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 feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.

I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.

quentra wrote:
it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe

Except when Battlescribe makes mistakes, as they have been known to do. There is no substitute for having a copy of your rules with you, and TBH I'm not going to play a game against you if you don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
They do in the codex, because the rules in the codex are exclusive to the armies.

What does exclusivity have to do with fluff? If you paint your models as Ultramarines, write up a bunch of fluff for your army, and always use themed lists appropriate for Ultramarines are you really going to say that the fluff isn't there and they aren't Ultramarines unless they get a special rule with the word "Ultramarines" in the title? There is plenty of room for streamlining, you just have to lose the unimaginative assumption that anything which doesn't have a specific rule named after it doesn't exist in the fluff.

Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay.

Streamlined =/= boring. In fact, a game with more elegant rules can be less boring because it allows the designer to focus on the core of what makes the game interesting and cut out all of the clutter. For example, X-Wing is much simpler than 40k in terms of word count for its rules, but it's also a much deeper game with much more interesting battles of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...

That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that if GW simplifies the rules than the fluff will be damaged. That requires a belief that anything not explicitly given a rule no longer exists. So, if GW removes the <CHAPTER> keyword and associated chapter tactics and goes back to having all marines have the same rules your Ultramarines will no longer be Ultramarines. Without that belief there is plenty of room for improving the game by removing rules, as those rules are not essential for having the fluff.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules

Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.

total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......

BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.

FUR? Whoa, let's not give PETA another opportunity to have a go at the hobby. SWs were bad enough.

quentra wrote:
I feel people are overlooking the simplest combination: Core rules + Battlescribe (or the legendary GW official army builder app). I mean, a game lasts four hours. I don't know a phone/tablet that can't handle an open pdf for 4 hours. Or barring that, remember to bring a charger to the place you're playing at.

I have literally never encountered and issue that wasn't solved by the above setup. I don't even need crap like codexes and FAQs and gak, it's all automatically updated on Battlescribe and for specifics of something like Falling Back or Piling In, a quick look at the core book resolves it. Easy AF.

Tournament? 10h is nothing for current age.

Besides BS isn't replacement for rules seeing all the errors it has. If somebody relies only on BS then I won't play vs them. Simple as that.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules

Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.

total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......

BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.

FUR? Whoa, let's not give PETA another opportunity to have a go at the hobby. SWs were bad enough.

10/10 name , do you need a hearing assist?
But no seriously, an online free availabilty for the rules that actually get updated would seriously make the game way more approachable and would make for a great service for their fans.
On the other hand GW can't sell you the same min. 3 books sooooo there will be happening nothing in that regard, even tough it would greatly help the game and it's community.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Because they have rules that are related to their fluff... I'm not saying they aren't Ultramarines because the rules aren't there, I'm saying I want to keep 'fluffy rules' I don't want a boring game like any other, the is a good reason I play warhammer and its because of the fluff and the gameplay but more important the fluff in the gameplay.

Streamlined =/= boring. In fact, a game with more elegant rules can be less boring because it allows the designer to focus on the core of what makes the game interesting and cut out all of the clutter. For example, X-Wing is much simpler than 40k in terms of word count for its rules, but it's also a much deeper game with much more interesting battles of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-think your opponent.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist in the fluff if they don't have specific rules what are you on about...

That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that if GW simplifies the rules than the fluff will be damaged. That requires a belief that anything not explicitly given a rule no longer exists. So, if GW removes the <CHAPTER> keyword and associated chapter tactics and goes back to having all marines have the same rules your Ultramarines will no longer be Ultramarines. Without that belief there is plenty of room for improving the game by removing rules, as those rules are not essential for having the fluff.

It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Let's not start the USR argument in another thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue is going to be after a few years of FAQs and chapter approveds, there really will be a lot of updated rules to keep track of, and you won't really be able to trust the printed books too much.

This would be solvable with a rulebook for 8.5th with a few years of chapter approved and FAQs baked in.

I'd like to see a 8.5 for Christmas at the latest.

we'll see chapter approved 2018, not a 8.5 rulebook

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.

I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Unless you're playing competitively, 8E can be extremely simple to play - rules pamphlet and index. Full stop there.

Or playing narratively, or playing casually. The idea that you can play 40k with just the free starter rules and an index is just laughably out of touch with reality. Even the casual/narrative players are going to want to use their fluffy chapter tactics rules and such. You are in a tiny minority here, probably because you play with your kid and get to choose how everything goes instead of playing at a store where your opponents will have bought more of the rules and not be amused if you try to tell them they're only allowed to use the index.

No, he’s right. You can absolutely play Indexhammer and have fun. We did for ages. Works just fine. Because fewer people do it doesn’t invalidate it... same as with your other favourite, using Power Level. Do stop telling other people how they’re allowed to play their games.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.

I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.

I highly doubt that. Imagination isn't a good substitute for a bare bones, boring gakky game. Plus you can't do that with 40k. X-wing is a few fighter ships shooting at each other, it can't have the minutia of an army vs army. X-wing is move and shoot, there are not where near the same amount of dynamics. Same with fluff, how much fluff can you really incorporate in ship to ship fighting Imperials vs rebels, even 40k space battles would be a 1000 times better.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I highly doubt that.

Given your statement that "you couldn't pay me to play X-Wing" what exactly is your reason for holding this belief? How can you know enough about a game you have never played to say that it isn't a deeper and more interesting game? It sure seems like the only possible reason is blind faith in GW and assuming out of ignorance that nobody else could possibly do better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I highly doubt that.

Given your statement that "you couldn't pay me to play X-Wing" what exactly is your reason for holding this belief? How can you know enough about a game you have never played to say that it isn't a deeper and more interesting game? It sure seems like the only possible reason is blind faith in GW and assuming out of ignorance that nobody else could possibly do better.

I've seen it played, looks gak. I have no blind faith in GW.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Imagination isn't a good substitute for a bare bones, boring gakky game.

X-Wing is not better because of imagination, it's deeper and more interesting because its rules are better. The tactical decisions made by the players are much more complicated and involve much more interaction compared to 40k's superficial "line up your models and roll dice" gameplay. In fact, it's 40k that depends on imagination to cover up its poor gameplay. X-Wing would be an interesting game even if it was just cardboard tokens and abstract stat lines, with no fluff at all. 40k without its fluff and pretty models would be a complete waste of time and nobody would ever play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I've seen it played, looks gak.

Well, your ignorance is certainly on display here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Imagination isn't a good substitute for a bare bones, boring gakky game.

X-Wing is not better because of imagination, it's deeper and more interesting because its rules are better. The tactical decisions made by the players are much more complicated and involve much more interaction compared to 40k's superficial "line up your models and roll dice" gameplay. In fact, it's 40k that depends on imagination to cover up its poor gameplay. X-Wing would be an interesting game even if it was just cardboard tokens and abstract stat lines, with no fluff at all. 40k without its fluff and pretty models would be a complete waste of time and nobody would ever play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I've seen it played, looks gak.

Well, your ignorance is certainly on display here.

Go play X-wing then.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Go play X-wing then.

I do. But that's hardly an impressive response to my argument. Do you actually have any substance to offer to the discussion, or just increasingly desperate attempts to shut it down and reject any possibility that 40k isn't a good game?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It doesn't matter if X-wing works, you couldn't pay me to play it, and I love star wars.

I don't care if you play X-Wing, the point is that it's a far deeper and more interesting game than 40k with a much smaller word count for its rules. The idea that making the rules for 40k simpler means making it boring is simply not true.

Totally agree with this.

The fluff of an army in game can 100% come from what you run in your army, and not the special Chapter rules tacked on that are not balanced between each other and make your fluff based Imperial Fists army or Black Templars a dang joke.

Stratagems are cool I guess, or, you could have had a far less gimmicky system than Command Points that rewards some armies far more than others. And the Stratagems? They feel like a "Get out of jail free" card for incompetent rules writing by trying to boost a unit(s), but the issue is that the Stratagems are just as poorly worded as the rest of the rules, so mess that up too.

If they had spent less time on making gimmick game additions like Stratagems, special snowflake Chapter (Sept, Regiment, and so on...) rules, and trying to come up with new ways to call the same rule different things across every book.... Than they could have just made a game that has good rules from the start instead of tacking on additional crap rules through the dozens of FAQs and Chapter Approved: 2017.

If the Marine book didn't have any Chapter traits, and was just well written instead, with more than just Guilliman and some Forgeworld Dreads holding up the Codex, you could build a fluff based army for almost any Chapter and play it without being ashamed or auto losing.

-Imperial Fists: Bring an extra Devastator squad, and a Vindicator or two. There's your siege experts.

-Ultramarines: Build an army that strictly follows the Codex. Too easy.

Salamanders: Bring mainly Flamers and Melta weaponry in your army. Also too easy.

-Iron Hands: Bring a few more Dreads than the Codex would normally have you field by using basic Dreads and Venerable Dreads, and vehicles. Also too easy.

The fluff for ANY army can be reproduced by just the army composition you take and doesn't require silly special rules that are not balanced against each other, creating vastly superior Chapters. Same with the weapon options, if there were not clear losers with the weapon options, running a Flamer or Melta heavy Marine army wouldn't be such a liability.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Go play X-wing then.

I do. But that's hardly an impressive response to my argument. Do you actually have any substance to offer to the discussion, or just increasingly desperate attempts to shut it down and reject any possibility that 40k isn't a good game?

I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol. I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.

I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol.

You're again showing your ignorance of game design. Simplification does not mean tastelessness, nor does it prevent the game from being deeper. Depth comes from good design and multi-layered strategic interactions, not from word count in the rules. Simplifying the rules allows the designer to focus on the core interactions that make the game deep and interesting without getting lost in clutter like having different rules for swords and axes in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit with a single shot regardless of which melee weapon it has. What GW is doing is compensating for a lack of depth by adding tons of word count to the rules. It makes it seem deeper because you have to learn all those rules and you're rolling tons of dice for different things, but once you get out of that learning stage there isn't much to the game and a lot of the rules do very little besides adding word count.

I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.

Yes, you are clearly more knowledgeable about the game than I am. Seeing it played is clearly giving you a better understanding than all the countless hours I've spent playing the game. I couldn't possibly know more about how the game works than you, certainly not...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.

Is it my fault that X-Wing is the relevant comparison here? FFG does a better job than GW, and GW should learn from it. And it's ridiculous to claim that a simpler game can't be deep or interesting when X-Wing exists as an obvious counter example.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.

Right lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I'm just not taking the premise seriously that simplifying the game to tastelessness is going to make the game deeper lol.

You're again showing your ignorance of game design. Simplification does not mean tastelessness, nor does it prevent the game from being deeper. Depth comes from good design and multi-layered strategic interactions, not from word count in the rules. Simplifying the rules allows the designer to focus on the core interactions that make the game deep and interesting without getting lost in clutter like having different rules for swords and axes in a game where a titan can kill the whole unit with a single shot regardless of which melee weapon it has. What GW is doing is compensating for a lack of depth by adding tons of word count to the rules. It makes it seem deeper because you have to learn all those rules and you're rolling tons of dice for different things, but once you get out of that learning stage there isn't much to the game and a lot of the rules do very little besides adding word count.

I've seen it played and you're way over selling it, you're acting like its crack.

Yes, you are clearly more knowledgeable about the game than I am. Seeing it played is clearly giving you a better understanding than all the countless hours I've spent playing the game. I couldn't possibly know more about how the game works than you, certainly not...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm starting to think Peregrine is a FF plant for promoting X-Wing, considering he namedrops it to sing it's praise in every second post in the 40k sections, while discouraging people from 40k in all the other ones. Then I remember it's just Peregrine and he's really that oblivious.

Is it my fault that X-Wing is the relevant comparison here? FFG does a better job than GW, and GW should learn from it. And it's ridiculous to claim that a simpler game can't be deep or interesting when X-Wing exists as an obvious counter example.

You're wrong.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You're wrong.

Well that is certainly an insightful and constructive post. I'll take this as your concession that you have no argument besides blind loyalty to GW and stubborn refusal to accept that 40k is flawed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You're wrong.

Well that is certainly an insightful and constructive post. I'll take this as your concession that you have no argument besides blind loyalty to GW and stubborn refusal to accept that 40k is flawed.

Sure.

X-Wing isn't all that simple, it has just a focus on ship to ship battles fighter /fighter etc.
It does that comparatively well, that i have to admint.
Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat. That alone makes the game more complex to beginn with, that beeing said, Gw did a gak job even at streamlining, either streamlining to much or simply making rules that bypass the streamlined rules, ergo making the game in certain aspects highly annoying.Heck assult guns can't even fire after advancing in their own core rulebokk if you follow RAW, if that does not prove that GW has 0 idea sometimes about rulewriting then i don't know what else.
Also certain faction keyword buffs like -1bs etc seriously could've just been done via the normal rulebook, instead i now have 10 times the same gak rule in 10 diffrent codex with 10 diffrent names.
Bonus points for GW messing up copy and pasting which also happened.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat.

It really isn't. 40k has models of infantry and tanks and aircraft, but rules-wise they're all the same. There's no meaningful conceptual difference between an IG Thunderbolt and a Raven Guard Predator, except that one has a minimum movement distance that never really matters. Both have a similar stat line, both have a -1 penalty against incoming fire, both can shoot in all directions, etc. The tank and the fighter jet are just two different aesthetic options. And 40k doesn't incorporate any combined-arms strategy. Infantry can deliver high-end firepower, tanks can hold objectives, spotting and suppressing fire and such don't matter at all. From a strategic point of view which unit type you take depends entirely on calculating the math of how efficient it is for its point cost, not combined arms tactics. Some armies have tanks as their most overpowered option, some have infantry.

The rule set is rather small compared to previous editions.
But you need a bunch of books (codices, FAQs) to keep track of all the rules of your (soap) army. This is never a good thing.

Well the argument that something is better then in the past, matters only if the past wasn't that bad. If a day before someone got beaten up fourt imes, and then today only got beaten twice, his day was technicly 50% better.

Plus it is not just X-wing, most of the WWII games have a rules et al ot less complicated then warhammer 4000. And their play is much requires a lot more tactics, then zerging opponents turn 1, or having a list that plays soliter.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Meanwhile 40k is a full on combined arms wargame, with a focus on groundcombat.

It really isn't. 40k has models of infantry and tanks and aircraft, but rules-wise they're all the same. There's no meaningful conceptual difference between an IG Thunderbolt and a Raven Guard Predator, except that one has a minimum movement distance that never really matters. Both have a similar stat line, both have a -1 penalty against incoming fire, both can shoot in all directions, etc. The tank and the fighter jet are just two different aesthetic options. And 40k doesn't incorporate any combined-arms strategy. Infantry can deliver high-end firepower, tanks can hold objectives, spotting and suppressing fire and such don't matter at all. From a strategic point of view which unit type you take depends entirely on calculating the math of how efficient it is for its point cost, not combined arms tactics. Some armies have tanks as their most overpowered option, some have infantry.

Yeah you can have lots of different rules when there are a handful of models on the table, try having unique rules for every single unit in the system in a 2000 point game. You couldn't do that, you wouldn't even be able to memorise all that, you'd need the codex/rules every time you use a unit you obviously never played 2nd edition. You like x-wing great but to think you can apply that to 40k is absurd. You can't apply x-wing to 40k, they are far too different.

But units in 40 are mostly tokens. It doesn't really mater that much if you would have one big base for 10 marines with 10w or a squads of separate 10 models. The only thing that happens, because of number of models in warhammer is slower game play and more random spread of rolls. Which in the the end means that the really good armies are able to ignore the random, with stats or rules. w40k is mostly a target priority game and some random rolling, while for other games you have to do more specific stuff, like throw smoke so your med trooper gets to heal your downed LMG dude. Most of the combos I have seen in w40k are unintentional.