just release more stuff than you have the capacity to. And every company has a capacity. Games Workshop can't simply choose to release more stuff. If they could, they would. It increases their profits after all. But they have to pace things so that their designers can complete projects, shipping has time to reach stores, people don't burn-out of the whole thing and so on. You have to make TRADE-OFFS, not just gaining more and more without sacrificing anything. It ignores the reality that has already been happening the past few years in the company as is.

**Darsath**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

**Darsath**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Darsath wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

It takes more time because GW is stuck in the 90s.

Very well could be. Though I know formatting and moulding models is always going to be time consuming. Still, there are solutions here, but they're all trade offs, not just strict advantages (i.e. faster releases at the expense of physical copies). Not matter what choice you make, someone is going to get burned.

**Darsath**

Ishagu wrote:
It's not bloat, it's variety. Fantastic.

If you have OCD and need every book that's on you. If you're a power gamer struggling to keep on top of everything, again, that's on you.
You don't need the supplements to play the various chapters.

Releasing more Marine books does, however, take away opportunities for other factions to get updates. The Codex update was entirely necessary. The supplements, though? I doubt it was more important than updating the chaos or xenos lines. Maybe you'll see it differently though.

**Darsath**

Kanluwen wrote:
Serious question:
Do people not know how to read prices?

Codices are $40USD.
Supplements are $30USD.
Psychic Awakening books are $40USD.

If you want to argue that PA is overpriced?
I won't dispute that. Most of them feel like $30 books, and that's being generous. They should be $25, IMO.

I haven't bought a Psychic Awakening book yet (my faction is still waiting) but I never noticed that they were priced the same as Codexes. That's quite shocking, honestly.