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.

I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

There is lots wrong with 40k

The rules are bloated and a mess - look at Walkers vs Monsterous Creatures alone.

The Army books are the same - the rules for a single faction are now often spread across codexes, campaign packs, supplements, exclusive packs etc - then multiply by how many allies you use.

The balance is shot to pieces - both in terms of army versus army and internally. There are Power Codexes that tower above the others - Necrons, Tau, Marines and Eldar - that then haev formation bonuses heaped on top to make the other codexes even worse.

Randomness has spread to too mamny areas of both army creation and in game.

All of this needs addressing.

Are you sure you read it? Just checking because at least one thing you said was not what they wrote. The "doing away with strength and toughness" bit. The article says they're making changes to those stats and some other core mechanics.

Also, we've heard from other rumor sources such as Sad Panda that indeed it will NOT be an AOS-style game, simply streamlined, again, as stated in the article that has you outraged. Please refrain from fearmongering.

I also agree that it's great that every game of 40k teaches you something new. I just dislike that the new thing is typically a rule.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

AoS was a botched execution of a good idea, a signature GW move.

40k is a bloated mess of a ruleset that is suffocating under its own weight. It has no idea what scale it wants to play at, and ends up being a company level wargame built around platoon level rules with gobs of unnecessary squad and individual level detail. The rules are spread over so many different sources that collecting them all is almost impossible and would cost several thousand dollars ar this point.

D&D works with complex rules because its scale is limited. You have a part of 3-5 adventurers with a DM and typically a similar number of enemies, and the DM actively manages everything. 40k can have 50x+ as many elements to keep track of, with no DM to manage anything. Why on earth 40k insists on worrying about what type of blade an individual infantryman's power weapon has, and has rules for duels amidst a battle between tank companies and the like is beyond me. Why is wound allocation done on a per model basis when actions, upgrades, and the like are done on a squad basis? All sorts of funk and weirdness in the 40k ruleset could use some cleaning up or complete renovation.

40k is in desperate need of a rebooted ruleset. Nobody wants a repeat of AoS, and I'm sure GW will bungle it like are wont to do, but if you look at the other successful wargames out now, they all have dramatically simpler rules. One can look at Dropzone Commander, Infinity, Warmahordes, Malifaux, etc and see that games can be just as deep or deeper without the minutae 40k gets itself lost in. In fact, as a tactical battle simulator, an actual wargame, 40k is about as thin and simple as they come, tactics are simple and straightforward, and offer very little real depth in most cases, but are buried beneath multiple layers of stat happy rules.

A 40k reboot cant come fast enough, I just dont think GW are the right people to handle that

Put simply?
No, no sigmarification, GW learned the folly of that
Second, two new codexes just came out, so I doupt anythin will change that much.
40k is fine as is andjust needs a few tweaks here and there with codexes needing to be lifted up.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Put simply?
No, no sigmarification, GW learned the folly of that
Second, two new codexes just came out, so I doupt anythin will change that much.
40k is fine as is andjust needs a few tweaks here and there with codexes needing to be lifted up.

I don't think GW would be beyond releasing all new Codices. I will point to the End Times where many books were released in a short time and quickly became outdated. We are seeing a lot of new books being released just like The End Times.

Its not like they havent released codex books that were made partially or totally obsolete near a new edition before. The 2E Sisters of Battle book being probably the most egregious example.

I'm honestly not totally against simplification of rules, and listing essential stats on unit types.

Though, to be honest, I have but a passing knowledge of AOS. That being said, I think the #1 thing I do NOT want to see in new 40k is wounding on a set value.

A grot wounding a guardman or a bloodthirster on a set value is a little silly to me. I think they try to mitigate this on large monsters by giving them boatloads of HP, but I think that's an inelegant solution.

I suppose you could make the same argument for grots hitting guardsmen or bloodthirsters on the same value, though, which AOS also does.

IDK. Some simplification would not necessarily be a bad thing. I just hope they don't go full pants-on-head stupid again and cut points costs and just say 'bring whatever you want!".

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

IDK. Some simplification would not necessarily be a bad thing. I just hope they don't go full pants-on-head stupid again and cut points costs and just say 'bring whatever you want!".

With current 40k its almost there given the detachment/allies rules and formation freebies.

Simpler is better game design. You want complexity in interaction not complexity of mechanics.

A games rules should be fast and fluid. Intuitive. As little rule book checking and chart checking as possible.

From those mechanics there should be a lot of what is referred to as emergent game play and counter play. Emergent game play is when 2 or more rules cause interactions that are not explicitly stated but emerge from the way they interact.

Simple rules, complex interaction.

People who are worried about the sigmarifcation of 40k think it's just going to be a copy paste of the sigmar rules, but that seems like an oversimplification. There are lots of good ideas in AoS, and more than a couple of bad ones, but the same could be said for 40k. Here are some areas I think 40k could benefit from taking some ideas from AoS:

Rend - AP is a horrible mechanic, this weapon is 100% effective at bypassing armor or it isn't at all. Rend allows a more organic way of dealing with this concept.

Cover benefits - in AoS being in cover gives a benefit to your armor save (+1 generally), which when combined with the rend change gives even space marines a reason to seek out good firing positions rather than standing in the open. This would require modifying saves so that space marines (and their equivalents) have a 4+, and terminators and such have a 3+. Marines would of course have two or more wounds a piece, because they are supposed to be tough, more on that in the next section.

Toughness as wounds instead of layers of defenses or absurd saves - there are currently 4 types of saves in 40k, and rerolls for some of them, and some of them can be stacked. That's not even counting defenses like invis, or toughness buffs. It's this nasty rats nest of rules that was intended to add nuance, but in the end just adds complication and makes the system vulnerable to exploitation. AoS just piles wounds on things that are supposed to be able to take sustained fire. It's simple and much harder to exploit to get things like superfriends.

Multiple profiles for for MC and vehicles based on wounds taken - Picking up from the last point, we have this lame vehicle damage chart, but no equivalent for MCs. The intent is to reflect damage taken over the course of the battle, and I think it's a mechanic that would be as valid for a carnifex as a leman russ battle tank. You reflect that by a diminishing stat line as wounds accumulate. This gets rid of the fine until dead problem MCs have right now which is one of the things that make them flat better than vehicles.

Alternating activations - AoS only took this half way, with alternating activations in the fight subphase, but it's a complete no brainer. Taking turns activating units adds a lot of tactical depth, and doesn't leave one player sitting on his hands for 15 - 20 minutes. There should also be some seizing the initiative mechanic that allows units with high initiative more flexibility in activations.

Fixed to hit rolls - It's a simplification, and allows certain weapons to be more or less accurate as a means of balance/diversification.

Things I do not want to see from AoS in 40k

Fixed to wound rolls - Strength vs. toughness reflects the wide variety of weapons and targets available in a Sci-Fi setting. This also means that wounds won't have to be as crazy in 40k as they are in AoS, where things regularly topped 20 wounds.

Shooting shenanigans - yeah, we all kind of think this is dumb, I wouldn't be opposed to snap firing into melee for units not engaged, but certainly not people in melee shooting out.

Destroying the setting - This was an awful decision, no bones about it. The 40k setting is one of the most cherished settings in all of fiction, and it would be heresy to mangle it like they did to fantasy.

Stupid terrain rules - This was horrendous, and nobody I played with rolled on the chart, it made it silly instead of tactical, that every rock flower or tree was "Magic".

Rolling for turns - this was a horrible idea rejected by the community, and rightly so.

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

Current game could be cleaner. I actually like the "core" rules for 40K quite a bit, but the multiple layers of special rules hurt the game overall.

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

Because simpler is always better, everything else being equal. Complexity is a bad thing, it makes the game harder to learn and makes it much more likely that you'll have balance issues and/or broken rule interactions. But it's the price you pay for including the things that you want. For example, if you add vehicles to your infantry skirmish game you're going to have to increase the complexity of your game by adding vehicle rules. The problem with 40k is that it has tons of complexity but gets nothing in return for that complexity. You have a billion rules to remember and execute every turn, but it's still a very shallow game in a strategic sense. You could delete a lot of those extra rules and lose nothing in gameplay.

Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons).

D&D is a bad game that, like 40k, benefits from the "critical mass" factor where it's the game that everyone knows so new players get introduced to it first and it continues to be the game that everyone knows. And some of D&D's biggest problems come in when someone shows up with a dozen different supplements, each with some obscure rule that makes their character idea even more broken.

Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game.

This is not a good thing.

In a good game you learn new things about strategy each time you played. Your opponent does something you weren't expecting, and you learn how to out-think them in the future. But in 40k most of the time the new thing you learn is some form of "I didn't know this rule existed". And that isn't a good experience.

Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic.

They really aren't. Overwatch is the perfect example of excessive complexity and rules bloat. Hitting on 6s means that you're spending a lot of time rolling dice for little, if any, gain. And you don't give up anything to fire overwatch so there's no strategic decision involved, it's just another set of dice to roll to resolve a charge. Even a very basic improvement, like a unit that fires overwatch not being able to attack at all in combat if the charge is successful, would at least make it more than just a tedious exercise in dice rolling.

And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

Nobody wants to do this.

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

The fact that games other than 40k are currently growing and even threatening GW's position in the market pretty strongly suggests that the problem is not with a lack of a market. GW is just failing to convince the market to buy their stuff.

I'd be okay with simpler rules as long as the story is not advanced like with Fantasy. The game could be made simpler but I still want it to be 40k.

Where is the rumours that we will lose strength and toughness values and that we will get warscrolls. I have just skimmed through several BoLS and SpikyBits rumour pages; they mention being more streamlined but no mention of no T or Str. If there truely is a rumour page suggesting this please do link it, if not this post seems like a bit of an over reaction to the word 'streamline'.

I don't think it's that the rules are too complicated or bloated, that's a miscalculation on GWs part and a misunderstanding of some players. GW has never been smart about listening to their players, if they had they'd have heard for the last 20 years "stop writing crappy rules." That's what's wrong with 40k, it's not too bloated or complicated, it's just a poorly constructed rule set.

Seriously does anyone here who plays GW not know as common knowledge that any new codex is going to have laughably bad, contradictory, broken, and missing rules that someone who's played the game for a month can spot right away yet somehow GW sent it to press?

Their sales did decline partially do to video games, but i feel like a bigger part is that some of us don't want to have to bring or fight against the same tired two lists of super OP unit spam, that's not fun. They're bleeding players that want to be able to build a list that is with models they like and have a fun game beyond just winning for winnings sake. That combined with overpricing models, total lack of community support. Remember when GW was active with their community and their website had more than just a store?

Their codex power is all over place, some armies languish multiple editions old while others get a new codex twice a year. They have no consistency between them, no inner consistency.

I think if they put together a good rules team, really play tested the thing, took player feedback and tried to write good rules instead of just write rules with their only goal being to make you buy certain high profit margin models they'd get back a lot of the wallet share they lost.

 Vaktathi wrote:
except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations aren't making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Necrons got a few formations, but they are all demonstrably worse than a decurion. With that said, yes, they release more formations for popular armies, but it's not exactly surprising that they are milking their cash cows. Outside of the sky hammer annihilation force and riptide wing (and seriously wtf were they thinking on those) most of the formations are roughly on par or a bit worse than existing formations. Orks got some new formations that made them much more competitive, and the chaos formations may not have made them top tier but it made them much better. Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

People who argue against some form of post hoc balance maintenance can't get past their dislike of specific formations to take in the larger picture. It's like you expect them to nail the rules balance every codex, which is unrealistic, and barring some form of subscription based living rules system post hoc is the only way to fix balance issues.

 Peregrine wrote:


D&D is a bad game that, like 40k, benefits from the "critical mass" factor where it's the game that everyone knows so new players get introduced to it first and it continues to be the game that everyone knows. And some of D&D's biggest problems come in when someone shows up with a dozen different supplements, each with some obscure rule that makes their character idea even more broken.

I am going to say as a D&D DM. I lay the rules out up front, with a list of books/races/classes/ect that you can use. Because this is my game and my world you are playing in and if you want to join you have to stay inside my guidelines for the most part. Other than that it is D&D as normal.

Also if a character winds up with something completely game breaking, it is my fault as a DM.

40k is more of a free for all in what people bring. Plus there is a bit more of a monetary value to you army you bring as opposed to your Half-Elf/Vampire/Dragonborn you whipped up in 30 mins, people tend to be more upset about their $100 + model they purchased and spend weeks painting and now being told they cannot use it because FW or something silly.

bob82ca wrote:

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish.

In fairness, there's some issues with basic rules

Twin-linked/re-roll shooting misses is so common it makes the BS stat nearly obsolete.

Armour saves are likewise pointless in many cases.

Power weapons are a mess. If, like 3rd, the were still quite rare and just ignored armour saves, that could work. In that case, the ignoring armor saves would be balanced by the rareness.

About overwatch, i always thought it would be better if a unit could choose to enter over watch.

Shooting phase. You can shoot, you can run, you can overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to shoot durring the enemys turn, after a unit finishes moving, at full bs, and half range.

All units begin the game in overwatch to prevent first turn deepstrike alpha strikes.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations aren't making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Necrons got a few formations, but they are all demonstrably worse than a decurion.

I'd consider the Decurion a formation itself really, and its only what, a little over a year and a half old?

With that said, yes, they release more formations for popular armies, but it's not exactly surprising that they are milking their cash cows. Outside of the sky hammer annihilation force and riptide wing (and seriously wtf were they thinking on those) most of the formations are roughly on par or a bit worse than existing formations. Orks got some new formations that made them much more competitive, and the chaos formations may not have made them top tier but it made them much better. Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

Many of these armies have gone years without updates however, and were released with immediately noticeable issues, or when they did get recent updates GW didnt do anything to fix the core issues except add formations.

Its like...what was the point of doing Traitors Hate with its formations instead of just redoing the 4 year old 6E CSM codex...? It might make CSM's a *bit* better, but all those core fundamental big issues remain unchanged.

People who argue against some form of post hoc balance maintenance can't get past their dislike of specific formations to take in the larger picture. It's like you expect them to nail the rules balance every codex, which is unrealistic, and barring some form of subscription based living rules system post hoc is the only way to fix balance issues.

I dont like the concept of free formations fundamentally, it doesnt really have anything to do with specific formations, even if the benefits are minor, if we're playing around a points centric balance system, the benefits of formations should cost something. Beyond that, there's really nothing in the "meat and potatoes" that shows any attempt at such mechanisms operating to balance anything. The strong armies remain just as strong, the weak armies remain proportionally weak. Formations arent allowing CSM's to compete on anything near equal footing with Eldar for example, who got two codex books since the last CSM codex was released and got dialed up to 11 each time, outrageous formations included in particular with the latest one (like making aspect warriors you were gonna take anyway BS5, on top of their other new buffs like AP0 Fire Dragons, for zero cost).


Nobody expects perfect balance, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the attempt here really with Formations, particularly when they get tied to web bundles as sales hooks. Far too many things that are plainly broken or worthless at even a momentary glance from the most casual of players get through, and no attempt is ever made to rectify those issues.Meanwhile the "ho-hum" formations just seem like afterthought phone in filler material to get the page count up to where they want it.

Formations are one of the worst things about 40k right now. More than anything they need to go. I want real actual open list building. Not free or paid for rules that encourage monobuilds.

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

Honestly here are my theory's about what's going to happen with 40k and now this is just a brief over view of it so take this lightly

-no mor WS just a you hit on X
- AP change in that AP will now only modify your save. IE AP 2 adds 3 to your armor roll or something.
-formations are here to stay


Just a few things

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

I disagree. There are some nice formations in traitors hate and some sleepers. Cant comment on other factions.

Table wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

I disagree. There are some nice formations in traitors hate and some sleepers. Cant comment on other factions.

The issue is in comparison to other formations they are not that hot.

Take DA lions blade, you can make an 1850 bare bones lions blade strike force which ends up haveing 30 tac marines, 10 assault marines, 10 devastatos, scouts, a company master and a Chaplin. But the real beauty of it? I can then take 10 razor backs for free, every single MODEL, even the razor backs, get objective secure, everything gets to also fire at full BS in over watch.

So compared to things like that, new formations arnt that great .

 Grimgold wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

Sorry but thats nonsense - if the game or costs or units are not working you have to change them. Many games do this to make them better.

I do not know a single game system where there was not errata to correct errors either straight mistakes, printing errors or due to balance.

If you want to play games where there are cheesy exploits that can never be corrected thats a sad state of affiairs.