Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?

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.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).

**Sgt. Cortez**

I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.

**Sgt. Cortez**

the_scotsman wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.

Yeah, i just remember the hilarious amount of time and effort it took to figure out how to resolve a Ram attack when I had a spare trukk waiting around with nothing better to do...and it just never, ever did anything impactful lol.

Indeed

Whenever someone had his Rhino left without guns you knew at some point he'd try to "tankshock" the damn thing, meaning reading the tank shock rules for ten minutes, then use them to...move one enemy squad an inch to the side, done.
Or Soulblaze: Roll a die to roll a die to maybe kill an Ork Boy every other game.
Or fear, which actually sounded cool, until you realized 3/4 of the units in the game were immune to it and the ones' that weren't either made their leadership check or, even if they failed, it meant nothing more than -1 to hit in CC because of the bad WS table at the time...

There might be rules that seem... Unwieldy in 9th, but so far I get the feeling, aside from some very situational stratagems you might as well forget, there's little in the game that seems pointless. Command Protocols are the only thing that come to mind, our Necron player forgets them every other game and even if he doesn't it looks like a lot of rolling and bookkeeping with very little effect on the game.

**Sgt. Cortez**

There's truth to that as well. But overall these things seem to have been seen as "randumb" and therefore done away with. I wonder if there's a middle ground between "roll for your equipment before the game starts and then roll every turn to see if your army blows up" (aka Daemons Codex 6th and 7th Edition, 5th Edition was: before the game, roll to see if your army turns up at all...) and current situation of "make up your mind, do what you want and even there's a really unfortunate 1- just reroll it". But what was left of the funny rules in 8th, like FW Rapiers eating people when their Crew has died, or bubble chuckas seems to haven't been streamlined as well to be more predictable. I blame the tournament focus, but there was always the problem of reliable alternatives instead of the random things, that even in casual play were just that more... Reasonable to play.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Just adding to the morale discussion: I think it's the one aspect where they went too far with the streamlining, but morale also didn't matter since at least 6th Edition because most factions were basically immune to morale.
I get the impression the only reason they implemented the attrition mechanic was not to make morale impactful (even fewer models flee than in 8th) but to actually trigger a "failed leadership check" that can be used for secondaries or missions (but other than that doesn't really matter). All the "immune to morale" rules seem to get relegated to "immune to attrition modifiers" to enable failed morale for every faction and therefore not making morale penalties some factions like to throw around pointless - at least that's what we've seen for Marines and Orks.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Karol wrote:
What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".

Some 2nd WW games have suppression mechanics like that.

**Sgt. Cortez**

I don't even know what the people are arguing about anymore.
9th core rules? After one game of 8th I knew the base rules better than after 5 years of playing 6th/7th Edition. The most complex part of the rules are "frequent rules interactions" or how it's called, which they added at the end and of which some would benefit from proper USRs, but okay.

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...
And don't get me started with Formation rules in 7th, at least with stratagems these are limited to few Boni and not like: yeah, this part of my army got these 5 special rules for free because I took the units I wanted to take anyway. And these other three units have this combo.
I'll give you that the stratagem system often makes every unit potent to do things you might not expect. Even a base CSM squad might end up attacking twice with+1 to wound while you expected them to be nothing more than a nuisance. But that's the game and they're superhuman CC Killers blessed by Khorne, what did you expect?

and you can always ask your opponent about stuff like that like you always had to. If you're not in Karols group your opponents won't be sociopaths that lie to you.
Those Wulfen in 7th killed your whole army on their own once, but after that you knew you had to point every single weapon at them turn 1.

**Sgt. Cortez**

I get the feeling the discussion is mainly about stratagems changing the role of a unit or improving a unit surprisingly. Well, you can explain to your opponent what you have in the pocket, you always had to when playing 40K against someone who's not familiar with your faction. And as usual these are things you learn pretty fast. After one game against 9th edition Necrons I knew Lychguard can kill anything they touch due to some stratagems.
It's just practice. People keep saying 40K is unique in that, I'd say they should try Star Trek Attack Wing (or I assume X-Wing), where your base model only gives you a hint what it can do, while the real strength comes from the equipment.
I do get the complaint about the base rules being pretty light (they always were, just more complicated with no positive effect in earlier editions) but I'm not following the arguments against faction rules and such. I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Crunch enables you to feel the fluff manifesting on the tabletop. That's it.

Let's condense the model and rules range of 40k back to a single model: A tactical Space Marine (from 3rd edition).

That is the model and the rule everybody has to use, even though in the fluff some people play Guard, some play Orks, some Tyranids and so on.

Pretty gakky for immersion, innit?

So we add a new model, the imperial Guardsman.

Now at least we can already have Marines, Renegades, Imperial Guard and Traitor Guard visually distinct on the battlefield, even if they all play the same.

What's worse, it doesn't feel right that the much smaller looking Guard model got the same save like the Marine, the same weapon, even though the fluff makes a big fuss about how much better a Bolter is to a Lasgun and all across the same stats.

The logical next step is to give the Guard model different stats from the Marine, to make it feel right.

If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.

The reason we need rules distinction for (sub)factions in a nutshell.

Nobody said they need to be competitive, though.

Right, but all this is secondary.

Lets take your example and start with the 3rd edition Space Marine. Everyone has to play him, no matter what army identity they choose. During the turn, they can:

1) Do backflips, which makes him lose his armor bonus but gain +3" of vertical movement.
2) Suppress the enemy with his gun, which makes the enemy 3rd Edition Space Marines a little upset but has no impact.
3) Set himself on fire to protest the current suffering by xenos everywhere, which gives his own 3rd Edition Space Marines -1 morale but makes Xenos 3rd Edition Space Marines reroll successful hits against his squad out of sympathy

etc.

None of it makes any sense. If you add imperial guardsmen to this, make his gun strength 3 and armor 5+, it still doesn't make any sense. The core rules have to be sufficiently immersive and realistic BEFORE we worry about adding in differentiation, otherwise you get... well, what we have now. A whole bunch of well-represented factions that are unable to do basic gak like suppress the enemy, interfere with the enemy's command-and-control infrastructure, or react when the enemy moves out right before their eyes.

I guess it's a question of what you want out of the game.
I'm also playing Oathmark, which is probably what you would like for 40K. It's a miniature agnostic system that features humans, orks, elves, Goblins, dwarfs and undead, each with their own statlines but very similar profiles. It doesn't matter though if your humans are vikings, gondorians, empire troops, romans, Samurai, whatever, they're just humans, either militia or elite. It also doesn't matter if you use Lotr Orks or Warhammer Orks, or these huge Conquest guys, they're all just Orks. This is basically fine but we realized after some games you just want to personalize your kingdom in some way, so that your ranked Phalanx spearmen are somehow different to the barbarians they're facing. Guess what, the game gives you the option to add formations to your roster, so the barbarian guy adds the option to add javelins, and the spearmen guy adds a better Phalanx rule to his troops et voilà, already you have some narrative difference between the two kingdoms of the same faction.
What I'm getting at, a strong base rule is always fine but 40K never had that, so in my opinion it's okay that 40K at least gives you the option now to really dive into the subfaction rules to personalize your army (granted, it would be even better if GW hadn't introduced their stupid no model no rules Dogma but it's what it is). Unfortunately on dakka many seem to see these rules as bloat. I have to say though, just yesterday I had a look at the onepage 40K CSM rules and realized, they didn't even feature marks of Chaos, let alone legions, which I think is a huge miss.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?

No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.

For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.

If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.

Yeah, well, 30K rules aren't solid, though, they're the bloated mess of 7th Edition. Forgeworld made them work a bit, but it's still a barely functional, overcomplicated game in my eyes. The only thing 30K handles better than 9th edition is morale, really. Strange that you mention 30K as it has even more rules to differentiate Marine legions from one another.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, well, 30K rules aren't solid, though, they're the bloated mess of 7th Edition. Forgeworld made them work a bit, but it's still a barely functional, overcomplicated game in my eyes. The only thing 30K handles better than 9th edition is morale, really. Strange that you mention 30K as it has even more rules to differentiate Marine legions from one another.

7th was bloated because of everything EXTERNAL to the core rules, just like 9th. The core rules were flawed in a few significant ways, and the 30k rulebook (which is actually different than 7th) fixes many of those. Could you give an example of the overcomplication you're talking about?

Nearly all vehicle rules for example. They are made useless by the fact that hull points exist, turning tanks into very squishy units. 30K reacts to that by giving every tank options like armoured ceramite that let's them ignore antitank rules. 30K also uses lots of superheavies that outright ignore most vehicle rules. The walkers of the Mechanicum aren't actually walkers, but most of them are monstrous creatures because again, the vehicle rules just don't work. And that’s not only because of tank shock.

Unit types. 7th Edition has a load of unit types that most of the time are a complicated way to say: this unit moves more than 6inches.

Ap-system. In a game where most armies are Marines having a 3+, every weapon with an AP of 4 or less is practically useless if it doesn't also have lots of shots or high strength.

psychic phase. I won't say much here because it could be it got totally reworked in 30K, not sure. But 7th psychic rules were terrible, denying was impossible and most psykers were reduced to being batteries.

CC and challenges. CC is complicated and as a player there's nothing you can do once it started, you roll dice until one side is dead. Challenges are cool as a concept, but they turned most small characters into a liability.

Wound allocation. Yes, it's not 5th edition shenanigans anymore, but taking Casualties from the front was a bad idea in a game where CC is very prevalent. Once you add blast rules it also creates very strange situations, killing models that aren't under the template.

WS system. A whole table to tell you that any unit hits either on a 3 or a 4. If it falls to fear it hits on 5s.

Note I'm not saying 9th couldn't do with some more unit types than fly and not fly, and having no USRs left because of 7th was a bad idea, too. I also like that 7th/30K is not as deadly and hope in the end of 9th we'll be there again due to many things having more wounds or higher T then. But overall 7th/30K just had a lot of unnecessarily complicated rules that served no purpose but slowing the game down. After years of playing I still had to look up the unit types or movement rules of tanks in every single game.

**Sgt. Cortez**

I think you guys just miss what the game wants to do or lets you do.
My guess is that more than half of 40K players are actually garagehammer types of people that do more collecting than playing. For these people 8th and 9th edition is okay. The base rules are straightforward so you can easily remember them even when playing only once per month and the Codizes really go into depth to put every nonsense from the fluff on the table through faction rules and stratagems. Just like prior editions it's not a deep game but even more than prior editions it plays into 40K just being a Michael Bay movie on the tabletop. If you want 40K as a historical Simulation you probably look at Onepage 40K or anything else with alternating activations.
40K is about Goblins in Space fighting Knights in Space fighting giant robots fighting Aliens fighting aircraft hitting things with your Sword and firing cruise missiles at point blank range.
40K thrives through its huge amount of factions and models, there's some Sci-Fi trope in there for everyone to fight any other Sci-Fi trope and that’s awesome. Does this work as a highly tactical, even competitive game? Well it does for some apparently but I don't think it's the point of the game.
Joseph McCollough said about 50% of the hobby are just inside your head, you plan your army, or campaigns, or make lists, or invent scenarios or whatever. And for that 9th's "complexity" is great. You have internally balanced Codizes giving you loads of playstyles (If you have a new Codex, that is, I'm not denying GW also messed up a lot of things organizing 9th), you have crusade to develop your dudes, you get mission Pack DLCs, you can read BL books to inspire you, and again, you just have more factions than any other game.

**Sgt. Cortez**

@sim-life I'm also on the phone, but I'm too stupid to do these split up quotes. I thought we just have to agree to disagree, for me it doesn't matter if something gives you the same effect as something in another codex. I mean, 8th and 9th took the unnecessary approach to name every single kind of former "deep strike" differently, despite them all being the same and always having been the same. And I don't feel that's a problem. Same with your examples, though I'd also like a USR for that -1 to hit. To me the factions actually do feel much more differently than earlier. I mean, from 4the to 7th edition there was no difference between any of the Chaos legions and the CSM themselves also were, aside from their marks and Daemon engines, also pretty close to SM. Now every Legion has its subfaction rules, DG and TS even have subsubfaction rules that also allow for different playstyles (like an army with a psyker focus, a Zombie horde, a mechanized list, a Terminator list, or flamers for DG, all supported by their own subfactions). You say you don't see that difference but I don't know why you don't. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more? I'd get the complaint if we were talking about Lotr, which, despite having superior and more tactical core rules, has very similar factions. A Gondorian is basically the same as an Easterling and a Haradhrim is the same as a Rohan guy. You just have different Heroes to lead them, maybe one or two special rules but that’s it. You don't have a huge roster to change your list and you have very few and restricted faction rules. 40K since 8th really tries to give you loads of ways to differentiate the factions (too bad they took away equipment options at the same time).

**Sgt. Cortez**

Sim-Life wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more?.

GW have the system in place to make the factions feel more different, they just can't be arsed using it. Probably because it would actually take effort to balance.

Why give GSC a specific rule for deep strike which is the exact same as everyone else, why not give them a special deep strike that allows them to be closer than usual?

Why are Imperial Guard snipers with a bit of training and a few battles under their belt exactly as sneaky as Eldar snipers, who've had likely hundreds of years of experience and several lifetimes of training and have more advanced equipment equally as sneaky? Why can't pathfinders break the -1 modifier limit rule to reflect this difference?

Why do lychguard shields, which are thousands of years more advanced than normal storm shields act exactly like one? Why don't the reflect shots back at attackers like they used to?

Why have pyrovores NEVER had good rules? Why are GW so tied to them being a really expensive flamer? Why not just give them some kind of anti-infantry spore mine? Speaking of which, why did tyranids forget how to make different kinds of spore mines? We used to get three different kinds, which the hive mind just forgot about?

Why did obliterators become ork lootas with random guns stats (probably because GW thinks people play the game to roll dice, more dice rolling means more strategy right?) rather than just being allowed to choose a gun to manifest from the basic autocannon/lascannon/plasma cannon etc profiles?

If you want to make factions feel different why not just have them remove the Core rules from certain units and grant them to others and change how detachments work in regards to them. You want to make a melee focussed space marine army? Give Assault Marines and Termies Core, have them count as Troops for the purpose of filling out your detachment. This is ignoring the fact that just about every unit in the space marine army already has core, which was a really stupid move.

I mean I could go on, but there's so many ways they could make units feel unique and fluffy which they don't bother with. In a lot of cases they DID have unique, thematic rules but they took them away in an ill-begotten attempt to appeal to the competitive crowd.

I think I get what you're saying and I'm even with you on criticizing the very careful approach GW took with 9th in that some base rules aren't broken with the next best codex. There always was someone in prior editions who broke the Deep strike restrictions and more often than not the factions left out but which would have been fitting, too, felt bad. usually SM, especially Blood Angels had some way around the restrictions or Drop pods while CSM are left with their Rhinos since 3rd Edition

However, I don't think more interesting unit rules and the more interesting faction rules we have now aren't mutually exklusive. Many of these special rules have been moved to strats(Lychguard shields I think) - you don't like that, I'm okay with it. I also think the whole aspect of moving core around... Well, this was interesting in 5th when there was a fixed foc, now just build the army you consider to be interesting, there are very little restrictions how you organize your army, still, Ravenwing pretty much has what you want, no? So it's not out of question we see more of that.
Also you don't have three Spore mines anymore, instead you got 3 carnifexes or 3 battlewagon types, looks like a sidestep to me.

You also hint at the lack of fluff representation between Xenos especially Eldar and Imperium rules and on that I agree, too. i mean, none of those stupid assassins should be better than a Death jester... But that's not a new problem unfortunately, I'd say Primaris just made it even more apparent.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Vatsetis should enlight the dumb plebs that we are on how real differences in a proper tabletop restaurant look.
Because so far he's just talking crap.

**Sgt. Cortez**

vipoid wrote:
ccs wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Its interesting that people are using WMH as a comparison actually since that game is basically dead due to a lot if the same things GW is guilty of.

Subfactions giving unique bonuses resulting in terrible balance? Check.
Uneven updates for each faction? Check.
Individual rules on every unit? Check.
SKU bloat? Check.
Lots of homework to be able to be comptetitive? Check.
Overpriced models? Check.
Annual changes to scenarios? Check.
Alternative methods of play no one cares about beyond a set way to play that is considered "standard"? Check.
Alternative systems within the company are better written but receive less attention? Check

Privateer must've done something else wrong since GWs been guilty of most of what you list before WMH ever existed.

I imagine a key difference is that 40k is much older and well-established, and stemmed from a time when there was far less competition. Hence, it's far better known and far more people are likely to have invested in it in some manner.

There are also other aspects, e.g. (notwithstanding godawful recent policies) 40k was a lot more conversion-friendly, encouraging people to create custom models (which they'll likely feel much more attached to and inclined to use than off-the-shelf models). Plus it had extensive lore that (from what I've seen) seems to grip people much more than WMH's lore.

In the end a lot comes down to models. Dakka likes to put many thoughts on rules but the most important aspect of a wargame are usually the models. And most WMH models look pretty crappy, are made from metal, are even more expensive than GW and are monopose. Add to that a focus on competitive play that's also not interesting for many people. WMH had good times because 6th and 7th Edition of 40K were pretty bad, but with 8th edition and bad decisions from PP it fell apart quickly.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Daedalus81 wrote:
vipoid wrote:
With regard to Stratagems, I don't like them in the first place as I believe they are unnecessary and place more emphasis on a card-game than what's actually happening on the board.

However, if we are going to be stuck with the bloody things for the foreseeable future, would it be too much to ask that they be sensibly named?

Since Death Guard was brought up earlier, let's look at some of their stratagems.

Any non-Death Guard players want to guess what Creeping Blight does? How about Haze of Corruption?

How do you think Fire Fever differs from Vermid Whispers?

How about Diseased Effluent or Befouled Incubators?

I'm sure I'll be told that this sort of naming is for flavour but to me it just makes them pretentious (especially when the effect is just reroll 1s to hit or some other time-wasting faffle like that) and awkward to remember.

And it's even worse when this is just one layer of awkward and unintuitively labelled rules that I'm expected to remember. I had a glance at the AdMech codex a few months back and many of the rules might as well have been written in another language for all the sense they made.

Literally no one references rules by their proper name unless they're also explaining what it does.

Well, the famous ones like Veterans of the long war, death to the false Emperor and common faction specific rules or often used stratagems are usually called with their official names, no?

**Sgt. Cortez**

I must say as someone who likes to defend 9th I get the impression that people who criticize it imply that 3rd - 7th were somehow less bloated with rules or had better balance, which is simply not true in my eyes. It might have been a different experience, more like a warsimulation, that I can get. But it wasn't very tactical since it also had 40Ks main problem of IGOUGO, it always had a much more bloated main rulebook than 9th, it just had lighter codizes instead (sometimes), but balance was all over the place which I don't feel is as bad anymore if you compare 9th codizes with each other.

**Sgt. Cortez**

a_typical_hero wrote:
Karol wrote:
...

In forums all around the world and on YT and Twitch you have people talk more about matched played games then about any other way of playing. If open or narrative was the way majority of how people play, there would be a lot more material about it. And I mean around the world.

Go ask in a hardware enthusiast forum about their PC specs. Compare the result with what people are actually using on Steam.

Matched play is neither at odds with a casual approach nor does it automatically mean "2k tournament lists, RAW only". For example threads in the past showed how divided people on Dakka are about handing out 10 VP for a fully painted army. So all of those people who don't use the rule aren't playing "Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof" already. So the opinion of half (made up number) of all the posters from those threads are irrelevant? Bold

And if we want to take this forum as representitive, don't forget the other thread about point sizes being played. It was far from "2k only".

I'm with you here. Matched, 2kplay without legends and only on min sized tables only is something I only expect from tournaments, but outside of these I don't think it's the norm. Yes, I only have my personal experience where I don't know anyone who plays that assumed "tournament standard", but I'm pretty sure my group can't be the only one. I do get that this style of play gets the most focus when discussing balance or tactics, because then everybody assumes the same basis from which to compare units. It doesn't mean that it's the most common way to play though. I mean, noone in their right mind would actually "shelf" units because GW provides their rules for free instead of in an expensive book (legends). People play what they have painted or what fits their theme or the narrative, or what was in their starterbox and yes, they might also consider what's strong, but that's just one of many boxes to tick.

**Sgt. Cortez**

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
Sledgehammer wrote:
ccs wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:

You keep refering to your group and about how casual and friendly it all is. This is not the normal experience people will have with 40k, most people will have to play randoms, not have the choice to play anything but Matched 2k no house rules, opponents won't tone down lists or any combination thereof, therefore your opinions on the game and the meta are of no use to the discussion. It's pretty simple.

Unless you seriously believe the only way the majority play 40k is the tournament scene, you're full of crap on this.

1.5k to 2k matched play is by far and away what i see at almost any gameshop I have ever been to or played at.

Everything otherwise has been in a campaign setting that requires a lot more coordination, commitment and leadership.

Most people are not toning down lists and forming impromptu rules in their games with strangers during pick up games.

You are correct - 95% of all 40k is actually played in the tournament setting. Yet - most of those games are considered casual...

But where do you get that number from? I'll take your 95% and raise my guestimation of 70% of players not caring about tournament play and the according "standard" at all. I made that number up exactly as much as you did.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Slipspace wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still don't understand the purpose of "Open Play".

Nor do I. It's some sort of weird official ruling that you don't have to follow any of their official rules. I think it's probably because "2 ways to play" doesn't sound very impressive so they added on the third to make it sound better.

The open war cards are a fun way to play (I think I played more games with these than matched play missions in 8th), but I agree, you don't need a "game Mode" that says, use these Cards or do what you want.