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.

The bloat that bothers me the most is the 1 unit “codexes”. Scions, LotD, Knights. I know they might have more then one actual unit in there, but those do not need to be their own books.

All the formations/dataslates don’t bother me that much. GW has always been doing this sort of thing, we got new rules and options with in White Dwarfs. If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. What bugs me the most about them is the price. I’m OK with a micro-transaction business model, where you pay a few extra bucks and get some new rules/options/characters/units/whatever. But GW has adopted the micro/DLC mindset, but not the pricing. I’d gladly hand over $1-2 a pop for anything vaguely related to my army. But when they are charging $10-15 for a page worth of rules and a few of fluff, I’m not buying. Even for things directly targeted at me.

 Nevelon wrote:
If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. .

I agree with your point but am I not right in thinking that the only available subscription is still just WD Visions?
I'd happily subscribe to a weekly newsletter if it was the right price and kept me up to date with the hobby..

 Kavish wrote:
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?

Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos

Imperial Knights should also either be removed or expanded into a Mechanicum codex (One Unit In The Entire Codex?! Seriously GW?)
Tau should also be removed, since they don't fit the theme of 40k (Sci-Fi Instead Of Sci-Fantasy). Also, they're extremely cheesy and are almost universally hated by everyone who doesn't play them. Eliminating them would also...progress the storyline! I was thinking of the entire Empire and all who reside in it being completely exterminated by the Imperium.

"Let's remove an army because I lost to it and don't think its fair."

Tau are fine, I don't play them on tabletop but I enjoy their models and they fit just fine in the universe especially now that their lore is getting a lot more grimdark.

I don't like 1 unit codices, but I don't think a merger of codices is the answer. I really enjoy the Tempestus for instance and I'm livid they only got one unit (that could've been a really cool supplement). If GW is going to put out a $50 book it better damn well be a full army and not this one unit bullcrap.

I would be pretty unhappy if they merged BA/DA back into SM as well. I think all the core legions deserve their own supplement with new units/models. There's tons of room for each one to be fleshed out massively with their own rules, relics, etc. then leave the core Codex Astartes for Ultramarines.

I definitely like the idea of more codices/rulebooks, but I figured that with smaller rulebooks would come a smaller pricetag but that's definitely not the case. I was fine with the $50 hardcover upgrade, but they need to provide paperback alternatives without fluff/art and just rules for much, much cheaper.

 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.

If you're even mildly interested in competative play, that's not an option. You can't show up to a tournament and ask your opponent what literally every aspect of their army is, that slows things down and annoys moderators. Yes, it's physically possible to just play your army with only two books. No, it's not feasible or wise to compete at this game at even the most basic level with only two books.

Telmenari wrote:

 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.

If you're even mildly interested in competative play, that's not an option. You can't show up to a tournament and ask your opponent what literally every aspect of their army is, that slows things down and annoys moderators. Yes, it's physically possible to just play your army with only two books. No, it's not feasible or wise to compete at this game at even the most basic level with only two books.

I honestly blame rules bloat here, each army has way, way too many little things you need to keep track of. I think an overall simplification would go miles towards helping this. What I'd like to see is a card system ala Warmachine, but I doubt they'd ever do that.

No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.

You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?

I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.

natpri771 wrote:

Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos

I don't think we even need to go that far - the game has functioned fine in the past with most of those book being separate.

But, stuff like Militarum Tempestus should definitely be in the same book as AM. Same goes for Coven and DE and all such books.

Also, we need a separate rulebook for units like Fliers, super-heavies and such. And, I don't just mean an expansion - I mean a separate rulebook. 40k is trying to be an RPG, a skirmish game and a giant battle simulator all at once. What we actually need are multiple versions - a skirmish game (along the lines of 5th), and a rulebook for apocalypse and large-scale games (with fliers, super-heavies, knights etc.). The former would focus more on models, whilst the latter would focus on units. i.e. in an apocalypse game, it shouldn't matter which guardsman is carrying the melta or where the sergeant is - just whether or not the squad has one.

 vipoid wrote:

natpri771 wrote:

Yup, the way is probably to merge some armies.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Space Marines, Dark Angels- Codex: Space Marines
Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle- Inquisition (Codex Also Adds Deathwatch)
Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus- Codex: Imperial Guard
Chaos Soace Marines, Chaos Daemons- Codex: Forces Of Chaos

I don't think we even need to go that far - the game has functioned fine in the past with most of those book being separate.

But, stuff like Militarum Tempestus should definitely be in the same book as AM. Same goes for Coven and DE and all such books.

Also, we need a separate rulebook for units like Fliers, super-heavies and such. And, I don't just mean an expansion - I mean a separate rulebook. 40k is trying to be an RPG, a skirmish game and a giant battle simulator all at once. What we actually need are multiple versions - a skirmish game (along the lines of 5th), and a rulebook for apocalypse and large-scale games (with fliers, super-heavies, knights etc.). The former would focus more on models, whilst the latter would focus on units. i.e. in an apocalypse game, it shouldn't matter which guardsman is carrying the melta or where the sergeant is - just whether or not the squad has one.

This, I agree with 100%. I would enjoy the game far, far more if it was broken down into Skirmish and then larger game modes. I think it would also help with the huge barrier of entry in this game for newbies if they felt like they could buy two squads and a commander and play skirmishes instead of feeling like they have to have flyers, anti-flyers, anti-super heavies, etc. just to play a basic game.

There are times I'd love to just break out a commander and a couple squads and just play tactically.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. .

I agree with your point but am I not right in thinking that the only available subscription is still just WD Visions?
I'd happily subscribe to a weekly newsletter if it was the right price and kept me up to date with the hobby..

These day there are far more avenues then just WD to keep track off if you want to stay on top of things. In 3rd, if you wanted to play, you needed the (mostly outdated) rulebook, and a stack of WDs with updates, options, etc. IIRC most of these were compiled into Chapter Approved books, so if you bought those one a year, you were good to go. These days, rules are splattered all over the place. Not just WDs, but included in box sets, campaign books, and direct DLC.

In the good old days there was just as much bloat, but it was easy to find and keep track of. Not the case now.

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.

You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?

I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.

It's not like it's that hard to memorize rules. You bring the BRB, army list, and then a note card of anything you don't remember. I'm not great at memorizing junk, but it's a lot easier than you're letting on to believe.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.

You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?

I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.

It's not like it's that hard to memorize rules. You bring the BRB, army list, and then a note card of anything you don't remember. I'm not great at memorizing junk, but it's a lot easier than you're letting on to believe.

Warlord Table, character "auras and traits", formation bonuses, and then a list of other random passive things SC's bring to the table.

The issue isn't remembering just your army, its your opponent's as well. "Hand me the card for SpecialCharacterMcGuy" is far easier than "can you show me page X of your codex".

I'm a newer player, been modeling/painting for awhile, but having to consult rulebooks to figure out what each trait/keyword/whateverthehellthey'recalled does and such constantly is a pain until I learn them. Might be different for some of you that have been playing this game for awhile, but its quite annoying for me.

Really, 40K is getting less and less bloated by the release.

It probably qualifies for bloated though.

"Subject: Is 40k getting too bloated?"

Is the sun hot?


Honestly its not that bad, it isnt hard to remember everything.

The only thing i hate is the dumb numbers of random rolling charts.

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
No thanks, no cards for me.
With the magic and objectives going to cards the last thing we need is unit cards too.
The tables will end up looking like a game of Dreadfleet.
Card management is okay for skirmish but having more stuff to fiddle with along with the vast amount of models is a big no no for me.

You'd rather remember everything offhand than actually have the information on the table?

I get so tired of thumbing through 3 rulebooks to find everything out mid-battle. I don't see a lot of people use more than like 7 unit types at most, so we're not talking like a magic the gathering deck sized thing to flip through.

You could just bring a note pad. I managed to keep 14+ mastery levels worth of daemons organized on a single 5"x8" page last night along with all of their rewards. A second page is used to record D66 rolls for Maelstrom missions including mysterious objectives and victory points. If you need to remind yourself of special rules, write references on the back of one of those pages.

NO!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT GETTING TOO BLOATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Nevelon wrote:
The bloat that bothers me the most is the 1 unit “codexes”. Scions, LotD, Knights. I know they might have more then one actual unit in there, but those do not need to be their own books.

All the formations/dataslates don’t bother me that much. GW has always been doing this sort of thing, we got new rules and options with in White Dwarfs. If you wanted to be aware of everything out there, you got a subscription. What bugs me the most about them is the price. I’m OK with a micro-transaction business model, where you pay a few extra bucks and get some new rules/options/characters/units/whatever. But GW has adopted the micro/DLC mindset, but not the pricing. I’d gladly hand over $1-2 a pop for anything vaguely related to my army. But when they are charging $10-15 for a page worth of rules and a few of fluff, I’m not buying. Even for things directly targeted at me.

I think the price is definitely a factor. I wouldn't be as annoyed by the constant add ons and new crap to organize if it didn't feel like an intentional rip off/cash grab.

I think it is just bloated in the context of all the supplements and forgeworld junk. Then with 7th and formations and detachments it did not help.

morgoth wrote:

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.

"It's happening"?! I can't even take anything you say seriously any more. 4 years ago, all the rules for GK were in 1 book. Now you need 2 books and a dataslate for the same information. Please enlighten me as to how GW is centralizing rules. Just give me one example. Every single release this year has had rules spread into more different sources than ever before. I played a tyranid player yesterday who had the codex, baal book, a white dwarf and a dataslate to play everything in his army. In 6th edition he would've needed a tyranid codex and that's it. I played space wolves and needed the codex, supplement, a book from stormfang and the fortifications book. In 5th I just needed my codex. Just because you say something doesn't make it true so please just cite one example of how rules are more centralized than they were 2-3 years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What makes codexes bland is when they chop half the flavor out so they can sell it to you separately (which is the exact opposite of more centralized rules).

I definetly think the bloat is bad. Theres been a call for a 3rd ed reboot for a while, and i only seeing i becoming stronger. GWs solution to problems associated with bloat has been of late, more releases. Any real FAQ resolutions are poorly worded.

IMHO the real problem is the huge disparity in power between codexes and the ridiculous number of exceptions to the core rules each codex has. They need to have an edition where all codexes come out in one book, then release proper codexes at a rapid pace. Im more likely to win the Lottery the day im elected pope, but one can hope.

Very well said toofast, I could not agree more with you.


I had a thought a few weeks back when setting up a larger game, I thought "hey, they haven't even attempted to update apocalypse for 7th" then I realized we were all already being forced to basically play apoc. But yeah, the psychic phase does not work gracefully at high point levels.





As the question of if the game is too bloated, absolutely. The one size fits all approach of 7th means no size really fits anyone too well. They need a baseline, a simple starting point where it's like it used to be, rulebook + codex. That could be as simple as indexing all the crazy crap to higher point levels and use like 1250-1500 as a baseline with no silly crap, 1 foc and so on. It feels like they've dumbed it all down so their employees really don't have to know anything, because you can literally do or buy almost anything and slap it on the table.

What I see the majority of players referring to as bloat, I see more as A la Carte. Are there a lot of references and expansions to keep track of to be able to have all the rules? You bet your life on it. Only a hard core collector is going to fork out the cash to collect it all. But that little point right borders on obsession. And GW is banking on those types of people to make them rich.

For the rest of us normal thinking people. We take only what we want or truly need. One BRB per table is needed, no more. A codex for your primary detachment. If you choose to field an ally detachment, then you need ally codex. But remember you choose to field those allies. You did not have to.

I can agree that not including the separate subsections into the main codexes and spinning them off into their own mini/partial codexes is a dick move to say the least. Especially, when the respective codexes are released within a month of each other. That is price gouging and a waste of paper materials.

I have no issues with the scope of today's rules and army lists.

It combines all the benefits of nostalgia with better design. The game used to be full of rules/units with weirdness about them, but it's much better designed and easier to use now.

This is a golden age of 40k.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I have no issues with the scope of today's rules and army lists.

It combines all the benefits of nostalgia with better design. The game used to be full of rules/units with weirdness about them, but it's much better designed and easier to use now.

This is a golden age of 40k.

Can you give me some examples of better design? Can you give some examples of something that was more complicated before that is now "easier to use" ?

SYKOJAK wrote:
Only a hard core collector is going to fork out the cash to collect it all.

You're right. But a lot more people are going to pirate the rules, and then you're dealing with the exact same rules bloat as the guy who buys a copy of everything with "40k" on the cover.

For the rest of us normal thinking people. We take only what we want or truly need. One BRB per table is needed, no more. A codex for your primary detachment. If you choose to field an ally detachment, then you need ally codex. But remember you choose to field those allies. You did not have to.

IOW, "if you only use part of the full potential of your army and always pair up with someone who bought the core rules you don't have to buy very much". Meanwhile back in the real world you have to buy the core rules, your codex, your supplement(s), your FW rules, the fortification book, the LoW book, your single-unit dataslates, etc. And then you have to repeat all of that if you want to play with allies, which is something you have to have available if you want to win.

Eh, I just have my IG 6th ed codex and the 7th edition rules. All my friends have 1 latest codex and thats it.

I think one person downloaded assassins but it has never been used and im not even sure it was purchased.

But in saying that, there are so many rules out there I actually dont know about many of them. GW doesnt have a decent index of all the rules available and what they are for.

So yes I would say its pretty overflowing simply because there is no real way of finding everything in a few simple clicks. This is made worse by limited edition stuff as well.

I like to think that the structure and distribution of 40k rules mirrors the bureaucracy of the imperium.
It's not poorly designed! It's fluffy!

 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.

There is a big difference however. In D&D you essentially buy extra classes or enemies. Scenarios are entirely written around what players have access to. Also, when 3 moved to 3.5, everything was updated at once, so you didn't have multiple versions of rules interacting together, requiring more and more supplements and errata.

In 40k, simply to stay competitive you need to keep buying more and more.

Is the game bloated? Probably. But I suppose it doesn't bother me all that much. I wouldn't be opposed to GW cracking down and making a much tighter set of rules, especially breaking the game up into Skirmish and War sized. Different sets of rules/allowed units for each.

Right now, they leave it up to us to decide if we want to play Skirmish or War. I don't think that's necessarily bad though. As the rules sit now, you and your opponent play the way you want to play. It makes for enjoyable games. (As long as your both like minded. If your not...why are you playing? You'll both have a bad time).

I like that the game is very lenient. It lets you do what you want while still giving you the guidelines needed. The game doesn't outright deny you the ability to use your cool stuff. Like in Heroclix, I could buy a really cool figure. But the rules then tell me that the piece isn't even legal. Why the feth did I buy it if I can't use it in anything except with only my best buddy? Though I am an advocate for the dislike of Super Heavy shoehorning, people bought the models. They should be able to play them. (Albeit, conservatively, not flood the board with them and make the game unfun for all but themselves)

I dunno. There is so much what is and what if. The game is what it is. All we can really do is wait and see what GW does next, because they clearly don't take our suggestions into consideration. For better or for worse.

Ffyllotek wrote:

 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.

There is a big difference however. In D&D you essentially buy extra classes or enemies. Scenarios are entirely written around what players have access to. Also, when 3 moved to 3.5, everything was updated at once, so you didn't have multiple versions of rules interacting together, requiring more and more supplements and errata.

In 40k, simply to stay competitive you need to keep buying more and more.

I don't think D&D and 40k rule release strategies can really be compared. Both are such different beasts. With D&D, the investment is just your books, and not much else. With 40k, you need books, models, paint, glue, time. Warhammer would also get highly stale if all the releases happened at once. The bloat would still exist, because they would still release supplements as time went on for all armies, which would continue to further provide more and more resources for rules. Even D&D has a spaced out release time with supplements. They don't release every book they have planned at the start of the edition. It wouldn't really work, and over exposes/whelms/saturates their intended market.