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.
auticus wrote: Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.
It's funny that you say that, because IMO X-Wing is more of a wargame than 40k. It doesn't have the same number of units on the table (unless you're playing with LoW, of course) but it does have way more emphasis on movement and positioning than modern 40k.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
Wayniac wrote: I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
You're describing depth vs. complexity. Depth is the level of interesting strategic decisions to make, complexity is the word count of the rules. 40k has tons of complexity but very little depth.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.
bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.
I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.
I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
GWs complexity is in finding the most min-maxed list, and less about maneuver on the table. The synergies between units are super obvious. This is one of the things I liked best about Primaris Marines, they really lack options, if all units were like this and had a defined role the game would be much easier to balance.
Oddly enough, the way GW handled Chapter Approved seems to have really irritated my local community. When 8 launched, the feelings here ranged from cautiously optimistic to outright excited. The excitement slowly gave way to nervousness that GW was going to ruin a good thing (because 8 was very well recieved here - yeah, it had its flaws, but they were WAY better than 6/7) and apparently now, people are getting fed up again. I've been busy with work so I haven't been to the LGS in about 3 months. Our LGS has a "bitz box" program where you can trade used wargames books and miniatures to the store in exchange for store credit. In the box last night were several core rule books, a bunch of 8th ed codexes and several full armies in the bitz box.
When I asked why, I was told that people were slowly getting frustrated and that the way Chapter Approved was handled really turned off a lot of people. I find it surprising that it made them mad enough to quit when these same people played all the way through the utter chaos that was 7th, but to each his own I suppose.
As for me, I am enjoying it for what it is. I think this set is fun for now, but I do think they are going to begin having issues within the next year. One of the defining features of 8th is the lack of rules bloat. It feels like they were aiming for something like Warmahordes where the rules were simple, but the in-game interactions between those rules could generate a lot of depth/complexity. I don't think they hit that mark. Between terrain being essentially pointless now, and the fact that you can only design so many re-roll buffs before the characters from different armies start functioning identically to one another, I think they are going to need to add more rules to up the depth of the game. When it comes to GW rules writing, we all know where that leads. I'm staying optimistic as I am enjoying 8th (and because AoS seems to be going strong with basically the same core structure), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.
@Peregrine:
I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like? A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Wayniac wrote: I think this is part of the issue. GW's "complexity" comes from what is basically minutiae; squad-based equipment. Other games complexity is actual rules interactions and abilities that work with other things. So n the surface GW seems to have more complexity because there are dozens of options available. But once you scratch the surface, it becomes evident that their complexity is basically just the illusion of complexity whilst there is no real complexity to be found.
You're describing depth vs. complexity. Depth is the level of interesting strategic decisions to make, complexity is the word count of the rules. 40k has tons of complexity but very little depth.
This. In case it hasn't been posted here yet, here is what Extra Credits said on the Depth vs Complexity issue. They approach it from the perspective of video games but many of their points can be easily transferred across.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Tycho wrote: I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like?
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
One of my biggest criticisms of 7th was that they had like five abstractions for the same thing.
Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, the Wulfen-hitting-twice thing, the extra +1 attack on the charge rules, and all that were, each and every one, abstractions of the basic concept of "this unit do good on the charge"
The scale is a problem, I think. When you're playing platoon level forces, the difference between Ogryns with Hammer of Wrath and Berzerkers with Furious Charge matters a bit more than if you're playing a Brigade-scale game, where "they're both good at charging so both get Furious Charge" is abstract enough.
40k is super hung up on tracking what individual models are doing even though you're ostensibly a company commander; no company commander should have to worry about what an individual conscript is doing on the battlefield at any one time; that's why the chain of command exists.
Having said all that... I actually like that about 40k. I don't enjoy micromanaging the conscript; that's not what I mean. What I do enjoy is watching a singular conscript do something awesome like slay a carnifex or survive an extra turn against a genestealer onslaught to protect his tanks. Stuff like that.
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
Which is fair, I just don't recall seeing you say you like something.
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
It just feels like you're really trying super hard to find a way to stick with the "bloat" argument. Yeah, they moved *some* USRS to the unit sheets. Others they eliminated entirely. In 7th, you had USRs in the rule book AND different ones in the codexes. Now at least, you have the USRs in the spot where they are relevant, while others have been removed from the game entirely. In addition, they handled the USRs in such a way that if for example, something like "Disgustingly Resilient" were to become a game balance issue, they can FAQ "Disgustingly Resiliant" by itself without effecting any other units. In the old system, they would have had to FAQFnP and then FAQ it again when they realized that they had now accidentally caused other units w/FnP to suddenly suck. This IS a much more simple system. Additionally, you seem to only want to point to the USRs as the only place they trimmed down the core rules which is clearly incorrect. Lets talk about the complexity of the 7th ed psychic phase vs 8th ...
They very clearly DID eliminate rules bloat, and 8th is a simple game. I can introduce a newbie to it and have them up and running in minutes. I'm not sure how that indicates anything other than an easy to learn game. Remember what that was like in 7th?
I WILL say that they made some mistakes. For example, some of the streamlining involved cutting terrain rules. I think this is an area where they really dropped the ball in 8th. They over-simplified terrain to the point that it's almost useless.
So, TL;DR:
Yeah, 8th isn't perfect and they DID make some odd mistakes, but I'm not sure you can accuse this edition of rules bloat and be taken seriously. Not liking that the USRs are on the unit cards is one thing, but it does NOT mean that there is "bloat".
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
They reduced rules bloat, but they didn't eliminate it. 8th is still a bloated mess of a game, even if it's somewhat less so than 7th. That's why the post you quoted said "continued rules bloat" not "worse rules bloat".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Well, the biggest problem is that GW is trying to do a "one game to rule them all" approach when they should be having a core rules "engine" and then vary the abstraction/depth based on the size. A skirmish or squad-based game cares about weapon details, a large-scale army game does not. Again, I think Mantic hit the nail on the head with this approach with Warpath; there is a "Firefight" squad-based game that plays (or looks to play) similar to older style 40k or Bolt Action/Gates of Antares, where you have mostly squads and then like maybe a tank or transport or walker, and then a larger scale game that has round movement trays and more abstracted rules to allow for larger battles which is where you see the flyers and superheavies. GW missed a huge opportunity to do this. They could have finally had a way to do skirmish/platoon/army sized games using the same core set of rules, with almost seamless scaling between them. So you could play a big game with abstract rules to go fast, and then "drop down" to a firefight, and then drop down to a handful of guys making an elite raid or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 14:53:09
Tycho wrote: I swear it feels like GW could mail actual gold bars to its customers as a "thank you", and you would complain that yours had a chaos symbol instead of an aquilla. In all the time I've been on here, I've only ever seen you aggressively bash all things GW. Don't get me wrong, they've earned plenty of that, but serious question - why are you still here? Is there ANYTHING about GW that you actually like?
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
A few pages back, you accused a rule set that went from over 100 pages down to like ... 12 of having "continued rules bloat". Have they ever done something you were a fan of?
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
I'm gonna weigh in here and say that I am profoundly confused by the criticisms around removing USRs and giving each unit their rules. One of my biggest issues with trying to play 40k previously was the unwieldy way you had to have access to the BRB and your codex at the same time and be cross-referencing rules from one to the other. Just from a physical, having a table full of models and needing somewhere to put the books, this always felt cumbersome to me. Why is moving the rules to the units a bad thing? The way I see it, the physical act of playing the game is streamlined because all I need is the 'base' rules foldout from the starter box, and my unit's data slates, which come with their rules listed and explained. Much less clutter on the table, and less fighting with giant hardcover books that will never lay flat no matter how hard you try. Pushing the rules down to the units also allows for granularity in things like the way vehicles explode. My Predators explode on a 6+ because they're well made, but my Bloat Drones and Hellhounds explode on a 4+ and do more/different damage because they contain volatile or icky substances in a less well-made frame. That adds flavor, and doesn't really slow up the game because whichever rule I need to play it out is listed on the unit's data card. That seems much easier to me than having to find a rule in the BRB, which has a terrible index, and making sure I'm looking at 'extra explodey' instead of 'regular explodey'. The fact that the same name (deep strike) has a whole bunch of different names doesn't matter for gameplay, and strengthens the theme.
Blacksails wrote: I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
I'm gonna weigh in here and say that I am profoundly confused by the criticisms around removing USRs and giving each unit their rules. One of my biggest issues with trying to play 40k previously was the unwieldy way you had to have access to the BRB and your codex at the same time and be cross-referencing rules from one to the other. Just from a physical, having a table full of models and needing somewhere to put the books, this always felt cumbersome to me. Why is moving the rules to the units a bad thing? The way I see it, the physical act of playing the game is streamlined because all I need is the 'base' rules foldout from the starter box, and my unit's data slates, which come with their rules listed and explained. Much less clutter on the table, and less fighting with giant hardcover books that will never lay flat no matter how hard you try. Pushing the rules down to the units also allows for granularity in things like the way vehicles explode. My Predators explode on a 6+ because they're well made, but my Bloat Drones and Hellhounds explode on a 4+ and do more/different damage because they contain volatile or icky substances in a less well-made frame. That adds flavor, and doesn't really slow up the game because whichever rule I need to play it out is listed on the unit's data card. That seems much easier to me than having to find a rule in the BRB, which has a terrible index, and making sure I'm looking at 'extra explodey' instead of 'regular explodey'. The fact that the same name (deep strike) has a whole bunch of different names doesn't matter for gameplay, and strengthens the theme.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
Why though? We've seen that this approach really doesn't work. How, with your proposed solution, would they FAQ a USR? Would you have "Furious Charge" and then have different unit keywords that it applies to? That just seems like a more complicated way to achieve what we already have in 8th ...
They reduced rules bloat, but they didn't eliminate it. 8th is still a bloated mess of a game, even if it's somewhat less so than 7th. That's why the post you quoted said "continued rules bloat" not "worse rules bloat".
It seems like what you actually dislike is the way the info is laid out, but you're trying to blame it on something else. That, or you're trying to make an old school Jancoran/Alairos argument where you deliberately take a contrarian stance just for the sake of it. I can certainly get behind organizational issues with the game (organizing info has never been GWs strong point and it's almost like they've never even heard of things like alphanumeric order), but I really just don't see the bloat argument. At all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:05:09
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
I like the fluff and the models, at least when GW's recent choices don't bring them down. If I hated everything GW does I'd just leave, because I wouldn't care anymore. But, like most of GW's critics, I care because I want to see the hobby I love overcome GW's incompetence in handling it and become a game worth playing.
Which is fair, I just don't recall seeing you say you like something.
I made that accusation because it's true. 8th cut the length of the core rules, but a lot of that came from moving the former USRs to each unit's individual rules. And in some ways that makes the rules bloat worse, not better. Where you used to have a brief section in the core rules for vehicles exploding when destroyed you now have dozens of different versions of the rule on individual units. And there are still too many rules that have little practical effect on the outcome of the game. The idea that 8th edition is a simple game is purely a myth. You can argue that it's slightly less bloated than the disaster of 7th (which tested the limits of how bloated the rules can get before the game becomes unplayable), but it's still a problem.
It just feels like you're really trying super hard to find a way to stick with the "bloat" argument. Yeah, they moved *some* USRS to the unit sheets. Others they eliminated entirely. In 7th, you had USRs in the rule book AND different ones in the codexes. Now at least, you have the USRs in the spot where they are relevant, while others have been removed from the game entirely. In addition, they handled the USRs in such a way that if for example, something like "Disgustingly Resilient" were to become a game balance issue, they can FAQ "Disgustingly Resiliant" by itself without effecting any other units. In the old system, they would have had to FAQFnP and then FAQ it again when they realized that they had now accidentally caused other units w/FnP to suddenly suck. This IS a much more simple system. Additionally, you seem to only want to point to the USRs as the only place they trimmed down the core rules which is clearly incorrect. Lets talk about the complexity of the 7th ed psychic phase vs 8th ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. For a list of Psykers of equal power, you got logarithmic return in linear point investment. For a supercaster, ymmv. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge. With 8th, Smite is strictly linear for linear investment, while other options do not scale at all.
The real issue with non-universal rules is that no FAQ becomes a precedent for another, and in the advent of bad RAW ("Does a Blood Lance inflict a max of N mortal wounds or N*N Mortal Wounds?"), that RAW must have its FAQs copypasted repeatedly.
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Incidentally, names should imply what the rules actually do. What is the difference between Hating an enemy or preferring it? Is it the difference between revenge and a safari hunt? Make "Versus [Enemy]" a USR qualifier.
Incidentally, my favorite 7e USR was Missile Lock. Only one weapon in the entire game used it. This was despite there being numerous weapons that were fluffed as missiles that lock onto their target. Smart Missiles, Tentaclids, Skyspears, etc. were all "lock-on" missiles that did not Missile Lock.
Keep the USRs Generic and Universal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:07:32
I find it passable aside from a few things which do annoy me (units I cannot shoot at preventing me shooting at characters for instance)
It seems thoroughly average which is a problem. I want GW striving for excellence. It feels like a guiding vision is missing and a "that will do, next" culture prevails.
I think bespoke rules was a poor choice. Go back to USRs, and actually stick with them. Rather then have a unit with the rule 'Angry Running Smash', and another with 'Raging Dash' that give the general benefit of hitting harder when charging, you could just have 'Furious Charge'.
This, exactly.
You could still make some 8th-style changes, like keeping Keywords, as I think those are useful, but destroying unit types and replacing them with Keywords. Take the whole section on vehicles out, fold it into the way other models work (as was done in 8th) and you've already got a way simpler ruleset.
1) stick to the core USRs. 'Explodes' for example, could be a USR - and have it happen on a 5+, which seems to be about the average between all the 6+ explodes, 4+ explodes, and 2+ explodes vehicles out there.
2) replace "unit type" and faction weirdness with Keywords, the way they've done.
Why though? We've seen that this approach really doesn't work. How, with your proposed solution, would they FAQ a USR? Would you have "Furious Charge" and then have different unit keywords that it applies to? That just seems like a more complicated way to achieve what we already have in 8th ...
What do you mean how would they FAQ a USR?
What you would see is your unit datasheet, which says "Hard to Hit", then you would look up what the USR does in the BRB. It's actually easier to FAQ, because if you changed Hard to Hit in the Blood Angels FAQ, then BA flyers would act differently than every other flyer - but if they just had the USR and you changed it in the main rulebook, then every flyer in the game would be updated simultaneously...
I don't really know what you mean by the keyword system; units either have a rule or they don't, and keywords shouldn't give rules by themselves (I actually don't like, for example, that the Fly keyword gives rules). Keywords should be for interactions only, e.g. Melta getting bonuses versus the Vehicle keyword, or for faction interactions if it's a faction keyword obviously.
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge.
So you're saying the psychic phase in 7th is just as simple as the one in 8th? Because my point is only that they simplified it.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
You FAQ it by removing it from the problem units? If it's causing a problem on those units?
If a rule is too strong on a unit, then you can just remove it.
That doesn't seem like a solution at all, because now you've got a unit that's missing rules. You've completely broken the unit and need to redo it, you can't just remove a chunk of its rules.
I don't get why they can't do like Warmahordes does. A rule is basically the same and it gets put on a unit's card (i..e datasheet to 40k) that indicates it has that ability.
for instance:
Hypothetical 40k Rulebook wrote: FURIOUS CHARGE: A unit with Furious Charge adds +1 to their Strength characteristic when charging. This bonus is added after any Strength multipliers (e.g. from a Powerfist)
Now anything that has said rule says it has Furious charge; you don't need to also have "Angry Charge" or "Ravening Charge" or whatever that are the same rule but for a different type. What else is needed? The rule is already defined in the rulebook, you're just stating that this unit gets to apply that rule. This would have let them codify base rules instead of coming up with different names for the same rule. Warmahordes had that same problem in MK1; you had different abilities that were virtually identical but had different names, and they consolidated it to basically be a core set of abilities that can be applied. So, for example, your re-roll to hit ability becomes let's say:
Hypothetical 40k Rulebook wrote: Focused Attack [<KEYWORD>]: Friendly <KEYWORD> units within 6" of a model with Focused Attack can re-roll 1s to hit.
Enhanced Focused Attack [<KEYWORD>]: Friendly <KEYWORD> units within 6" of a model with Enhanced Focused Attack can re-roll all failed to-hit rolls.
Hypothetical 40k Datasheet wrote: Space Marine Captain Keywords: <CHAPTER>, Adeptus Astartes
Abilities Focused Attack [<CHAPTER>] (and so on ...)
Why could that not work in 40k? Codify the rules interactions with common names, and then just apply those abilities without having to make them slightly different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:15:08
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
You then adjust other aspects of the unit in question, as they do now. The simplest method would be to just tweak the cost.
No need for exceptions or addendums.
We shouldn't need to even get to this point anyways though if GW did proper testing beforehand.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
You FAQ it by removing it from the problem units? If it's causing a problem on those units?
If a rule is too strong on a unit, then you can just remove it.
That's just poor/lazy design in my opinion. The current system allows for granularity. Under the current system, if a unit's particular version of "Hammer of Wrath" is too strong on them, you can tweak it to make it less crazy without just eliminating it. That way, you maintain the integrity of that unit, while toning down the strength of it, and without screwing up any other units. To me, that seems much better.
You then adjust other aspects of the unit in question, as they do now. The simplest method would be to just tweak the cost.
No need for exceptions or addendums.
Six of one half dozen of the other I suppose. This solution would work (theoretically), but you are still relying on FAQs. Honestly, I like having the rules on the unit card.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:21:31
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
As Unit mentioned earlier, USR redundancy was an issue. So rather than Rage, Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, etc, you create a single USR called "Charge Bonus[bonus]," so you don't need to add case-by-case exceptions like ("Rage does not work versus Disordered Charges. Furious Charge does not work versus Disordered Charges." etc). GWUSRs were seldom universal. Rather than Hammer of Wrath, have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[attack]], with Initial Attack also representing Litany of the Electromancer, exploding Brimstones/Spore mines/etc. Make the rules composite and reusable.
Right, so when 10 units have "Hammer of Wrath", and it's fine on 8 of them, but is found to create real issues on 2 of them ... how do you FAQ it? That's how we ended up with Rules, exceptions to the rules, addendums to the exceptions to the rules, etc etc.
I get the point about FAQ reliance, but honestly, that's been an issue for years. It was not created by 8th, but 8th DOES make better use of them (theoretically anyway lol). I would love for GW to write rules well enough to not need regular FAQs, but ...
The 7e system wasn't that complex. It's main issue was it was a "battery" system, and casting/denial was all-or-nothing. Prior to Wrath of Magnus, you usually only had one or two Psykers (ex: A Lib Conclave) casting tops. I found flat plastic marbles made an easy way to represent remaining Warp Charge.
So you're saying the psychic phase in 7th is just as simple as the one in 8th? Because my point is only that they simplified it.
Technically they simplified the Psychic Phase by adding Rule of One and Smitespam, a power that itself cannot even choose its own target.
Define such a problem-case? Two of the units have Charge Bonus[Initial Attack[S: User, AP -, A 1, Autohit]], but somehow this makes them too good? Neither Charge Bonus nor Initial Attack themselves need FAQing, but the actual unit could be tweaked. Privateer does this periodically, the most notable example near the end of Mk2 when they errata'd the Siege Animantarax to be allowed to spend Rage Tokens on its Reiver gun. This didn't require changing any rules for tokens, etc.
Incidentally, GW needs to figure out "slain" versus "removed from play", "before the battle," "alive," and how to actually define tokens as a game term. For example, in 7th you could technically you could argue that Siphon Magic let you store dice from turn to turn, since tokens that could be "spent as additional Warp Charge" were RAW not Warp Charge, since Warp Charge can be used by your whole army and the Siphon Magic tokens were restricted to the caster with Siphon Magic. You could further cite Neurothropes as a precedent, as they had a power called Spirit Leech that generated Warp Charge. "This Warp Charge may only be used by the Neurothrope's unit to manifest Warp Blast."
l
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:24:16
Six of one half dozen of the other I suppose. This solution would work (theoretically), but you are still relying on FAQs. Honestly, I like having the rules on the unit card.
We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.
*Edit* I can't quote apparently
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:24:53
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Theoretically, if a unit is a problem, then its cost can be adjusted to make it less of a problem.
This isn't an panacea, as there are certain units with auras and whatnot whose cost varies throughout the game and deployment, etc. but that's also just bad game design, really.
And a unit cannot be "missing" rules. Taking "Amphibious" away from the Chimera didn't suddenly make the Chimera feel empty and useless (though it does feel a bit soulless now without it ). A unit has what rules GW gives it.
This is why I have a problem with the codex-index options FAQ. I'm fairly certain it is intended to allow veteran players to continue to play models that otherwise would have to be retired and that would make them ANGRY. But instead it's used as a justification for simply including the options in any ol' army, as if they were never removed in the first place.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:26:46
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.
We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.
*Edit* I can't quote apparently
lol We've all been there. Yeah, tweaking the points via FAQ or using the current system is two different ways of doing the same thing so it just comes down to personal preference. I like the way they are doing it now, but I can't say your suggestion is "wrong" or "wouldn't work".
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
I actually don't like USR and I prefer every unit to be his special snowflake... with some basic things, of course. For example, something like Deepstriking could have been made a generic rule that you only put is name in the dathaseet like ATSKNF. If some unit has a "special" Deepstrike like the Trygon, then you give him his special rule in the Dathasheet.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
). A unit has what rules 
