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.

Things are pretty crazy these days with supplements everywhere and forgeworld units, not to mention new units being released constantly. It's virtually impossible (or really expensive) to keep up with it all. It's also a lot for GW to print, FAQ, and cast. With so many units available many of them must be just taking up shelf space, and costing the company money. Is 40k going the way of WFB? Is it inevitable because of GW's model of constantly expanding the range and continuing to support the old models (as not to invalidate players previous purchases). If it was a private company they could just sit on the range they have now and fill the gaps (eg: Sisters), work on improving the rules, and make modest profits. Being a corporation however, forces them (or should I say "it") to chase higher profits. Is GW strangling itself and therefore the games we love? What would GW do when even 40k, their flagship game, is costing more than it's making? (Don't say raise prices, it's not funny.) Liquidate?

40k is very definitely bloated. In 5E, to own all core rules, not counting expansions, forgeworld, etc, it would cost you ~$300-$350, and perhaps $600 with Forgeworld and expansions like Apocalypse and Cities of Death. Now it's closer to $2000 between datalsates and hardcover codex books and formations, and roughly $3000 if you include Forgeworld and expansion materials like Apocalypse.

There's also a problem of scale. 40k is increasingly trying to incorporate Epic into itself, while maintaining and expanding micro-level functionality more suited to a skirmish game consisting of a dozen models. This then results in us having Titans and Gargantuan Flying Creatures on the same boards as basic infantry and having to worry about if sergeant X is armed with mace or an axe or a sword.

Ultimately, we've got four or five different sales channels, with effectively zero lead time before release for anyone to know about anything, zero playtesting or functionality, etc. We've got tons of supplements on stuff nobody ever really cared about or asked for (Crimson Slaughter? Black Legion when C:CSM is already basically that? Individual Iron Hands and Imperial Fists companies?) and very few people can keep track of all the formations and dataslates out, fewer still have them all (especially legally).

40k is gigantically bloated, both in releases and in terms of the scope of the rules.

Even Bloaty the Pizza Hog is dwarfed by 40k's rules bloat.

Very much so.

I'm not entirely sure it's too bloated, more that there's no central source for a definitive list of rules and options. It seems like every time I turn around there's another digital only supplement or formation or what have you that I hadn't heard about before.

If we had something like Infinity's official online army builder that collated all the options into one place I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about it.

It's bloated.

If there were a million rules and one central index it would still be bloated.

The game doesn't need half the rules it has got now, and GW's need to split them into more and more sources doesn't help.

D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.

You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I'm not entirely sure it's too bloated, more that there's no central source for a definitive list of rules and options.

That's the biggest issue. GW and Forgworld are still inexcusably bad about presenting all their rules supplements in one or two places - you have to hunt through 3rd party listings to even figure out where the most current rules are for the new hotness on forgeworld. I have no idea how casual players are ever expected to figure out where to find all this stuff - it's scattered about in White Dwarf articles, the GW store, Black Library, and Forgeworld exclusive books (and the occasional PDF).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's bloated.

If there were a million rules and one central index it would still be bloated.

The game doesn't need half the rules it has got now, and GW's need to split them into more and more sources doesn't help.

Yup. Too many rules, too many special snowflake exceptions, too many random tables, too many unit types, too many rules sources. You name it, GW has too many of it. It slows the game down, makes it impossible to fix/patch/FAQ just one thing without an avalanche of unintended consequences, and it's just plain lazy and sloppy rules design.

"Getting" would imply that it isn't well past that point already.

It's bloated, but honestly, the bloat isn't as bad as the 'kitchen sink' syndrome. So much of the detail and choices could be retained if GW didn't present options in such a disorganized manner. Rules show up all over the place, get updated and revised in different places, and units and models pop up all over the place as well.

If you had a "core set' of rules, with compiled, organized rules for squad level games...with no fliers, giant beasties, superheavies, etc, that could serve as a base.

Then you could introduce rules for things like Fliers (and anti-aircraft options) and specifically call out how the base game changes with the introduction of flyers (things like assuming largely open battlefields, instead of dense, multilevel ruins or claustrophobic space hulks, etc).

You could have rules for superheavy weapons and discuss changes to the base game for those options.

You could have rules for massive battles and cover the different assumptions that those types of battles require.

Instead, you have a confusion of rules all over the place, and NO discussion at all of how to integrate these disparate elements into coherent games. I don't think most people playing even question the assumptions that govern how most games are played now, because so much of the structure of the game is now shaped by the assumption of superheavies, enormous models like Knights and Gorkanauts, and flying vehicles and monsters. Because all of this stuff is just tossed into the mix, every game and every army and every board has to be assumed to be compatible with huge walkers and flyers and all this stuff, when there's no particular reason to think or play that way.

Think of it like a cafeteria. If you walk in and pick up an entree, a side dish, a salad, and maybe a dessert, your meal is sensible and cohesive. If you walk in and they hand you a tray with a spoonful of every single option, all glopped on top of each other, your meal is going to suck. Even though there's nothing wrong with each of the food choices, and there's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.

I suppose you could call it bloat, because in the current GW rules structure, there's no way to organize choices or army selection or unit selection or force composition (other than knowing how the games will turn out and agreeing with each other individually when you get together). The guy who picks up an army of all Knights is just picking an army he wants to play in the exact same way that a guy who picks up a IG infantry platoons army is. GW acts like there are no implicit assumptions about the type of game you might be playing, whether you field a troop heavy ork army or Wave Serpent spam. All of the dials are on, all the time.

 adamsouza wrote:
D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.

You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.

gonna agree with this. compared to the rules books that where published for D&D 3rd edition, 40k right now's not TOO bad.

GW's mentality for 7th edition is very much a "Wargame that wants to be RPGish" if you look at it from that standpoint a lot of what they're doing makes considerably more sense

I do think it's too bloated. One or two big Astartes books, an inquisition/GK/assassins book and an IK/AM would work. It's the imperium stuff that's just silly.

D&D didn't require players to buy all those rules. I guess 40k doesn't either, but in 40k owning all of the books is a much higher priority than in D&D.

For D&D, half the books were for specific D&D universes, campaigns, or other special factors like level. A 1st level party would have no use for an Epic level handbook. A Dark Suns supplement was of no use to somebody running a Forgotten Realms campaign.

In 40k, there's far fewer books like that. It's always useful to have books for armies you don't run because it's likely you'll play against them, relatively few things are as "superfluous" or circumstantial.

7th is way too bloated. I used to need rules and a codex. Now, I need a rule book, 2 codexes and 2 supplements when running allies, fortifications book, a couple white dwarfs, some PDFs for FAQs and an imperial armor book for a regular 3000 point game. It makes it impossible to keep up with what your opponent will be bringing and what to expect from a certain army. It also creates more rules contradictions from unplanned rules interactions between a codex written 4 years ago for one army and a dataslate that came out last week for another army. The poor rules writing by itself creates plenty of those (can a psyker cast as many powers as he knows or as many as his mastery level? Is a power fist TWC S9 or S10? What's the actual firing arc of a serpent shield? If you fire scatter lasers at one target and then split fire with your other weapon, is the other weapon still TL? Is Helfrost template shot AP2 or AP3 because it's listed as one thing in the weapon profile and another on the reference page?) Those are all issues on their own without worrying about rules interactions from 27 different sources that 2 opponents used to choose their armies. We need all the rules condensed into one book for each army (even FW units for that army), and then play tested as a whole and released. It will never happen because GW realized they can squeeze more pennies out of their dwindling customer base by splitting the rules into 8 different pieces and making us pay for each piece.

it'll also never happen because from a busniess pov it's inefficant to sit on your stuff until you have everything and release everyone in one volume. every gaming company needs to produce expansions to stay afloat. Honestly I'd rather GW produce expansions and supplements rather then the constant "new edition, new codex" cycle. I'd rather spend money on new product then repeated re-dos of the same thing

I would too, but it would be nice if, for example, the 8th edition codexes contained not just an updated codex but also the other rules that have been published for that army since the previous codex.

WH40k is not bloated. There are 5 types of fat. And WH40k is D4mn!

 Toofast wrote:
I would too, but it would be nice if, for example, the 8th edition codexes contained not just an updated codex but also the other rules that have been published for that army since the previous codex.

if I was a betting man I'd be betting, for the most part, that's whats gonna happen. so rather then be where GW introduces new stuff, new codexes will be where they bring the various stuff they've introduced over the past few years into one source and bring it up to date etc. it's honestly a more elegent approuch rather then trying to cram all the new things you wanna put into the dex in one release window.

I like the current format. I hope they come out with more formation books in a more standard rotation so we can see something new for each army at least once a year.

 Vaktathi wrote:
D&D didn't require players to buy all those rules. I guess 40k doesn't either, but in 40k owning all of the books is a much higher priority than in D&D.

For D&D, half the books were for specific D&D universes, campaigns, or other special factors like level. A 1st level party would have no use for an Epic level handbook. A Dark Suns supplement was of no use to somebody running a Forgotten Realms campaign.

In 40k, there's far fewer books like that. It's always useful to have books for armies you don't run because it's likely you'll play against them, relatively few things are as "superfluous" or circumstantial.

I see things as ecactly the oposite tbh. Both systems ofc require you to have the books for what you play. In 40k that's BRB, codex and eventual supplements, dataslates and FW books, probably no more tham 4-5 books total. In d&d it was not that uncommon to have a character with options drawn from a dozen or more books. Even most setting specific books contained a fair amount of non setting specific materials. Add to that the fact that it's much easier to change characters in d&d than change armies in 40k and the need to own books becomes much greater.

Also, in 40k it's much easier to find out stuff about armies you don't own. IMO there's very lillte Battlescribe+Google+skimming through the book once or twice at the store can't tell you about the rules of an army.

oh jesus I don't think I ever recall a D&D character that many sources in actual practice, especially anything under Epic levels. A dozen sources was possible, but not something I recall ever being common. At least in 3E/3.5E. 4E was easier with the online character builder.

 Vaktathi wrote:
oh jesus I don't think I ever recall a D&D character that many sources in actual practice, especially anything under Epic levels. A dozen sources was possible, but not something I recall ever being common. At least in 3E/3.5E. 4E was easier with the online character builder.

Take a Druid for example (using it as it's my favorite class):

At minimum you'd use: PHB for class and race, DMG and Magic Item Compendium for items, Spell Compendium for spells and Monster Mamual since your class abilities often require monster stats. That's 5 books.
Add to that a book for race, a book for alternate class features, 1-2 books for feats and 1-2 additional books for monsters and you've reached a dozen.

 adamsouza wrote:
D&D, from 3rd edition on, practically had infinte rulebooks.

You don't need them all to play. BRB plus whatever sources for the army you want to play is all you need.

I disagree entirely. A year ago when I got into the game that might of been true, but since then I've had to read the Imperial Knight codex, all the Horus Heresy books, and all re-released Apoc books... and I play Tau. That's just from irl friends getting into stupid gak like 30k, tons of Forgeworld models, and Knights popping up in literally everyone's armies. If I want to play just a regular game, I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists. It's extremely tedious, and I rarely even go to the FLGS anymore because it's too much of a hassle to deal with people who have 2 codexes, 2 supplements for each, 1-3 Apoc books, or god forbid they want to play with their really awesome, supremely cool looking 30k models..

Don't get me wrong, variety is the spice of life. I just resent that I'm obligated to either own or read a bookshelf's worth of books just to play a game with my thousand dollars worth of plastic models..

Telmenari wrote:
I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.

Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.

You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".

You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.

And not to mention that those 3.5 D&D books were a lot cheaper than the 40k books.

I rolled with the three basic books, the fighter and cleric source books and Savage specics because I liked monster characters. (I was always the DM)

Da Butcha wrote:

Think of it like a cafeteria. If you walk in and pick up an entree, a side dish, a salad, and maybe a dessert, your meal is sensible and cohesive. If you walk in and they hand you a tray with a spoonful of every single option, all glopped on top of each other, your meal is going to suck. Even though there's nothing wrong with each of the food choices, and there's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.

Preposterous ! There do not even exist eight different types of fish !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:
It will never happen because GW realized they can squeeze more pennies out of their dwindling customer base by splitting the rules into 8 different pieces and making us pay for each piece.

Wrong, it's happening and people even whine about it, saying it makes codexes bland.

GW is centralizing rules more and more in order to minimize the special snowflakes and the feth-you-factor when you hear about yet another unexpected-and-powerful ability from your opponent's army.

Sure, they're not there yet, but pretending that they're not trying is just being blind.

I believe we're going to have the best example of that with the new Codex:Necrons.

The old one is the best example of how GW used to special snowflake everything and hide a ton of weird rules in a codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's honestly a more elegent approuch

it's quite an elegant approach alright


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:

Telmenari wrote:
I have to read every single book my opponent plans on using to make sure they're playing their army right, or even just to understand their damn lists.

Than don't. Act as if you're a tau guy in the 40k universe.

You walk around, sneeze flowers and watch butterflies. The sun is shining and there is greater good and rainbows everywhere.
Oh, someone's coming your way.
"Hello, funny men with spikes, let's be fr...AAAAHHHHH! STOP MUTILATING ME! STOP MUTILATING MEEEE!!1".

You've met this stuff for the first time - ofc you don't know what it's capable of.

Here, have an exalt my good man.

 Peregrine wrote:
"Getting" would imply that it isn't well past that point already.

This.

40k is, rather impressively, suffering from bloat on multiple levels.

- The core rules are bloated, convoluted mess because the designers insist on endlessly packing more crap onto a system that was never solid to begin with. So, now we have the endless list of rules, special rules, unit types and special unit types with their pages of exceptions and special special rules because GW wants us to just use apocalypse units in regular games so we have to have a ton of ridiculous rules for them in the main book.

- Codices are bloated by having multiple "different" expansion books, with maybe a handful of pages that are actually relevant to the game and which could easily have been combined into the main codex. Not to mention all the other for crap that should be in Apocalypse.

- Gameplay is bloated by several factors - most notably a neverending stream of random - random wound allocation, random tables, random missions, random objectives etc., then we have snapshots - which would be used as a case-study into time-wasting, and finally the delights of wound allocation - because obviously a game with apocalypse units also requires you to micromanage every single sodding guardsman model.

It's gotten bloated to the point I started a spreadsheet to collect all the special rules I need for the various units in my army - and I just run Space Marines!

It's bloated enough that ForgeWorld, noted for solid rules, can't keep track of the wording for their rules (IA2E2 - three different wordings for Armoured Ceremite)

morgoth wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

There's nothing wrong with eight different types of fish on the menu, getting all of it all together is a bad idea.

Preposterous ! There do not even exist eight different types of fish !

Thumb, Index, middle, ring and little phalanges all have a very different tastes on both the left and right, so that's 10 for a start.