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.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...

Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...

Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.

I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

 thekingofkings wrote:


I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

No edition has started fresh since 3rd, which was released in 1998. All of the subsequent editions have been built on that release, with the only changes coming in the form of a cycle of Codex releases that made the most recent release overpowered compared to the oldest, along with core rules changes in the form of new editions. In essence, 40k has been a slowly churning power creep of 3rd edition for 20 years. This time is completely different because every previous Codex and rulebook will be null on day one, and new rules for each and every unit will be released all at once. Something that has literally never happened since 3rd came out. So yes, 8th edition most certainly does solve that particular problem, at least initially.

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

No edition has started fresh since 3rd, which was released in 1998. All of the subsequent editions have been built on that release, with the only changes coming in the form of a cycle of Codex releases that made the most recent release overpowered compared to the oldest, along with core rules changes in the form of new editions. In essence, 40k has been a slowly churning power creep of 3rd edition for 20 years. This time is completely different because every previous Codex and rulebook will be null on day one, and new rules for each and every unit will be released all at once. Something that has literally never happened since 3rd came out. So yes, 8th edition most certainly does solve that particular problem, at least initially.

ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.

 thekingofkings wrote:


ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.

True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.

True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?

That makes sense, of course I am not ruling out that I am a little "butt hurt" about it seemingly steering more AoS than I was hoping.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.

True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?

That makes sense, of course I am not ruling out that I am a little "butt hurt" about it seemingly steering more AoS than I was hoping.

A lot of people seem to hold that apprehension, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it until release. From what I can see, 8th will be closer to 2nd than AoS. It certainly is more complex than AoS. Yes, they are borrowing a couple of things here and there, but they're mainly things that cut down on redundancy and bloat and keep more or less the same effect as before in a more efficient manner. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

Edition wars are a thing too, seems that no matter the game, there will always be that split. I am interested in seeing the final product, but it will be a hesitant purchase. Sadly around here GW is the only one of about 7 local FLGS that even bother to carry GW products and that means no preview without braving the tiny 1 man store :(

 thekingofkings wrote:
Edition wars are a thing too, seems that no matter the game, there will always be that split. I am interested in seeing the final product, but it will be a hesitant purchase. Sadly around here GW is the only one of about 7 local FLGS that even bother to carry GW products and that means no preview without braving the tiny 1 man store :(

At worst, there will be loads of reviews and battle reports on YouTube shortly after release. The GW store might be a bit hectic for a few days.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.

And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.

It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an antitank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.

And a squad is never considered a gun battery except in your own head. Each model represents an individual platform, not a series of coaxial weapons.

It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an anti-tank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.

And Artillery and heavy weapon teams will likely remain dedicated to one weapon in most cases. (Most people bringing them for extra anti-infantry/anti-tank that the army otherwise lacks
The basic infantry squads (Tactical marines/Guardsman etc.) would be more flexible like real world army squads, some bring basic rifles, someone almost always brings a anti-tank weapon of some sort and so on.
Now those units will be able to bring the weapons to deal with any threat (like they would) and not render the loadout of the rest of the squad (virtually) useless.

100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all with new 40K inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Morale is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformations nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Take a look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.

I'm excited - the new rules are going to make it so much easier for returning/new players to jump into a game. Demos are going to be much quicker for GW staff so they can drum up the interest in the game.

I've been playing since 4th and sure it will be sad to see the older mechanics disappear, but the system was just way too clunky. I've barely played these last 2 years because it was just too overwhelming to keep up with all the new supplements/formations.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:


100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all that the new 40K is inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Moral is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformation nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Just look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.

I don't think that people who have been playing 40k were complaining that it is too hard for them to learn. I think the main complaints are that many of the rules are more or less meaningless and redundant, you can achieve virtually the same thing with less, and that games can just take too long to play. The game being too complex to learn certainly does put a damper on introducing it to friends and family, though. As you said yourself, the barrier to entry for 40k is already quite high. People can hardly be bothered to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours getting an army ready, and learning a mess of self-contradictory and redundant rules is a step too far for the majority. No new players means no one to play with, no sales, and ultimately no hobby.

Less complex does not mean dumber, less interesting or less fun on its own. In fact, it often means quite the opposite.

Just checking in again, even more excited after recent changes.

Honestly getting more hopeful, just waiting for said hope to get dashed against the wall.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...

Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.

I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

You are objectively wrong here. Especially from 6th to 7th where the codexes were still 100% compatible and I actually have the 5th ed sisters book and could of played that in 7th with pretty much no modifications.

That will not be the case in 8th as supported by what we've already seen.

I am in wait and see mode, but not expecting anything- that way I am not disappointed.

Not excited for the game, whatsoever. Just hoping it becomes playable, again.

I am happy on how GW turned themselves around, but with the advent of the fall of cadia, I was pretty much resigned to wait and see, seeing the price for 3 models, and the ridiculous price hikes continue to the unattainable.

I have my gear for skirmish level, and I'm quite happy with staying on that level.

 Luciferian wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:


100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all that the new 40K is inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Moral is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformation nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Just look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.

I don't think that people who have been playing 40k were complaining that it is too hard for them to learn. I think the main complaints are that many of the rules are more or less meaningless and redundant, you can achieve virtually the same thing with less, and that games can just take too long to play. The game being too complex to learn certainly does put a damper on introducing it to friends and family, though. As you said yourself, the barrier to entry for 40k is already quite high. People can hardly be bothered to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours getting an army ready, and learning a mess of self-contradictory and redundant rules is a step too far for the majority. No new players means no one to play with, no sales, and ultimately no hobby.

Less complex does not mean dumber, less interesting or less fun on its own. In fact, it often means quite the opposite.

Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.

Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.

ERJAK wrote:


Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.

Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.

I imagine that's a pretty common story. Say what you want about AoS, but that ability to engage with and bring in new players and get people excited about the hobby is surely highly coveted by both GW and anyone trying to get their friends into the game.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

Ever since the release of 3rd Edition, GW has endeavored to make things backwards compatible. This meant that new editions couldn't change much and still allow folks to use their old books. Worse, it led to these long codex cycles because there was never a need to redesign armies as soon as a new edition hit.

The long codex cycles led to changing design philosophies creating this waxing/waning effect in codex power level. You might get a run of them where they thought "simple is better, cut down on options and focus design" which was followed by a stint of "people play 40k because of options, add more stuff!"

And this happened over and over again, year in and year out. Codices had no central design conceit, no rhyme or reason, and no forethought as to what later books would be like. Hell, it felt like most of them were developed in a vacuum which led to all kinds of issues. Some wouldn't be updated for one or two editions and still the rules chugged on, adding more stuff without really taking a step back to look at how it all worked together. This meant that a lot of edition change overs were super reactionary, but GW lacked the forethought to plan for how later additions to the line would plug in.

This just led to a big, long cycle of bloat. It started in 3rd, after it removed most of the rules from 2nd (both good and bad). 3rd couldn't handle nuance very well as a result (because modifiers were evil apparently). Special rules were plugged in to create nuance, but no one consulted each other to make this unified (not even after USRs became a thing), things bloated and it became apparent that a new edition was needed to fix the new issues caused by the old edition. 4th was a reaction to the strong meta of 3rd, rather than an objective look at what worked and what didn't when they redid the system. And on and on it went. 40k has been this amalgam of chopped up parts and half-notions that has chugged along for nearly 20 years without taking a step back to look at the whole. 7th was just the tipping point for a great many folks.

40k hasn't had a truly fresh edition in a long time.

 Luciferian wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.

Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.

I imagine that's a pretty common story. Say what you want about AoS, but that ability to engage with and bring in new players and get people excited about the hobby is surely highly coveted by both GW and anyone trying to get their friends into the game.

We found the rules actually chased people away (alot of older crowd who prefer more in depth games) its simplicity is just as much a negative as a positive. The new setting killed the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...

Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.

I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

You are objectively wrong here. Especially from 6th to 7th where the codexes were still 100% compatible and I actually have the 5th ed sisters book and could of played that in 7th with pretty much no modifications.

That will not be the case in 8th as supported by what we've already seen.

how is "new edition starting fresh" objectively wrong? compatability of codex doesnt really mean anything. sure for casual play you could probably get away with a 3rd ed codex, but playing at our local stores you would not be allowed to use any but the most current. The problem is not the core rules, it is what comes after.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.

Ever since the release of 3rd Edition, GW has endeavored to make things backwards compatible. This meant that new editions couldn't change much and still allow folks to use their old books. Worse, it led to these long codex cycles because there was never a need to redesign armies as soon as a new edition hit.

The long codex cycles led to changing design philosophies creating this waxing/waning effect in codex power level. You might get a run of them where they thought "simple is better, cut down on options and focus design" which was followed by a stint of "people play 40k because of options, add more stuff!"

And this happened over and over again, year in and year out. Codices had no central design conceit, no rhyme or reason, and no forethought as to what later books would be like. Hell, it felt like most of them were developed in a vacuum which led to all kinds of issues. Some wouldn't be updated for one or two editions and still the rules chugged on, adding more stuff without really taking a step back to look at how it all worked together. This meant that a lot of edition change overs were super reactionary, but GW lacked the forethought to plan for how later additions to the line would plug in.

This just led to a big, long cycle of bloat. It started in 3rd, after it removed most of the rules from 2nd (both good and bad). 3rd couldn't handle nuance very well as a result (because modifiers were evil apparently). Special rules were plugged in to create nuance, but no one consulted each other to make this unified (not even after USRs became a thing), things bloated and it became apparent that a new edition was needed to fix the new issues caused by the old edition. 4th was a reaction to the strong meta of 3rd, rather than an objective look at what worked and what didn't when they redid the system. And on and on it went. 40k has been this amalgam of chopped up parts and half-notions that has chugged along for nearly 20 years without taking a step back to look at the whole. 7th was just the tipping point for a great many folks.

40k hasn't had a truly fresh edition in a long time.

I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.

 thekingofkings wrote:

I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.

I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.

I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.

Bingo!

Special rules in 3rd and on mostly felt like a reaction to the question "how do I do this in the system?"

My favourite early examples from 3rd are Rending, the Choppa rule, and Fleet of *.

Rending and the Choppa rule came from the same well, but handled it differently.

In both cases the devs asked "how do I make a weapon that is somewhat effective against most armour, but not 100% effective so as to ignore it... but without having to use icky modifiers which we decided are anathema?"

The Nid dev came up with Rending. This meant that Genestrealers didn't have to all be equipped with power weapons (and thus super expensive) because they only ignored armour sometimes. The Ork dev decided a Choppa just gave everyone a 4+ save (unless their save was worse). Both were messy, both attacked the same problem, and both did it in a clunky way because the system didn't allow for nuance.

So 4th comes along and makes USRs to try and solve this "two solutions, one problem" thing that 3rd created. But this solution isn't perfect. USRs only exist because the system 3rd became is bad at describing nuances.

"That unit should be hard to hit, but modifiers don't exist, so give it a cover save!"
"What about when a hard to hit unit is in cover?"
" "

That was a common issue for a while that was caused by a combo of just allowing one save while not having anything to modifiy saves outside of just ignoring them. The one save system was a good one (though eventually broken by FNP), but no modifiers basically had a deletrious effect on their ability to modify saves beyond an all-or-nothing construct. Worse, attaching cover to this led to all kinds of messy and incongruous interactions. And eventually it was all moot anyways and GW started giving out modifiers but mostly just to cover saves.

So we went from solving a bloat problem in 2nd Edition (too many saves, but also too many modifiers making most saves useless), to finding out that too much nuance was cut out to make for a robust system, to stacking bloat back on to make up for the overly simplistic basic system before eventually arriving right back where we started, but somehow worse. And make no mistake, this was a reactionary evolution and can be laid at the feet of 3rd's original simplifiaction.

And you can see this history of build-up everywhere you look, and it extends infinitely back. Like some kind of -fractal!

I could go on for hours about the butterfly effect 3rd's simplification had on all future development. It all flows forth from that stream. Each edition was a short-sighted reaction to the last rather than a plain look at making a good game. And because it all started from a bad place and the devs never took time to reflect on what really worked and how problems should be solved you ended up with a game that was a reaction rather than a statement of intent and a real piece of design.

This is why 40k has felt tired and stagnant to me with each new edition, because every change I see is a reaction to what was wrong with the previous edition without a reflection on why it was wrong before. But because they didn't want to put in the work to properly redesign (they didn't even want to do it in 3rd in all honesty, given how sad the default lists in the back of the rules were) things needed to stay close enough so people could still use their 5-10 year old codex in the new edition.

It was a recipe that was bound to lead to a mess and so every edition has basically been a mess made while attempting to clean up the last one.

On a brighter note. I love when a grot pops a terminator. Can't wait for an IK''s final hp being stripped by a grot and his lucky wrench/pliers.

 Luciferian wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.

I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.

Ok, yeah that makes alot more sense to me now..

Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.

By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.

By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.

3rd may have been fine, but the system they created is difficult to tweak and add variation to without adding on another rule... and another.

The big difference between 7th and AoS, or even 7th and 2nd, isn't the level of complexity. It's that 2nd and AoS can represent variation and player choice with a system of mechanics that doesn't have to refer outside itself, where 3rd-7th can only represent variation and choice through blanketing the mechanics with all kinds of exceptions and extremes. The fact that 8th is going back to modifiers and is uncapping stat lines means they can introduce an amount of complexity and gradation that would be unthinkable in 7th, because they can do it by plugging numbers into the mechanics of the game itself instead of having to make special new rules for every different thing they want to represent.

 Luciferian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.

By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.

3rd may have been fine, but the system they created is difficult to tweak and add variation to without adding on another rule... and another.

The big difference between 7th and AoS, or even 7th and 2nd, isn't the level of complexity. It's that 2nd and AoS can represent variation and player choice with a system of mechanics that doesn't have to refer outside itself, where 3rd-7th can only represent variation and choice through blanketing the mechanics with all kinds of exceptions and extremes. The fact that 8th is going back to modifiers and is uncapping stat lines means they can introduce an amount of complexity and gradation that would be unthinkable in 7th, because they can do it by plugging numbers into the mechanics of the game itself instead of having to make special new rules for every different thing they want to represent.

Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.

 Luciferian wrote:

True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?

15 years prior, before things got so out of hand to begin with...?