Switch Theme:

The extreme quantity of layered rules is a reaction to the stat squish in 8th  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.

In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)

Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.

Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.

Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.

I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.

The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I can appreciate this line of reasoning. Makes a lot of sense. I would welcome the return of different stats, and maybe the introduction of more though I wouldn’t be qualified to responsibly propose what these might be.
I would equally welcome the return of USRs and at least the option to play without cp and other tricksiness… I wonder if such a move is even possible, though, without alienating the supposedly huge influx of paying fans new since stats were squished and USRs axed and so on… ?

   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




 jeff white wrote:
I can appreciate this line of reasoning. Makes a lot of sense. I would welcome the return of different stats, and maybe the introduction of more though I wouldn’t be qualified to responsibly propose what these might be.
I would equally welcome the return of USRs and at least the option to play without cp and other tricksiness… I wonder if such a move is even possible, though, without alienating the supposedly huge influx of paying fans new since stats were squished and USRs axed and so on… ?


I don't think GW moving away from stratagems in any way shape or form is not going to happen in this edition at least. They are way to heavily invested in it.

USRs are fine, but I do not believe it would ultimately fix the issue I tried to raise, because of the limited unit statblock GW would eventually move back to unit special rules. Maybe fewer unit special rules and more USRs, but I would argue it would only diminish the issue, not solve it.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Yeah, I agree. I just added those ideas in as a general look back, still wondering if such a move is even possible, I mean, the stratagems and co economy seem to have replaced the functionality inherent n those old stats,… so, is it even possible to get them back?

   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




 jeff white wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I just added those ideas in as a general look back, still wondering if such a move is even possible, I mean, the stratagems and co economy seem to have replaced the functionality inherent n those old stats,… so, is it even possible to get them back?


Not without revising the base rules and unit stats again for 10th edition.

You could go back to WS/BS values and Initiative. You'd have to expand the WS comparison chart to allow for +2 to hit etc, but this would be a soft dmg nerf for melee and you can't do that without nerfing shooting also which is already too deadly.

It's a mess, but my point is that we need these layered special rules as a means of differentation, even though it's generally an impractical idea.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?

As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.

I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.

The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






I think the cause in this 'cause & effect' equation is that there are too many units in the game.

Sadly I think the only solution now is a mass culling of units.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Tiberias wrote:
As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.

In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)

Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.

Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.

Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.

I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.

The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.


Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.

As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.

What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tyel wrote:I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?

As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.

I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.

The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.


Yes, they did. By removing the WS comparison they removed another possible layer of differentiation within the statblock, same with initiative. Just bringing that back wouldn't do it though. The old WS comparison chart was very limited and suboptimal. It would have to be expanded like this for example:

Spoiler:




You'd also have to expand the range of WS distributed among units. In earlier editions you almost never had units above WS4, WS5 was very rare and WS6-8 was only used on characters and basically useless, because with the old chart the best case scenario was to hit on 3+. You'd have to make use of that higher range for elite units like harlequins or banshees for example.


But even if you do this you'd have to re-design shooting because it would be way too deadly in comparison to melee. So implementing this would require a redesigned ruleset and a new edition, and I don't think GW will go back, so were stuck with layers of special rules. Which brings us to another problem: if you rely on these layers of special rules of differentiatioen the cap to modifiers to hit at +1/-1 was an absolute desaster from a game design standpoint.
I get that -4 to hit eldar in 8th was stupid and a problem, but in 9th an unmodified 6 always hits anway and now getting minus to hit both in melee and shooting infinitely less valuable because of the cap they implemented. It also limits another layer of differentiation. They should have capped it at -2.

A good example of this is the new black templars emperors champion. He has a rule where he is -1 to hit in melee, thus in a way representing his skill with his sword or something along those lines. Which is GW trying to differentiate this character as a melee duelist who hunts enemy characters. But with hit modifiers capped at +1/-1 this rule is not very valuable due to all the re-rolls that exist nowadays and it is completely useless against anything that gets -1 innately due to a thunderhammer for example.

oni wrote:I think the cause in this 'cause & effect' equation is that there are too many units in the game.

Sadly I think the only solution now is a mass culling of units.


I don't think that is a realistic scenario. GW is actively re-designing old miniature ranges and increasing model-diversity in newly released armies. If anything the trend goes towards even more different units.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
As the title suggests: many people have complained about the extreme quantity of layers upon layers of rules for one unit nowadays. A good example here would be admech and obviously space marines.

In my opinion this trend is an inevitable reaction to the stat squish that happened in the advent of 8th edition (no more WS/BS values, no more initiative, toughness capped at 8...)

Why? Because in a game like 40k you need to have differentiation between the different units and factions. A factions lore has to be, at least in part, represented in the game. It has to play and feel different if a space marine tries to hit an ork or a bloodthirster. It has to play and feel different if a lasgun shot attempts to wound a grot or a tank. Additionally you need this differentiation within a faction: it has to play and feel different if a grot tries to hit a space marine than if a meganob tries to hit a space marine.

Currently this differentiation is difficult to represent primarily within the unit statblock due to the plethora of factions and units. We only have a D6 system and a statblock from 1-10, so there are not a lot of layers to represent the difference in quality and playstyle across units. This was only exacerbated by the stat squish at the beginning of 8th ed.

Nowadays GW tries to represent this differentiation between units and factions not primarily within the units stats (WS/S/T etc.) since those are increasingly limited, but with layers upon layers of special rules.

I understand why GW made that move to squish the statblock. They wanted to streamline the game, but I believe it was short sighted.
My point is that the extreme quantity of layered rules nowadays is partly a reaction to what I have described here and it's only going to get worse...it has to.

The thing is, I am not opposed to all theses layered special rules because GW has to represent differentiation between units and factions somehow and I don't think they have another option now unless they revise the unit statblock again or moves to a D10 system, which is not going to happen. But to me the question remains if we are eventually going to see a revised unit statline again in 10th Ed, because the number of special rules may have reached a quantity that proves to be simply impractical.


Its amazing how many editions of warhammer didn't have the layers and layers of rules or the extreme need to differentiate factions. Its just a bad solution of the current rules writers.

As for the 'stat squish'... I... don't know what you're referring to?
BS and WS still exist. They've just gotten rid of the formula (BS: 7 - 4 = 3+, 7-3 =4+) and the WS comparison (for a value that's basically setting a faction to being equal or better than opponent all the time, depending on how GW feels about how skilled they are)
Toughness isn't any more capped than it was before. In theory they could go higher (but there are a lot of factions that would be terrible at killing things with higher numbers)
If anything, they've been more open to changing stat blocks recently- see DE and Orks.

What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.
They can freely trim special rules without issue, they simply don't want to.


WS/BS still exist, but it does not matter what you hit. It's not more or less difficult for a grot to hit a bloodthirster or a guardsman. Initative also doesn't play a role anymore in fight sequencing.
Again as I said, I wouldn't want to see a return to the old comparison chart/system because that had big problems also, but a revised version. And you couldn't just implement that, but you'd have to revise the whole rulebook.

I completely agree on weapon profiles though. The exreme proliferation of high AP weapons everywhere was a big mistake. Lethality of shooting especially moved quite a few steps ahead of surviabilty....which is another reason for the piling of special rules among special rules to increase toughness.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 22:47:23


 
   
Made in au
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend




Australia

I don't see GW revising the statblock in 10th - feels to me like the 8th edition model is going to be the norm for the foreseeable future.

The Circle of Iniquity
The Fourth Seal
(HN) wrote:
It's an objectively mediocre book from the rule, lore, edition, content, hobby point of view.
 
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

As I am getting deeper into Bolt Action, I think GW's "every little nuance" attempt is revolting. The level of detail they are imparting into the figures is fine for something of the level of Kill team where you have maybe 10 guys you are tracking, but for the size of 40K, it's pure stupidity and bloat for bloat's sake.

I'm glad I got off the 40K wagon, and if were to pick it back up, I'd go back to the 8E indexes.

It never ends well 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

Tempted to try a bit of an experiment myself with 9th rules, 8th Indexes and a short list of universal Strats and per round CP like AoS

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






Voss wrote:

What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.


While AP modifiers are dolled out like candy on Halloween, the issue runs deeper.

Going back to my point about there being too many units... Too many different units also means too many different weapons. How exactly does one continue to add to and differentiate between the literally 40+ bolt weapons that are now in the game?

This issue is becoming a problem for all factions.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 oni wrote:
Voss wrote:

What they need to do is revist weapon profiles and rein them in. That's where most of the trouble is (in terms of statlines), the extreme number of shots and weapons that are universally better at everything.


While AP modifiers are dolled out like candy on Halloween, the issue runs deeper.

Yeah, honestly I wasn't even thinking about AP. The biggest issue is number of attacks. Volume of fire makes the medium weapons better Anti-tank AND anti-infantry weapons.

Going back to my point about there being too many units... Too many different units also means too many different weapons. How exactly does one continue to add to and differentiate between the literally 40+ bolt weapons that are now in the game?

Well, I know what I'd do.
All bolt pistols are either 12" S4 AP-1 or 18" S4 Ap0 [which you pick depends on design goals for the game]

All bolt guns/rifles/carbines at MOST have a choice of profile
24" Assault 2, S4 AP 0;
30" Rapid Fire 1 S4 AP-1; OR
36" Heavy 1 S5 AP-1
That's it, those are the only options. Doesn't matter what its called.

And then the heavy bolter and various gravis heavy whatever rifles can go to a combined profile as well:
36 heavy 3 S5, AP-2 (or whatever)

Not set in stone, tweak to the game's design goals (which presumably someone thought about ahead of time). As long as there is one pistol profile, one 'boltgun' profile and one heavy profile.
Mastercrafted, artificer or whatever for characters is +1D.

All the rest is bloat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 23:43:28


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
I'm not really convinced. Did 8th squish the stat block?

As far as I can see GW has tried to vary the basic stats of units far more considerably than they were. Hence a lot of complaints - because previously you had GEQ and MEQ covering... the vast majority of infantry in the game.

I mean you can say most characters just being WS/BS 2+/2+ is slightly different to Dave the Space Marine Captain being WS 6, Tim the Archon being WS 7 and the Avatar of Khaine is WS 10... but I'm not convinced it materially alters the game from what you have now. S and T were essentially the same as well.

The basic issue as I see it is just that GW think rules are cool, and that's why they insist on keep adding to them.


Right. Emphasis on the last statement.

Overall the stat block increased. W1/2/3, -1D, transhuman. GW could do a few things with going over T8, but that doesn't affect the whole game.

The reason for layered rules was simply the design space needed to express the armies in a way they wanted to. Back when marines were the only ones with layered rules lots of people complained about not having the same treatment.

   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

I'm not convinced that the change to WS and BS matters all that much. The vast majority or units having WS 3 or 4 back before 8th means even if you changed the WS chart to be less stupid you'd still rarely see much difference overall outside of characters and a few monstrous creatures. I don't think they'd be much added differentiation outside of Daemons Custodies.

Also increased AP thing. it's something I've often heard on the forum as an example of the increased lethality, but from my own observation AP and the amount of high AP weapons have been relatively stable since 5th outside the introduction of the Primaris and SM doctrine.

Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

I think the OP has this completely wrong. There was not discernible stat squish between 7th and 8th, which as actually a problem. The rules around the stats changed while the stats didn't. Compare that to what they have done in 9th and you can see that GW has freed themselves from the shackles of pre-8th edition stats.

Now the question of layered rules is different. Those keep proliferating in an effort to make more and more differentiation between closer and closer units. The entire purpose of the Chapter Tactics layer of rules is to have otherwise identical models behave differently during the game. Trying the play an Ultramarines unit like a White Scars unit will lead to disaster. The same holds true for the other layers of rules. They all make otherwise similar models (even in one area) behave differently on the table top. Ork Nobs and Death Guard are both T5, W2 models with only a modest save difference (4+ vs 3+) and yet you want to use completely different weapons to kill them thanks to Disgustingly Resilient.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not convinced that the change to WS and BS matters all that much. The vast majority or units having WS 3 or 4 back before 8th means even if you changed the WS chart to be less stupid you'd still rarely see much difference overall outside of characters and a few monstrous creatures.


It really doesn't. It shifted the odds a little for some character matchups and some mirror matches (marines vs marines are now 3+ rather than 4+).
In many ways, the -1 to hit with powerfists and other 'big weapons' matters more.

The BS change actually isn't one. It just removed the layer of obfuscation. Instead of 7-BS, it just straight-up gives you the result: the target number. The removal of most modifiers and hard cap (+/- 1 max) on the remainder is the significant change.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/18 03:36:30


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think my point was a bit misunderstood in the last few posts.

I not arguing that the old system was better than the current. But GW could have improved and expanded that system, like allowing for 2+ to hit in the comparison chart and distributing a wider range of WS/BS and initiative.

That way they would have another tool of differentiation within the statblock of units without relying on more and more layers of special rules.

And I'll reiterate, I'm not against multitude of special rules in 9th, because in my opinion GW has written themself into a corner regarding the rules and they now have to rely on a multitude of special rules to achieve differentiation. But this is still better than having not differentiation at all.

I am very much agains the cap on modifiers and the proliferation of high AP shooting everywhere
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 alextroy wrote:
I think the OP has this completely wrong. There was not discernible stat squish between 7th and 8th, which as actually a problem. The rules around the stats changed while the stats didn't. Compare that to what they have done in 9th and you can see that GW has freed themselves from the shackles of pre-8th edition stats.

Now the question of layered rules is different. Those keep proliferating in an effort to make more and more differentiation between closer and closer units. The entire purpose of the Chapter Tactics layer of rules is to have otherwise identical models behave differently during the game. Trying the play an Ultramarines unit like a White Scars unit will lead to disaster. The same holds true for the other layers of rules. They all make otherwise similar models (even in one area) behave differently on the table top. Ork Nobs and Death Guard are both T5, W2 models with only a modest save difference (4+ vs 3+) and yet you want to use completely different weapons to kill them thanks to Disgustingly Resilient.


Chapter traits are good. IMHO one of the best improvement in 40k compared to older edition is that chapters/klans/dynasties etc... have their own rules which lead to a different playstyle. It adds variety/longevity to an army, which is always positive. Now if I get bored of my list I may simply change klan and a few units instead of buying new stuff in bulk.

What is not good is having tons of layered rules slapped on units. Regular SM dudes have 6-7 (Angels of Death alone is 4 rules), and only one is the chapter trait. That's the issue. Example: my SW grey hunters should simply have +1 to hit in combat (SW tactics), morale mitigation system (SM thing) and obj sec if they are troops. Nothing else. No bolter discipline, no combat doctrines, no shock assault, etc... Blood Claws even have two more. Give them flat +1A in their profile if you want them to be better in combat, not something like the Shock Assault layered rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 07:09:49



 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

I do not agree with the premise of the discussion. It is more a matter of having some 25 armies that need to be fierenciated within the rule sett.

Also regarding the squished statlines 9th edition has done a lot to make them unique by playing around with the wounds. We saw 3 wound tyranid warriors in 8th edition to test it out, and it felt unique and great. Come around 9th edition and we see entire armies with muktiwound models as standar. Initiative might be gone, but back in fifth edition most things had only one wound, inuding tanks. (Monsters might have had muktiwound, I do not remember.) Mind you tanks had a secondary 'armour save' in that horrible damage table.

   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I'm in agreement with oni that the problem is really the number of units in the game, and the number of different factions. It's more suitable for something like an RPG setting than a competitive wargame. I like all the models, don't get me wrong, but it's a really difficult design challenge if you want to make all the differences meaningful.

I don't think I could do it any better than they are without reducing the complexity by making a lot of units pretty similar to each other.

   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





The Shire(s)

I think the re-introduction of movement values was a much bigger expansion to the stat block than the removal of initiative was a loss. I appreciate that happened before 8, but it was part of the same trend.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Haighus wrote:
I think the re-introduction of movement values was a much bigger expansion to the stat block than the removal of initiative was a loss. I appreciate that happened before 8, but it was part of the same trend.


Agreed, and in keeping with the trend to increase damage in weapons GW messed up by making many M values too high and adding in too many ways to double move or advance and charge. Overall the reintroduction of Movement values has been a good thing but I think it's been mishandled in the execution (which could well be GW's company motto at this point).
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Aye - should've based the M stat around 4" rather than 6".

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?

"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"

"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?

"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"

"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"


I dunno. The new books change the way some of these armies play pretty significantly. And while they could have just hit the highlights there's a lot of old and creaky stuff in that book.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?

"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"

"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"


Or the old GW classic conundrum - they went overboard with their first foray into something (Cough Cough Space Marine 2.0) and rather than dialing that back in any meaningful way, they tried to list everybody else's power level up to that, with varying degrees of success, and tried a round-about method of curbing that excess with a series of Send-In-A-Spider-To-Swallow-The-Fly rules.

Eldar can stack -5 to hit on their flyers, aw dag oh man we should solve that by...making it a gamewide rule that everyone can only get -1/+1 to hit!

Oh, rats, shoot, now its way easier to damage stuff that used to rely on hit mods, um, drukhari get super powerful invulnerable saves on everything now, yeah, and we'll make their vehicles really cheap!

oof, ouch, drukhari are really powerful, I know, we'll release admech with super super strong shooting that's really great at killing drukhari profiles!

Oh no, admech can blow up drukhari but they REALLY REALLY blow up everyone else! um um um terrain setups that are huge giant LOS block parking lots? Does that help?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?

"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"

"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"


I dunno. The new books change the way some of these armies play pretty significantly. And while they could have just hit the highlights there's a lot of old and creaky stuff in that book.


Right, they do change things, that's my point.

A "codex update" could literally be a .pdf, updating the wording to 9th, adjusting points costs again, maybe adding another unit datasheet or two for model releases and possibly changing some core army mechanics if the designers decide to tweak the playstyle of the faction.

But such an "update" doesn't do a great job of convincing marketing to pay you... so better lay on the changes! And since you don't want to invalidate people's collections / totally revamp the army again and again, this can only come in the form of MORE MORE MORE! Adding MORE rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 20:26:13


 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a lot of the new rules might be the game designers justifying their own existence. Can you imagine if the 9th edition Guard codex was truly an update to the 8th one?

"Okay we are paying you (salary) and it's been four years since the release, what did you do?"

"Well, we folded in the Vigilus stuff to allow different regiment types. Updated the language to 9th (failed hits -> hits, etc.) and tweaked points to adjust unit functionality in the competitive scene (which we plan to update again in 3 months anyways)"


Or the old GW classic conundrum - they went overboard with their first foray into something (Cough Cough Space Marine 2.0) and rather than dialing that back in any meaningful way, they tried to list everybody else's power level up to that, with varying degrees of success, and tried a round-about method of curbing that excess with a series of Send-In-A-Spider-To-Swallow-The-Fly rules.

Eldar can stack -5 to hit on their flyers, aw dag oh man we should solve that by...making it a gamewide rule that everyone can only get -1/+1 to hit!

Oh, rats, shoot, now its way easier to damage stuff that used to rely on hit mods, um, drukhari get super powerful invulnerable saves on everything now, yeah, and we'll make their vehicles really cheap!

oof, ouch, drukhari are really powerful, I know, we'll release admech with super super strong shooting that's really great at killing drukhari profiles!

Oh no, admech can blow up drukhari but they REALLY REALLY blow up everyone else! um um um terrain setups that are huge giant LOS block parking lots? Does that help?

Whack a (plastic crack) mole… no it does not help!

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: