Switch Theme:

One Codex 40k?  [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 us
Dakka Veteran





Lebanon NH


Hey everyone,

So in another thread, someone made a kind of throw-away line similar to:

“There should just be one codex with differences in armies being cosmetic only”

and at first, I laughed at it... and then I thought about it.

So, my question is: why not?

At this point the levels of lethality are off the charts, and the methods of surviving said lethality are pretty universal (move out of LoS, don't be on the table in the first place, invuln saves, etc). Most armies are also having builds where you can focus on vehicles, walkers, elites, swarms, etc. Everyone does this a tiny bit different of course, and the rules are super complex and layered... but do they really need to be?

I'm thinking something along the lines of taking a single codex that has a very good variety of units (honestly, probably the Space Marine one, but it could be others instead,) and then just stripping away the things like stratagems and layers of extra rules (combat doctrines, Mechanicus nonsense, etc) to leave only a core component of stats/weapons and all that. Then, for flavor, have a list of special rules that you get to pick from for whatever type of army you want to field... and that's it.

Think about it: you could release a set of universal stratagems that everyone could use, consistently update and revise the point costs and special rules, and keep everything both super neat and tidy, super easy to get into, and super open to whatever armies/factions a given player wants to represent.

“Gotcha” moments would be severely reduced with this sort of thing, as would having to look up a hundred different rules in a single turn. Balance would be far easier from both a game design perspective and a player expectation perspective. Any “new” units apply to literally EVERYONE'S army and so there is no: “my faction didn't get updated!” stuff either. Even the MODELS don't have to change, provided some reasonable rules are made so that sizes/bases stay the same across the board then GW can continue to produce whatever cool stuff it wants, we can continue to get excited about it, and that is that.

Now, before anyone chimes in: I'm aware that I'm somewhat describing 30k.

To my knowledge though, 30k doesn't get nearly as much love/support by GW anymore. By comparison: 40k is something of the cash cow.

Stepping back a moment, I guess I'm thinking of this now because so much of the recent rules reveals/model reveals have failed to excite me, and many of them have actively disappointed me. I don't want my Custodes to have a ton of silly book-keeping associated with playing them. I don't want to fight an army with a ton of these new Tau railguns. I don't want to have to look at three books and an online FAQ just to figure out how to play a game at my local store. I think I'm just getting a bit sick of it all...

I still love the setting, and I still very much enjoy painting and modeling, and playing games at my local store... I just wish that it didn't seem like it's getting harder and harder to just sit back and enjoy the game.

Okay, that went a little off the rails there. Still, what do you guys think of the single codex idea? Is it the worst thing ever and certain to doom all 40k? Is it the SECOND worst thing ever and only going to partially doom 40k? Is it begrudgingly okay, with some major caveats and revisions?

Let me know your thoughts!
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




I dont think there is any reason it couldnt work technically. But it would be another big step toward the blandification of the game and i would not be in favour at all
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






You may think you are describing HH but you really aren't. Even excluding the fact that Knights, Talons, Mechanicum, Cults/Militia, Auxilia, and Daemons exist, all of the Legions are more than just cosmetic differences. Each one has the same baseline but plays its own way with its own unique rules, units, and wargear. HH is spread across the Black Books (some of which are outdated), the Red Books (which are outdated), FAQs (which are outdated), single-unit PDFs, and now the new Exemplary Battles.
A "One Codex" 40k would be just insanely boring to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/30 18:46:44


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




On paper yes, you could create a dozen or so archetypes and then assign every unit in the game an archetype. No special rules by faction or anything like that.

So a Grot and say a Guardsman would be the same. A Genestealer and Howling Banshee would be the same. A Predator and a Ravager would be the same etc.

Having decided that's a bit bland, you'll then likely design 12 or so USRs. Few enough to remember - but enough to slightly change up the above. Archetype A with USR 1 would be slightly different to Archetype A with USR 2 etc.

But again... it seems kind of dull.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Lebanon NH

Didn't know that about 30k, but then again I've both never played it or even SEEN it played, so my information there is pretty low.

Actually, wasn't the original Rogue Trader done like this as well? I recall something about pretty much everyone having some form of boltgun and power armor.

And going forward, the single codex probably shouldn't just be one of the existing ones. Ideally, it would just take the most iconic units/stats/weapons and then tweak them to be generic versions that can apply to whoever.

Similarly, the special rules you choose could be done simple (like the chapters in the space marines,) or a bit more nuanced to allow for a few more unique styles of play (adapting a Leman Russ into a Tyranid would be difficult, but not impossible. It's all stats and weapons in the end!)

Honestly, I think the idea has some merit if done right! (which would probably be beyond my own abilities, admittedly.)
   
Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

If GW Planned codexes for each specific race at the same stage of the core design process for whatever the next edition happens to be then a lot of issues with special rules bloat wouldn't happen.

GW could even persist with their stretched releases schedules per edition as (I would assume) consistent rules application would mean a less janky approach while retaining each armies individual flavour.
   
Made in ch
Irked Necron Immortal




Switzerland

So, Warcraft I or Warcraft II

This is done very easily, could probably do it right now with CSM since you need very cheap to very expensive stuff.
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





We had something close to this in 40k twice already - index 3rd and index 8th. There are sworn fans of index 40k, but majority of players finds this bland and boring. Mostly because 40k players actually want their rules to be abusable (it's called "finding an optimal build"); don't want to play symmetrical armies, because then you have to own your lack of skill; and because like 90% of the hobby is a solitary activity in between games, people need something to hang on to - theory-hammering, in-game racism, feeling like a special snowflake every now and then, and last but not least, constant influx of things to complain about. You can't have all that with a universal codex 40k - optimal builds will be known within couple of days since the last update; no one will be special, there would be no drive to buy new hotness and 40k will stagnate just as any other game with too little variety.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






leerm02 wrote:

Actually, wasn't the original Rogue Trader done like this as well? I recall something about pretty much everyone having some form of boltgun and power armor.

Troops in RT were already reasonably varied. Not as much as today, but there were still important differences like armor, skill, equipment etc.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

There are already game systems like this - 6-20mm scale games have a few of them. Mostly because a lot of those kind of game tend to be "one man in a shed" type businesses so you've one guy in one county doing models for fun then another who writes some rules etc.. So because there's often only a casual association of models and rules its easier to write a single army profile and then have faction abilities to vary them because the market is more likely to pick and choose models from different firms and such.


Eg Battle Valor is exactly as you say - a single core of rules and then a few specialist rules for each different army. Heck in that game the scale also means that each cavalry model fits to every mount so you can even swap fantasy mounts around between the armies. The rules let you have generic fantasy stats for cavalry or creature specific where the variations are slight its not broken to take wolves as mounts instead of horses etc..




I think one reason GW wouldn't do it - and a big one - is that its a system of rules that is very model agnostic. It basically encourages you to use whatever you want.

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




It can work in an Apokalypse format where you only have an Index for each faction and differences matter more on an army wide level rather than on the unit level. 40K's appeal lies in its focus on differences in models apparently, so we want our plasmagun different from our melta and also our Tau Plasma different from Chaos Plasma.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




No, just no. Terrible idea, especially in a setting like 40k.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Mr. Burning wrote:
If GW Planned codexes for each specific race at the same stage of the core design process for whatever the next edition happens to be then a lot of issues with special rules bloat wouldn't happen.

GW could even persist with their stretched releases schedules per edition as (I would assume) consistent rules application would mean a less janky approach while retaining each armies individual flavour.


^^^^^^ Yeup

But to the OP's point ...

Codex's could be dramatically simplified IMHO, with individual unit entries much simpler (even if it would appear to result in units looking more similar in similar roles comparing across army's) but with the faction differentiation coming through army-wide specific and unique roles.

Let's think about basic unit types for example.... one could come up with a pretty generic list:

- Horde unit (stat lines of 3 across the board as a baseline, 6+ armor save)
- Light infantry (5+ saves, stat line of 3)
- Medium infantry (4+ saves, stat line of 3 typically)
- Heavy/Elite Infantry (3+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Super Elite (2+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Monstrous Creatures / Vehicles (variable saves, high S and T)

Different types of equipment could come in standardized tier-levels, and the selected standard issue would get applied as a baseline for all troops:

- Light weapons (S3 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- Medium weapons (S4 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- High-powered weapons (S5 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire

You then layer on various specialists roles onto the above:

- Faster ground movement (e.g. bikes, Calvary)
- Jump pack / flight / jetback movement
- Assault role (extra attacks, extra S, extra WS)
- Fire support role (enhanced ranged weapons for anti-personal)
- Anti-tank role (enhanced ranged weapons for dealing with armor)

Units can also have various other buffs/abilities that apply to units...

- Deep strike
- Fearless
- Charge bonuses
- Scout/outflank
- Infiltrate

Or to weapons...

- Power
- Melta
- Lance
- Blast

When it comes different armies, you can take the templates above and work out a special way to apply army-wide bonuses/maluses to the unit stats and then special rules on top. Essentially we're talking about unit and weapon design rules with a menu of special abilities that can be grafted on top.

Army-wide systems/mechanics can be things like:

- ATSKNF (marines)
- Re-animation (necrons)
- Markerlights / fire control (Tau)
- Synapse (Tyranids)
- Waaagh + Mob Up (Orks)
- Fleet / Battle Focus (Eldar)
- Fleet / Power from Pain (Dark Eldar)

Oh look .... I just remade 3rd edition

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/30 21:20:13


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Sounds like 3rd but it would get extremely boring. For example Space Wolves were kind of pointless as a separate book when all they got were slightly different tactical marines and a couple special characters. They need to cut down the bloat but not that drastically.
   
Made in ca
Gargantuan Gargant






Yeah, every time they've tried to trim the fat people start complaining about the lack of flavour and there's no real monetary incentive for GW to do this unfortunately. The cat's out of the bag already so to speak, so backtracking and streamlining to such an extent would only foster lots of negative backlash. What GW should really do is release the rules for all the factions at once, similar to the indexes, so that they don't keep changing and shifting design paradigms. It also closes the gap between the haves and have-nots.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Toofast wrote:
Sounds like 3rd but it would get extremely boring. For example Space Wolves were kind of pointless as a separate book when all they got were slightly different tactical marines and a couple special characters. They need to cut down the bloat but not that drastically.


As a sub-faction, how much do they really need to be differentiated?

But even in 3rd edition, space wolves had True Grit (could use a bolter as a CCW), Acute Senses, and Counter-Attack. If even if nothing else was different, those created some very different gameplay situations and capabilities. Then you had grey hunters with expanded weapon choices over a normal tac squad and their ability to drop in highly configurable wolf guard to lead their squads. That WAS a significant level of differentiation IMHO. Not, perhaps, when viewed as complete faction of their own but as a sub-faction it felt entirely fine to me.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Deserter




Canada

Have you looked into Bolt Action & Konflikt '47? that's what you describe....

Pew, Pew! 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Mezmorki wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
If GW Planned codexes for each specific race at the same stage of the core design process for whatever the next edition happens to be then a lot of issues with special rules bloat wouldn't happen.

GW could even persist with their stretched releases schedules per edition as (I would assume) consistent rules application would mean a less janky approach while retaining each armies individual flavour.


^^^^^^ Yeup

But to the OP's point ...

Codex's could be dramatically simplified IMHO, with individual unit entries much simpler (even if it would appear to result in units looking more similar in similar roles comparing across army's) but with the faction differentiation coming through army-wide specific and unique roles.

Let's think about basic unit types for example.... one could come up with a pretty generic list:

- Horde unit (stat lines of 3 across the board as a baseline, 6+ armor save)
- Light infantry (5+ saves, stat line of 3)
- Medium infantry (4+ saves, stat line of 3 typically)
- Heavy/Elite Infantry (3+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Super Elite (2+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Monstrous Creatures / Vehicles (variable saves, high S and T)

Different types of equipment could come in standardized tier-levels, and the selected standard issue would get applied as a baseline for all troops:

- Light weapons (S3 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- Medium weapons (S4 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- High-powered weapons (S5 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire

You then layer on various specialists roles onto the above:

- Faster ground movement (e.g. bikes, Calvary)
- Jump pack / flight / jetback movement
- Assault role (extra attacks, extra S, extra WS)
- Fire support role (enhanced ranged weapons for anti-personal)
- Anti-tank role (enhanced ranged weapons for dealing with armor)

Units can also have various other buffs/abilities that apply to units...

- Deep strike
- Fearless
- Charge bonuses
- Scout/outflank
- Infiltrate

Or to weapons...

- Power
- Melta
- Lance
- Blast

When it comes different armies, you can take the templates above and work out a special way to apply army-wide bonuses/maluses to the unit stats and then special rules on top. Essentially we're talking about unit and weapon design rules with a menu of special abilities that can be grafted on top.

Army-wide systems/mechanics can be things like:

- ATSKNF (marines)
- Re-animation (necrons)
- Markerlights / fire control (Tau)
- Synapse (Tyranids)
- Waaagh + Mob Up (Orks)
- Fleet / Battle Focus (Eldar)
- Fleet / Power from Pain (Dark Eldar)

Oh look .... I just remade 3rd edition



Even if it ends up being tweaked further, I think this would make for an excellent starting point for remaking 40k.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, every time they've tried to trim the fat people start complaining about the lack of flavour


And yet we have books upon books upon books of rules now and yet 40k is the most boring its ever been.


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Sure. Why have classes in D&D? Why have races? Every character is the same. Why have different spells? All characters know exactly the same spells?
Chess sucks- who needs all those pieces- it should just be checkers, right? You know, better internal balance.

But hell, why stop with games?

Maybe every day should just be Monday. You know, they just invented days and months to sell calendars, right? Shady business practices right there. And the release cycle is just insane! It's not enough that you have to buy a calendar, you need to buy one every year!

Okay, I've had my fun. Ha ha ha.

In all seriousness, a game with almost no differences between the armies can be fun- many people concerned with the complexity of 40k have written in great detail about other games that manage to make armies feel different while having very few actual different rules. So I'm not saying it isn't possible.

But it isn't 40k. And I think most people probably want more than cosmetic differences between armies. Maybe they don't want it to the degree that we have it now maybe, but they don't want every army being the same either. We've got 30 years of history and development here, and I think this would be a huge step forward.

I don't object to GW inventing a super simplified game with very few army based rules that uses 40k miniatures- so that it's pure decision making that determines who wins. Just call it 40k Arena, or Challenge 40k, or 40k Lite... Or whatever. But it shouldn't replace what people have come to expect from this game over the past three decades.

Funny story:

The worst selling D&D experiment ever was a card based Dragonlance system that was a response to a lot of complaints about complexity. People hated it; I was one of them.

Another D&D experiment- the boxed sets- didn't fare much better. It was so simplified that Elf was character class! Like if you were a human, you could be a fighter, wizard, cleric or thief, but if you were an elf, well that's just too hard to remember. It was absolute trash.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/30 23:43:21


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, every time they've tried to trim the fat people start complaining about the lack of flavour


And yet we have books upon books upon books of rules now and yet 40k is the most boring its ever been.


This.

Also, it's amazing how every unit has its own bespoke special rules and yet they feel more samey than ever before.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Lebanon NH

See, I guess that's my point.

I get the idea of using the rules to make for interesting and diverse situations/builds... but what we have right now (at least for all the games of 9th I've played) is a whole lot of rules for very little effect.

If pages and pages of special rules, stratagems, etc STILL end up with most games feeling pretty similar to when I was playing 3rd ed (I know, I'm old) then what is the point of it all?

As to the fellow who suggested switching over to Bolt-Action:

I've actually been thinking about it. Right now the biggest draw of 40k is just that everyone at my local store plays it. I think that if I could actually get people interested in a different system... well, I might just jump ship :-(

It's sad. I love the lore, setting, models... but right now I just can't seem to get behind the current play style of the game. Worse: it looks like its going further and further in the direction that I don't want it to.

I guess the "One Codex" idea isn't the most brilliant in the world, but honestly: if someone could put it together and work to make it better... I think I'd definitely give it a try.

(I like where Mr. Burning is going with the idea by the way!)

Assuming I could get the others at my store to try it as well.

The best game in the world doesn't matter if you can't actuall play it!
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 Mezmorki wrote:
.... I just remade 3rd edition



No bad thing, 3rd edition scaled very well. One big issue with current 40k is that it has been going for so long that it has accumulated too many units and options, and each has to be given unique rules to stop a lot of overlap... so we see this arms race of special rules.

Last time I looked at my Termagaunts, they had 3-4 special rules. This is an insane amount for what are meant to be chaff/cannon fodder. Back in the 3rd edition rulebook, they had no special rules.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




UK

OP - from your lips to the ears of the Gods :-)

I’ve always thought the attraction of 40k was in the background/lore (whatever you want to call it). The rules just enable the game to reflect the background/lore to a greater or lesser extent. Yes, I know, one Marine to conquer a planet, yadda yadda. At the minute it’s more like the rules are defining the fluff - you don’t play the game, you play the rules. This is where the ‘optimal build’ idea stems from, which is just another way of saying the points system does not work.

I’d say the ‘One Codex to Rule Them All’ would be an improvement - all you have to do now is persuade GW :x)

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







This exists. It's called Bolt Action. You should try it. It works rather well.

(It's not 100% "one codex" because every army has a couple of army-wide rules and there are a few profiles that don't exist in every book (e.g. no Japanese heavy tanks), but it's pretty darn close. It also has alternating activations and plays way faster than 40k.)

(If you wanted to proxy 40k minis I'd suggest Russians for Guard and maybe Tyranids (quantity over quality, superior field artillery, nasty tanks), Germans for Marines (hefty machine guns, resistant to leadership shenanigans, already have iron cross logos, Vindicator = Sturmtiger is just the most obvious proxy on the planet), Americans for Eldar (lots of move-and-fire), French for Tau (knee mortars shudder), Finns or Partisans for GSC (obviously), Japanese for Orks (the "banzai" rule might as well just be called "waaagh!"), British commando/veterans for Necrons (expensive, durable, and very good at showing up from reserves in unexpected places), and Chinese Communists for Harlequins (fragile, speedy, light vehicles only, can dogpile you in melee and make you go away).)

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/31 08:00:54


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




After AoS first came out, someone tried to sell me on whatever fantasy wargame they were trying to get people to switch to. I think it was Kings of War. As they explained it to me, everyone pretty much just used the same handful of statlines and then tweaked one or two stats based on their faction.

And that sounded bland enough to turn me off to the idea. I treat army creation sort of like RPG character creation. Feeling like my army is quirky and different is a big part of the appeal to me. If you and I are running almost identical rules against each other, then I'm not sure I'd still be able to get that same appeal. And 40k as a base game isn't good enough at being a balanced, tactically interesting game for the increased balance to feel worth it.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
After AoS first came out, someone tried to sell me on whatever fantasy wargame they were trying to get people to switch to. I think it was Kings of War. As they explained it to me, everyone pretty much just used the same handful of statlines and then tweaked one or two stats based on their faction.

And that sounded bland enough to turn me off to the idea. I treat army creation sort of like RPG character creation. Feeling like my army is quirky and different is a big part of the appeal to me. If you and I are running almost identical rules against each other, then I'm not sure I'd still be able to get that same appeal. And 40k as a base game isn't good enough at being a balanced, tactically interesting game for the increased balance to feel worth it.


As with anything there are good ways to do it and bad ways to do it; KoW is definitely a bad way to do it. They make it unintelligible what stat means what, stick a bunch of things into special rules that really ought to be on the statline, and try to stretch their stat system to cover so many units/armies that at the end of the day everything does just end up feeling identical.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Yeah, no, this would suck. The flavor of the armies is what makes 40k great.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This exists. It's called Bolt Action. You should try it. It works rather well.



Makes sense for something like bolt action. It's about a bunch of human factions, sharing comparable technology.

In a universe in which orcs, bugs, space elves, demons, robots, humans, superhumanes, etc... clash against each other, armies have to be different and flavourful, even at the cost of balance. The key is to keep a reasonable amount of balance around the game, and that's entirely subjective like anything that involves the use of the "reasonable" concept.

People who advocate for something like making all the factions very samey are all interested in an overly competitive chess-like game, they want 40k to be something that has never been and that GW never wanted it to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apocalypse81 wrote:
Yeah, no, this would suck. The flavor of the armies is what makes 40k great.


Excatly. This, not the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, every time they've tried to trim the fat people start complaining about the lack of flavour


And yet we have books upon books upon books of rules now and yet 40k is the most boring its ever been.


You're absolutely right, but things aren't either black or white, there are shades between these colours. It's not impossible to reduce the bloat and keep the flavour.

And to be fair most of those additional books can be flat out ignored. For most of the player base Rulebook + Codex + free erratas is anything they need in terms of rules to enjoy the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/01 07:58:40


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

leerm02 wrote:
So, my question is: why not?

The possible loss of flavour weighs heavier than the possible gain of cleaner or more balanced rules. The latter could be achieved with multiple codizes as well, if GW would be more consistent in their writing quality.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: