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.

Wayniac wrote:



Yeah this is rather amusing. The rules themselves are still pretty barebones. All the "depth" is in stratagems, which essentially means just another combo stacking game. It's become tabletop Magic: The Gathering in effect.

This!!

I have been saying this for a year now. I noticed that the best part of the game was the stratagems, but then that was the only thing.

To fix this I think they keep the Command Point Mechanic...but take stratagems and add them to specific profiles. So in certain situations units that normally fit the fluff can use those strats, but units that normally don't wont have access.

And placing all the reroll aura buffs around certain units in certain combos is like a tabletop card game. We should want a game where Models matter more in a miniature game rather than to just look pretty.

Preface: I don't play competitive. I bet a lot of the complaints I see on this forum really make sense to those who do. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but I want to present a flip side.

Soup is the best storytelling tool in the game, and I'm glad that 8th embraced it.

Also, I like rules complexity; those who frequently advocate for streamlining and simplification confuse me. If I wanted simple rules, I think I'd play Risk- it's a classic.

The depth issue is one that I have trouble with too; it's hard to argue that there is no depth to the game and then suggest restricting the use of certain strategems to use by a single unit. It seems to me that every stratagem you restrict to one specific unit is one tactical option that all of the other units don't have. I define depth as tactical flexibility.

I mean, think about it: this game is complex enough that each of us is playing our own version of it; each of us, upon occasion, assume that our way to play is the true way to play. How can a game lack depth when that is the case?

I don't see many forums where folks are discussing their local Risk meta. I've never seen a debate about whether Monopoly is best suited to campaign or tournament play.

And yeah, I know those were false equivalencies, but I was hoping to illustrate the point. I just feel like if you don't think there's enough depth, maybe changing the way you choose to play might be a starting point. Narrative campaign play is CRAZY tactical, and if it is at all an option for you, I think it might really scratch your itch without rewriting the game.

I get the thrill of competitive play, and I can understand the desire to import the entire game into the narrow frame of reference. I don't fault you for that desire. But some of the things you don't like about the game are the best part of it for people who play differently.


As for the whole digital update thing, I like the idea, and I think GW could more effectively incoporate it into their design. But some old curmudgeons like paper books cuz we're oldschool. I despise using the tiny, tiny screen on a cellphone to look at artwork or read rules. I'm okay when I do it with a laptop, but I know a lot of people who hate E-Books period.


It takes all kinds of products and rules to keep a player base as broad and diverse as ours generally happy. Chances are someone somewhere loves the things I hate about the game (in fact I know this to be true based on how many Dakka threads are discussions of competitive meta).

Anyway, peace.

I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.
Feth it. Ill happily for the convenience of having all the rules in one book/place.

Make all the other errata/FAQ running as optional rules for testing to then be implemented into the next years book.

Rules should be rules.

Well they did a new edition for AoS and it's a pretty big improvement.

 Argive wrote:
I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.

You can, it's called Chapter Approved. The problem is, GW also publish some rules changes in FAQs and errata.

PenitentJake wrote:
The depth issue is one that I have trouble with too; it's hard to argue that there is no depth to the game and then suggest restricting the use of certain strategems to use by a single unit. It seems to me that every stratagem you restrict to one specific unit is one tactical option that all of the other units don't have. I define depth as tactical flexibility.

I think this depends on the strategem - where there are ones which already benefit a limited selection of units via keyword, it could make sense to have them on the unit's datacard with a "Spend xCP to activate" element in their rules text. Could arguably free up more space for faction-wide stratagems, rather than unit-specific ones.

PenitentJake wrote:

Also, I like rules complexity; those who frequently advocate for streamlining and simplification confuse me. If I wanted simple rules, I think I'd play Risk- it's a classic.

The depth issue is one that I have trouble with too; it's hard to argue that there is no depth to the game and then suggest restricting the use of certain strategems to use by a single unit. It seems to me that every stratagem you restrict to one specific unit is one tactical option that all of the other units don't have. I define depth as tactical flexibility.

I mean, think about it: this game is complex enough that each of us is playing our own version of it; each of us, upon occasion, assume that our way to play is the true way to play. How can a game lack depth when that is the case?

Complexity (or in some cases just complication) isn't the same as depth. You can't measure depth just by counting up the number of options something has. Depth is about choice, but that choice has to be meaningful. So by restricting certain stratagems to certain units, for example, you can increase depth because you have to consider whether a unit on its own is worth taking, whether you'll get any use out of its stratagem and whether that stratagem is helpful to your battleplan overall. As it is now you get all stratagems just by taking a single unit form an army. Yes, it opens up more choices, but that's really the illusion of depth.

The fact we're each playing our own version of the game doesn't mean it's too complex or has tremendous depth. In this case I think it's more likely a case of the rules being so streamlined they're almost non-functional in some cases. The terrain rules are the perfect example of this. That's where most local games differ, IME. Local metas exist too but that's often a reflection of the poor balance in GW games and the fact that some groups will self-regulate to varying degrees while others will not.

PenitentJake wrote:

As for the whole digital update thing, I like the idea, and I think GW could more effectively incoporate it into their design. But some old curmudgeons like paper books cuz we're oldschool. I despise using the tiny, tiny screen on a cellphone to look at artwork or read rules. I'm okay when I do it with a laptop, but I know a lot of people who hate E-Books period.

It takes all kinds of products and rules to keep a player base as broad and diverse as ours generally happy. Chances are someone somewhere loves the things I hate about the game (in fact I know this to be true based on how many Dakka threads are discussions of competitive meta).

Anyway, peace.

GW could still produce paper books with all the great artwork and background material. I'd probably still buy them. The point of having the rules available digitally is that they provide an updated reference for use during games but it wouldn't have to completely replace their physical books. I'd include that digital copy in the physical books.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.

You can, it's called Chapter Approved. The problem is, GW also publish some rules changes in FAQs and errata.

If-only they put the updated 8-page rules in with each Chapter Approved....

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.

You can, it's called Chapter Approved. The problem is, GW also publish some rules changes in FAQs and errata.

If-only they put the updated 8-page rules in with each Chapter Approved....

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770625.page

Ah yes, let's rely on a technically illegal and unofficial product. That surely won't cause arguments. /s

Zarkro wrote:Instead of releasing 9th edition and feeling the need to change everything from top to bottom, how about an 8th 2.0 book that just incorporates all of the rules changes over the last 2 years from FAQs/errata/Chapter Approved/White Dwarf.

Bonus that it's just a rulebook so you dont need to flip through pages of fluff to find what you need (let the campaign books give us the fluff, I do love fluff)

Am I crazy or is this a great idea?

If GW was going to get it together and gather all the rules and errata and make it so that you only need one rulebook they would have when they had the chance. With 8th.
An 8th 2.0 book will need a stack of extra crap just like you have now unless GW drastically change how they do things.

Vankraken wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
8 th is beyond saving it's the same mess as 7th.

You know this isn't far from the truth. The game itself is overall better as far as the rules are concerned, but GW has quickly bloated the game again and gone back to their old tricks.

Worse, rules are still a bare bones mess and it's held together by stratagems. Game balance might be better but the game as a whole is really lacking in depth.

On the depth: yep. GW (and many people) are trying to add depth to their game, but failing because they're going about it the wrong way. Adding more rules! and more abilities! and more stratagems! and cooler new codex! doesn't add depth to a game. I adds the illusion of depth, it adds the feeling and impression that depth is being added. It only looks deeper because there is more crap floating on top.
Depth comes from meaningful choices, not just lists of things to choose from (esp. if some things on that list are clearly better). A list of stratagems that you only use one of is not depth. A variety of chapters that are just extra rules to optimise is not depth.
GW do it because people demand it (like competitive play) thinking it will give the game more depth.
Chapters that give a buff and a weakness (that you can't get around and actually matters) that change your play style is depth. A simple terrain rule that lets you take a defensive position (but hampers your offensive ability in the next turn) would add depth (i.e. a choice between vulneable but dangerous or secure). Add in just two degrees of cover and each terrain piece adds a wealth of depth and tactical choice to the table you put it on. Rules just need to be complex enough for your opponent to make problems and hard choices for you to have depth.

On GW's old tricks: Truth is, I just happened to see this topic on the popular threads and felt the urge to rant a little. I hoped 8th would be better and gave it a good go. When I realised that it was the same gak show with slightly better core mechanics and GW was going to be up to the same gakky tricks, I bowed out. I sold all my books (40k and AoS) and most of my daemons (I can use some of them as KoW Nighstalkers) and multibased my dwarfs.

I play Infinity and KoW mainly (some Malifaux and Gaslands too) and don't need to worry about what is becoming OP with the next FAQ or what of mine will become useless with the next nerf.
The last thing that had me keeping GW armies was how popular 40k is and how easy it is to find a game. Then Infinity became popular enough that you can find a game is most cities, so that reason doesn't cut it anymore.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ah yes, let's rely on a technically illegal and unofficial product. That surely won't cause arguments. /s

You're right, it probably won't. The only people likely to argue about something like this would probably be willing to argue over any minor technicality anyway.

Not sure how needed something like that is right now but it does point the way for a possible direction GW could go for a proper digital edition.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.

You can, it's called Chapter Approved. The problem is, GW also publish some rules changes in FAQs and errata.

That was kind of my point... I want consistent ironclad rules.

As a new player I had to buy/get:
Rlebook -Now largely obsolete/Lacking in depth explanation about certain things
Codex - Does not cover the entire army I.E. The only place I can find Autarch options for wargear are in the: Xenos 1 Book...
Chapter Approved - Since changed FAQ'd
Forgeworld Book - to see what the rules are for shadow sepcters and corsairs as I like their fluff (which I wont take as corsairs would = -1cp)
Vigilious 1 for the specialist detachment rules
Various FAQ printouts

Can people honestly look at this and say its not a bit much of an ask to have all the information?

I have to reference two of the book just to build a list.
I don't trust battle-scribe. People have recommended it but warned me it can sometimes not be 100% accurate. Probably m y own stubbornness but hey ho, Its the spreadsheet Printing for me.

Gime Ironcald annual rules and a GW run Battlescribe type app..

 Argive wrote:
Gime Ironcald annual rules and a GW run Battlescribe type app..

Have you seen the fiasco that FFG made of the X-wing app they insist all of their players use? A GW-run app world be like that.
Also, GW releasing an app that bypasses he need to buy codexes? Not going to happen.

It would be nice if they moved into the current decade, but too many high-ups in GW must still by vetoing techy-based solutions.

 Argive wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I would happily pay £20 for an annual Official rule-set.

You can, it's called Chapter Approved. The problem is, GW also publish some rules changes in FAQs and errata.

That was kind of my point... I want consistent ironclad rules.

As a new player I had to buy/get:
Rlebook -Now largely obsolete/Lacking in depth explanation about certain things
Codex - Does not cover the entire army I.E. The only place I can find Autarch options for wargear are in the: Xenos 1 Book...
Chapter Approved - Since changed FAQ'd
Forgeworld Book - to see what the rules are for shadow sepcters and corsairs as I like their fluff (which I wont take as corsairs would = -1cp)
Vigilious 1 for the specialist detachment rules
Various FAQ printouts

Can people honestly look at this and say its not a bit much of an ask to have all the information?

I have to reference two of the book just to build a list.
I don't trust battle-scribe. People have recommended it but warned me it can sometimes not be 100% accurate. Probably m y own stubbornness but hey ho, Its the spreadsheet Printing for me.

Gime Ironcald annual rules and a GW run Battlescribe type app..

I agree with the sentiment.
Point is though, GW makes alot of money, repeatedly with books and CA. Veteran Players don't necessarily buy more models, so books are used for repeated income.

This is most likely what they are going to do. Look at AOS 2nd edition (i do not play the game but from what i understand) they added several new features (endless spells) and refined the rules but it is clearly a successor to the first edition. 8th is simply selling far to well to throw it out and start new. They will most likely release 1-2 new features that really shake it up/ refine the rules a bit and keep raking in the money with both hands

I do find it funny that we replaced USRs with stratagems. I mean in reality, you need to know all of your opponents stratagems in a competitive landscape of you're going to get juked, either by accident or on purpose.

At the very least i hope they bring back the wounding table. And ditch "anything can wound anything," or find a way where a boltgun can be more effective than a lasgun when it comes to hunting T8.

Asmodios wrote:
This is most likely what they are going to do. Look at AOS 2nd edition (i do not play the game but from what i understand) they added several new features (endless spells) and refined the rules but it is clearly a successor to the first edition. 8th is simply selling far to well to throw it out and start new. They will most likely release 1-2 new features that really shake it up/ refine the rules a bit and keep raking in the money with both hands

The 2nd edition of AoS is a vast improvement on the 1st. In truth, I feel that AoS is in a much better place at the minute than 40k.

I'm confident that they'll do the same thing for the rules of 40k. Hope so anyway...

I agree with the sentiment.
Point is though, GW makes alot of money, repeatedly with books and CA. Veteran Players don't necessarily buy more models, so books are used for repeated income.

I totally get that. Maybe im looking through a rose tint here... I remember when you could pick up a rule-book for 50 quid and it had ALL the army codex& rules in it. I could see what I had for my army and what my opponents would be able to have in their army and plan accordingly.

Call me stupid, but i'd happily pay £50 a year if that's what it took for a good iron clad set of rules and all the unit data in one place I could reference, without having to look at 8 smaller books for my army, and then another 8 books to see if my opponent got his army list legal and his interpretation of the rules correct. Its a hobby and not the cheapest hobby and I accept that. Its not the price I have issue with its the user experience..

So I took the opportunity to email GW to ask how they would advise I find the latest matched play rules and beta rules in the multitude of documents they have now published. This was their response:

From uk.custserv@gwplc.com
Hello,

Thanks for your email.

The latest Matched Play rules can be found in our Core Rulebook, and in Chapter Approved 2018, with all relevant FAQs and Erratas applied, which can be found here. Chapter Approved 2018 supersedes Chapter Approved 2017, the 2017 edition should not be referred to for points updates. All our Beta rules can be found here.

I hope I've been of assistance with this, but if there's anything else I can help with, please let me know.

Kind Regards,

 Argive wrote:

I agree with the sentiment.
Point is though, GW makes alot of money, repeatedly with books and CA. Veteran Players don't necessarily buy more models, so books are used for repeated income.

I totally get that. Maybe im looking through a rose tint here... I remember when you could pick up a rule-book for 50 quid and it had ALL the army codex& rules in it. I could see what I had for my army and what my opponents would be able to have in their army and plan accordingly.

Call me stupid, but i'd happily pay £50 a year if that's what it took for a good iron clad set of rules and all the unit data in one place I could reference, without having to look at 8 smaller books for my army, and then another 8 books to see if my opponent got his army list legal and his interpretation of the rules correct. Its a hobby and not the cheapest hobby and I accept that. Its not the price I have issue with its the user experience..

On the otherhand broken stuff remained often broken through a whole edition.....

That said CA's should've and could've been made free.

That's true I don't know what the solution is.
I just know that it snowballs into a lot of bits and books which I find infuriating lol. I have issues with the delivery method and the user friendliness for changing and amending rules on the fly. Why did I spend so much money on a rule book , CA and my codex if its not valid info?

Just looked at the FAQ site and it has A LOT of FAQ's on there.

There are 17 Errata documents added in the last 3 months. 17....

How many of those 17 are actually relevant to your army though? People seem to want to point that out as if you have to read through each one every time you play a game, but they're clearly marked as to what they pertain to, and you only really need to know the errata for your own army and maybe your opponent's army.

While I don't claim that you need to memorize every single rule for every army, if I don't know the general rules for what my opponent can do, I'm kinda at a disadvantage. You can't really make solid tactical decisions in game if I don't know what the units across the table can do.

So what you're saying is you don't actually need to memorized all 17 errata documents and be able to recall their mostly minor changes at a moment's notice, but just need to be able to access those documents in a simple digital format where they are clearly labeled? Got some good news for you! I'm sorry to come off as snarky, but the number of errata is a non-issue. You don't actually have to have them on hand at a moments' notice. As far as having to carry around multiple books? You really only need the BRB, your codex, and the most recent CA. That's it. Three books. I carry far more than that to my D&D games. If you need to access an FAQ or errata, they're readily available online. If you're using an out-of-date model that's only available in the index, that's your choice. There are plenty of viable options available in your codex. Same goes for Forgeworld.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While I don't claim that you need to memorize every single rule for every army, if I don't know the general rules for what my opponent can do, I'm kinda at a disadvantage. You can't really make solid tactical decisions in game if I don't know what the units across the table can do.

That doesn't require you to actually buy or read all the rules for each faction, and doesn't require full knowledge of all the FAQs. 40k's rules are simple enough that the first time you play against an enemy it takes about 5 minutes to go over what each unit can do. Yes, things like stratagems might take you by surprise the first few times you play against an army but that doesn't change the fact you're not required to know all the rules for every army you're going to play against.

Simply pointing out the number of rules documents that exist is an utterly pointless exercise. It doesn't reflect the reality of playing an actual game. This is obvious to anyone that's ever played the game so the regularity with which it's brought up rapidly becomes pretty tiring.

8th ed is a boardgame masquarading as a wargame. Gw won't likely ever release a 9th ed. They may make new rulebooks. People might even call one if them 9th but it will be as OP describes. Warmed over boardgamey shallow glittery trademarkable nonsense. The true 9th ed will be as in Fantasy, created by hobbyists and superior in every way over GWs dumbed down replacement. After all the talk that the shift to primaris ridiculousness rather than simply upgrading the model range and boosting all marines to 2wounds was done better than the transition to Ao$, once it sinks in that GW replaced 40k with a dumbed down imposter the same way they ruined Fantasy after all then hobbyist created rules will be formalised and a 9th ed may be put together.

 jeff white wrote:
8th ed is a boardgame masquarading as a wargame. Gw won't likely ever release a 9th ed. They may make new rulebooks. People might even call one if them 9th but it will be as OP describes. Warmed over boardgamey shallow glittery trademarkable nonsense. The true 9th ed will be as in Fantasy, created by hobbyists and superior in every way over GWs dumbed down replacement. After all the talk that the shift to primaris ridiculousness rather than simply upgrading the model range and boosting all marines to 2wounds was done better than the transition to Ao$, once it sinks in that GW replaced 40k with a dumbed down imposter the same way they ruined Fantasy after all then hobbyist created rules will be formalised and a 9th ed may be put together.

I think the chances of a fan-created 9th Age-style 40k are pretty much zero barring a major screw-up from GW (the chances of which are admittedly quite a bit higher than zero). 9th Age only worked because GW completely and - more importantly - officially killed Fantasy. That clean break created the gap that 9th Age looked to fill. Without a similar event happening with 40k any fan-based project is doomed to failure simply due to its inability to overcome the inertia 40k has with so many people playing it. The closest we might get is if ITC decide to create a system that's much further removed from regular 40k than they are at the moment but even then I don't think it would have anything like the player numbers needed to be successful. I mean, people still played 7th edition despite how absolutely terrible it was towards the end. GW will have to screw up much, much more than that before fan-made versions have even a tiny chance of success.

 Marmatag wrote:
I do find it funny that we replaced USRs with stratagems. I mean in reality, you need to know all of your opponents stratagems in a competitive landscape of you're going to get juked, either by accident or on purpose.

At the very least i hope they bring back the wounding table. And ditch "anything can wound anything," or find a way where a boltgun can be more effective than a lasgun when it comes to hunting T8.

Half the stratagems in any codex xould've been just equipment....

It makes zero sense that the Chaoslord manages the AA missile supply during the battle.
Grenadiers is a stratagem so half the time guardsmen just forget how to throw grenades? The other half they are gods at throwing them?

Daemonic projectiles?

ETC.

All of these could've been either an equipment upgrade or just a upgrade to a unit.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Half the stratagems in any codex xould've been just equipment....

It makes zero sense that the Chaoslord manages the AA missile supply during the battle.
Grenadiers is a stratagem so half the time guardsmen just forget how to throw grenades? The other half they are gods at throwing them?

Daemonic projectiles?

ETC.

All of these could've been either an equipment upgrade or just a upgrade to a unit.

If you play using PLs, you can tailor your list on the day. Specify which units you are using, and swap-out the equipment before the game.
Stratagems are similar. You get to bring kit out when you need it, and ignore it if you aren't using it.
Fluff-wise, you're making it up as you go along. But on the table, most of your obscure kit gets dragged along anyway.