Anyone else feeling content fatigue?

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.

**the_scotsman**

lare2 wrote:
Wibe wrote:
I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.

Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.

Because the human brain instinctively ascribes value to a physical object, and in the back of every Simulation gamer's mind is the memory of buying a book for a wargame system, putting it on their shelf next to all the other books, and having it be enshrined there for all time allowing them an impartial system by which their model soldiers can fight a simulated war.

Their model trains are motorized to go around a model track, because that's what real trains do.

Their model soldiers have rules to simulate a war, because that's what real soldiers do.

**nou**

the_scotsman wrote:
I think the core of a lot of the problems with GW's many games properties these days is the conflict between a Simulation type game and a Competition type game.

Wargames, in the era when GW was founded and the original founders and designers still hail from, were Simulation mediums first and foremost. That's what set them apart from competitive games like Chess, where the objective is to start from a completely balanced position and use the game as a way to engage in a mental competition with your opponent: the rules were designed to mimic the FEEL of some form of entertainment rather than to provide a balanced playing field for the players to start on.

Dungeons and Dragons is a simulation of the plot of a fantasy fiction novel. It's not intended to be a contest between GM and Player, because the GM is essentially given complete authorial power and competition is basically just a byproduct of the game.

Similarly a classical wargame is intended to be a simulation of war. War isn't by nature fair, and you don't always have the side with lower quality troops starting with twice as many guys as the side with the higher quality troops. The purpose of rules and stats was originally designed as a way to simulate different types of units and weapons.

However, as time crept on people realized that simulation games lacked in a lot of areas. It allowed certain people tyrannical control over groups, and it enabled some really irritating behavior free reign. Anyone who's ever been involved in historical wargaming can wax poetic about the obnoxiousness of "That Guy" who disguises their inability to emotionally handle losing in complaints about historical accuracy...if you have a hard time spotting them they usually like to play lots of Roman History games as the Romans, and complaints about them are going to sound really familiar to people who read a lot of a particular bird-themed dakka poster.

In the end (at least by my perspective) the great war between Simulation games and Competitive games was slowly but steadily won not by impassioned complaints about fairness and integrity but by capitalism. MTG showed that a game where massive numbers of people can be made to treat the game like a sport and pretty much everybody plays the same way can be a financial powerhouse. The best groups for Simulation games are small, insular, and carefully policed cliques of like-minded gamers who are careful to avoid letting any one member become "that guy" who tries to always win. In a competitive game, a guy from a totally different country can play with you and theoretically, you'll both be able to have a fun time.

At this point most new miniatures games are designed to be purely competitive, with very few still holding on to the "simulation" style. GW has mostly moved over, but not in its entirety. We still have old relics of the extremely subjective past, like "Stoop down to the point of view of your model, and look to see if they can see their intended target!" That's a rule that would be far too simplistic for a true Competitive game. What's "point of view"? What point do you pick? Any point? What's "See"? Does it matter how I built my model? can I see you if I can just see a tiny bit of your hair or weapon?

In a controlled Simulation gaming group, any questions like that would be met with a hearty chorus of grumbles, but in a competitive game it's WILD to have a rule that's that loosey-goosey as a foundation of your game system. Yet, there we are! And in other areas of the game, you have stuff like the Close Combat system, which is pure simulation - your model might as well be a 2D circle the size of the base with whatever is on top of the base just being a handy thing for you to hold on to while moving the token around.

Ultimately a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed. 40k will never be a competitive wargame system when aspects of the Simulation Game past remain: stuff like endless rule supplements that not everyone is expected to own/know about, subjective rules at the core like true LOS and freeform terrain/mission design. But it will never work as a simulation game when you have a ton of rules that just don't really work the way a unit in a war is supposed to "feel" like models not being able to reach up past their base to attack, or explosions harming models wearing heavy armor more than cheap units wearing light armor.

That is a great summary on why narrative and competitive approaches are very much mutually exclusive and trying to cater to both crowds at once always has to be a "rotten compromise".

But I would also like to point out, that in regards to content output there is yet another split in playerbase that rarely gets discussed. That is the split between "at-home" players and "public" players. The "at-home" group heavily relies on new, encompassing content to keep replyability high and stay entertained by a game that requires so heavy time and money investment. At the same time "public" players require a ruleset that is contained enough to work as a common language, with tournament focused subgroup of "public players" also requiring that the entirety of rules is as static as possible with only balance tweaks as regular as possible. GW actually tries to manage this split by separating their "narrative" and "matched" sections, but you can also see this with Kill Team having basic and Arena versions.

And expecting from GW that they'll drop a significant portion of their existing/potential playerbase to make it more convenient for the other is naive - GW's ultimate goal are financial results, not making a game that is perfect for any particular style of use.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
lare2 wrote:
Wibe wrote:
I Love it! FAQs alone brought me back to the game. And if it were up to me, they would release more frequent but smaller FAQs (like they do in PC gaming). Then you could get small nerfs and buffs to a selected few units, and get a better balance without huge changes all at once.
That being said, they could make it easier on the players by releasing a similar, but official GW app like Battlescribe.
I would gladly pay a monthly fee for that.

Agreed. Why they don't do that is beyond me. An app would be easy money for them.

Because the human brain instinctively ascribes value to a physical object, and in the back of every Simulation gamer's mind is the memory of buying a book for a wargame system, putting it on their shelf next to all the other books, and having it be enshrined there for all time allowing them an impartial system by which their model soldiers can fight a simulated war.

Their model trains are motorized to go around a model track, because that's what real trains do.

Their model soldiers have rules to simulate a war, because that's what real soldiers do.

There is a niche for GW to fill here - unique, propriatary e-book reader with built in e-dice rolling widget and rules subscription plan

It doesn't need to come in a shape of a servoscull, but their april fools joke isn't entirely out of reason

**the_scotsman**

Oh, for sure. The split between narrative/matched/open is intended to allow some split between the two groups to exist.

The problem is that the Narrative (or in your example, at-home) player is the one who benefits the most from a steady stream of supplemental content, new Simulation style missions and rules and extra bonus goodies in White Dwarf/campaign books.

But the Matched (public) player still has to deal with some of that difficult to obtain content is legal for their play mode, so they have to learn and somehow obtain all of it to keep playing in an "anything goes" arena.

A harder distinction between narrative and matched content would solve this problem, but forcing the matched gamer to buy the books is a way to keep them from "freeloading" off of GW's continuous rules content.

If only the "home" crowd was required to buy campaign books, white dwarf magazines and other supplemental material, and the "public" crowd was given the material relevant to them for free, then there would not be enough income to support continuous rules development (at least, in theory).

The potential solution would be a total divide between matched and narrative, with all official matched play missions, rules, and stats available on a subscription app that "public" players would pay a fee for continuous access to.

Anything published outside the app would be narrative/open only, and not allowed at organized events.

That's how I would solve this particular problem personally, and I am guessing where we will end up when this is all over.

**nou**

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh, for sure. The split between narrative/matched/open is intended to allow some split between the two groups to exist.

The problem is that the Narrative (or in your example, at-home) player is the one who benefits the most from a steady stream of supplemental content, new Simulation style missions and rules and extra bonus goodies in White Dwarf/campaign books.

But the Matched (public) player still has to deal with some of that difficult to obtain content is legal for their play mode, so they have to learn and somehow obtain all of it to keep playing in an "anything goes" arena.

A harder distinction between narrative and matched content would solve this problem, but forcing the matched gamer to buy the books is a way to keep them from "freeloading" off of GW's continuous rules content.

If only the "home" crowd was required to buy campaign books, white dwarf magazines and other supplemental material, and the "public" crowd was given the material relevant to them for free, then there would not be enough income to support continuous rules development (at least, in theory).

The potential solution would be a total divide between matched and narrative, with all official matched play missions, rules, and stats available on a subscription app that "public" players would pay a fee for continuous access to.

Anything published outside the app would be narrative/open only, and not allowed at organized events.

That's how I would solve this particular problem personally, and I am guessing where we will end up when this is all over.

I agree, many of the most cumbersome aspects of modern content output are there because there exist a large enough group of players that are "one foot here, one foot there" kind of "universal user", which is a legacy issue realy, that simply cannot be dropped outright, you have to soften the split up so everybody gets accustomed to the change. What we see in Kill Team, that is a "transitional design" elements to it are in fact primers to what will come next. The incoming Apocalypse is clearly another step towards separating interests into manageable subgroups of players that still utilize the same plastic products (which is the bulk of cost/profit for GW) but we will eventually have separate games for different player groups. But I seriously doubt that the whining will end there, as there will always be players that will try to force round peg into a square hole and will remain very vocal about it.

**Elbows**

I'd say yes? But, admittedly it rarely impacts me. I don't chase the meta, and I own two armies that I stick to...so I can ignore the overwhelming majority of content. As for trying to keep up with what exists and what does what....yes, way too much and too poorly organized. I will say it is probably an absolute fething nightmare for a new starting player if he's trying to do matched play.

**chnmmr**

Not at all, I wish GW would throw some ‘content’ in the direction of my Grey Knights. Maybe some fixes.. new codex... mention in vigilus at all.... anything really.

**LunarSol**

I preferred Indexes in the very early days of Codexes, but as they've become widely available I think they've become an improvement. There are too many overly specific strategems, but they feel like what psychic powers have always tried to accomplish without all the fluff baggage that comes with the psychic phase.

**Darsath**

chnmmr wrote:
Not at all, I wish GW would throw some ‘content’ in the direction of my Grey Knights. Maybe some fixes.. new codex... mention in vigilus at all.... anything really.

This sums it up more or less. There are plenty of areas that need work or attention, which have been waiting for a while. I think Games Workshop really does need to re-do a lot of the earlier codexes. There's a lot of weird issues with the earlier releases, such as the weaker stratagems, the inconsistent application of factions rules (or chapter tactics if you prefer) and a lot of errata that has been applied to these older books. Not to mention that they also have some of the more egregious examples of poor internal balance.

**Delvarus Centurion**

Smotejob wrote:
At the beginning of 8th, rules were nice n streamlined. Granted there were some issues but I only needed an index and the rule book.

Now, to use all the rules I need for an army, I need the rule book, the most recent chapter approved, the big FAQ, 2-3x codex (because any imperium the is competitive uses 2-3 factions), FAQs for those armies, and vigilus.

Anyone else feeling fatigue from content bloat like I am? I do thank GW for so much attention, just it is a lot to keep track of.

Yeah, we need one source for rules. Its all well and good releasing new rules, data sheets and points constantly but GW need to constantly release new 'rule books' we all have to buy the chapter approves etc. so why not cut the bull and just constantly buy new rule books that have every change including the old rules that are still valid. I'm sick and tired of having to look at 4 different sources for rules, it makes games longer than they have to be and its a nightmare to organise.

**Galas**

You only feel bloat if you:

-Play something like 7-8 armies.
-Try to chase the dragon called "meta"

With my Dark Angels ,Tau and Adeptus Custodes I have only bought my Codex and CA2018. Nothing more.

**HoundsofDemos**

As much as I don't like digital E books at this point it might be the only way to consolidate the rules madness that 40k has sunken back into. To have the full rules for just my main army Vanilla Space Marines I need a codex, CA 2018, several different FAQ, various WDs, and a growing number of campaign supplements. That's not even touching the Soup trend that GW is doubling down on.

**Thargrim**

What the OP describes is exactly why I haven't bought any GW products this year and have considered never going back. I'm tired of how GW handles their games, and so far i'm finding the grass is indeed greener with bolt action and maybe even SW legion.

**Apple fox**

I tend to think its just GW being bad at how they do things.
For narrative my group do not go with anything GW has released in a long while, and for competitive they are a bit of a joke. Its a nostalgia game for so much of why i think i am even still with it.

I think its also that they bring some things out at a break neck pace. and other things will take years for them to even acknowledge existence off.
I also feel they do not have enough of a idea of there own games to really be putting out good quality. They change things around, bits and pieces all over the place.
And there supplements are mostly bad but still cost more than any other company.

**Ginjitzu**

I suggest not feeling obliged to have all of that stuff just to win. At what point is the "fun" of winning outweighed by the "cost" of doing what you feel must be done to achieve that win. In other words, forget trying to buy all the things you feel you need to be competitive, and just buy the things you really want to. If however, your need to remain competitive means that you won't have any fun otherwise, then that fatigue is the cost you will have to pay, because even if the issues with FAQs and soup are resolved, I'm afraid Chapter Approved and campaign books are going nowhere.

**Excommunicatus**

I don't really feel a need to win and I rarely do in fact win, but I still need a minimum of the Rulebook, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Codex: Chaos Daemons, Index: Chaos, Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, Codex: Astra Militarum and Chapter Approved to write/play a 2K fluff list. Six of those seven books have associated FAQs. So from that POV, while I'm not 'fatigued' by content, the situation is very far from ideal.

However, having so many rules at my disposal is utterly wonderful.

**filbert**

Not so much content fatigue but as a returning player with multiple armies, who hasn't really played properly since 5th or 6th, I find it difficult to understand where all the rules are, what books I actually need, what card decks I need and so on and so forth. It's not very concise and that is despite all the talk of 8th being the most stripped down rules-wise; it may well be but the knock-on consequence is just pushing rules out to multiple satellite books rather than one core rulebook.

**Ginjitzu**

filbert wrote:
Not so much content fatigue but as a returning player with multiple armies, who hasn't really played properly since 5th or 6th, I find it difficult to understand where all the rules are, what books I actually need, what card decks I need and so on and so forth. It's not very concise and that is despite all the talk of 8th being the most stripped down rules-wise; it may well be but the knock-on consequence is just pushing rules out to multiple satellite books rather than one core rulebook.

Yeah. The core rules are great, but the complexity seems to have just been pushed elsewhere. Although, I would argue that they're so much complex, as they are everywhere. It's not even the abundance of publications that's the problem for me. As I've said, for my purposes, Chapter Approved and campaign supplements are optional, and I only need one codex for my one army, but the FAQs and errata are an atrocious mess. Why can't the next big FAQ just contain all errata and FAQs to date? It's the same amount of data, but having it in a single download would go a long way towards making it more manageable.

**Inquisitor Snikch**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The big issue I have is that the output is going an order of magnitude faster than the revisions, hence blunders like the the new Shadowspear models being priced as if it's pre-CA18. The rules team keep putting out dodgy rules, and the speed at which they're re-balancing just isn't commensurate with the output of new rules. As a result, you have to brace yourself every time they release new models, because if it's a stinker one way or the other it's gonna fester for half a year (at least!).

Pre-empting the "back in my day we only got a codex once every epoch and if we didn't like it the only other game was kick-the-roadkill...." comments, it's 2019 for crying out loud. CA is a book. They take time to print, so OK. But the idea that we have to wait for a pdf BIG FAQ once a year, instead of them just fixing things is silly. Some things will take time, and they should. Other things are bleeding obvious and could be tweaked with an FAQ with a way shorter turnaround. Not sure if it's balanced? Make it a beta rule! Actually take advantage of the fact that the internet exists for once, jeez.

And for the Triarch's sake, put the CA points changes in the Codex FAQs you jerks.

The reason for this is marketing pure and simple. Release a ruleset/box/codex/etc. put some janky overpowered rules with it. It becomes the must have thing to dominate/power game/win at the table and so you create demand and drive sales as everyone rushes out to buy. Most recently this would be Orks, Skaven , and FEC. Then FAQ to restore balance for the loyalists that don't buy the new hip thing. As the hype fades and balance (to a point) returns... Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

**Wayniac**

I'll address two key points here:

1) On Simulation vs. Competitive: This is a weird spot because Warhammer has always been a byproduct of the first, and it's only thanks to the mindset that everything needs to be treated as a hyper-competitive thing (essentially the tabletop version of an e-sport) has necessitated that it move to Competitive focus, yet they did it half-assed. Personally, I think it should have stayed Simulation, but it's a problem with the general "pick up game" mentality where people want to be able to turn up anywhere and ask for a game of 40k (think on vacation in a different country and roll into a Warhammer store) and have there be set guidelines to play to minimize setup effort. The fact this method has become the default is in some ways a good thing (it increases the pool of potential players) and a bad thing (it discourages playing the game as it was envisioned and just focusing on the meta aspects of the game).

This, in turn, has pushed the idea to have recognized "world championships" and rankings in the vein of MtG which is what gave rise to the ITC and FLG's authority in the tournament scene, as GW wanted to go the other direction and faced backlash by the people who want to use these rankings to feel superior to their peers. Now we have this nebulous place where GW is trying to balance the game, which is good, but they are chasing their tail by always being months behind.

2) On the Index: I would agree with the sentiment that Index 40k was relatively balanced. There were still some issues (those Dark Eldar flocks spring to mind) but overall the game at launch, pre-Codex, was way better than the game now IMHO. Way less bloated, way less ridiculous combos and abuses caused by their desire to give every army unique stratagems as part of the balance while never seeming to factor in all the permutations. They seem to be echoing how WOTC began to mess up D&D 3.5: Every new book added different Prestige Classes, but they were always balanced around the base classes, never the entire gamut of books, which led to taking various combos across 6 books to break the game. Coupled with the fact that, similar to GW, the designers played in a particular way that did not focus on min/maxing and optimization, and you had the designers putting out fun and interesting options which were summarily either dismissed as garbage by the players (similar to how when you look optimally 90%+ of a Codex is discarded) or only looked at for what could be cherry-picked to maximize the build du jour (similar to how Soup lets you cherry-pick the best units across factions to negate any weakness). There are a lot of parallels there to my eye.

**Martel732**

No one is ever going to agree to the points disparity necessary to simulate blood angel fluff.

**Crablezworth**

8th Edition failed the simulation test the second a grot stopped a baneblade cold in its tracks, that and one realizes they can assault a bastion with a valkyrie. 8th has always been bad, it just got worse is all.

As far as content fatigue, hoping the bloat will hide the rot is a time honored tradition at gw

**Brutus_Apex**

Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*

But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.

I do make large armies though...

**AngryAngel80**

I just hate the rules bloat. I hate them placing rules for models I already bought and had to be rules for in a more annoying to get medium for me. I don't get white dwarf and now all my assassins are just shelved till they put out their rules in an easy to acquire format, just to name one issue.

The second is just the bloat which they said they were moving away from and are now going right back into. I'm already hearing and seeing how some things are " Only workable " because of these detachments from campaign books. That was an issue in 7th and I was happy to see it gone and here it comes again. As well even if you have things in digital it still requires a lot of back and forth to check all the different sources for all these rules.Such as, index, codex, white dwarf, campaign book, FAQs, chapter approved just to play Guard with an assassin, it's silly. Oh and lets not forget characters released with their own bespoke rules in special order models, like Marbo can't forget that so another piece of rules to keep in mind and look up.

I wish they'd just make a public statement saying they are just as bloated as they ever were and going to be more so in the future. I do wonder at this rate how long it'll be before they break it all to pieces and need to wipe it and start again with the same empty promises of less bloat before you end up removing your belt like its thanksgiving all over again.

Not to be negative fully, I like they are doing FAQs and such, point adjustments I just wish they would handle it all a bit better. Now we need to even be aware of buying version 1 or 2 of a codex ? GW please, if I was a new player I'd be beyond lost with all this.

Edit: I forgot, Forgeworld index as well just to use my vendettas I'd made to use my GW models that had been in the guard book proper since 5th edition and removed this edition.

**Karol**

Brutus_Apex wrote:
Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*

But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.

I do make large armies though...

Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.

**AngryAngel80**

Karol wrote:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*

But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.

I do make large armies though...

Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.

It is just the way it was, you danced with who brought ya. People played with a codex that was aged, or old or just plain bad for quite awhile. Like I did with my late 4th edition Dark Angel codex, it was bland and bad and limited and just awful. However was stuck with that book for quite a long time and the book before that was also very meh from way back in 3rd edition. At that time they were my only army so it was quite a journey.

**StormX**

I am, i wish there was a simple page explaining the the most important things that explain every thing in simple broad terms, then gets more detailed after that. But i'm some what illiterate so its probably just me.

**Drager**

Karol wrote:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Back in my day we had to wait 5- 7 years between codexes and we liked it *grumble*

But yes, keeping up with content and even models is a nightmare. I paint maybe 1 or 2 armies a year and I just can't keep up. I'm not even chasing the meta.

I do make large armies though...

Codex in the past must have really been writen with much better rule sets then now, because I can't imagine someone playing something like GK for 7 years with hope that maybe the codex gets better, only to get a copy past codex later on, and live with the prospect of another 5-7 years waiting.

You just kind of stuck with it and hoped a new edition (more likely than a new codex) would make you less crap. DE had a codex in 3rd, but not in 3.5 or 4th and got one again in 5th (10 years later!). Nothing in 6th, but they then got another in 7th (4 year wait this time, we were spoiled!) and then got one in 8th (3 year wait if you count the index, 4 for the codex). They haven't had any model releases at all in the last 8 years and don't expect any any time soon. A couple of the units are strong enough to make it in the tournament meta at the moment though and about half to 2/3 of the codex is 'fine', so that's nice.

**Slipspace**

There's an element of content fatigue for me, for sure. It was bad enough when new Codices were being released monthly and keeping up with new rules was almost a full-time job, but it's now much worse thanks to GW going back to the ridiculous bloat of 7th edition with campaign books and weird formation rules spread over multiple publications. I'm not buying WD just for the Assassin rules. GW need to make stuff like that available to all at some point, preferably relatively soon after the rules are published.

Very soon we'll be back to the horror show that was the end of 7th where you need half a dozen rules sources to play your one-Codex army and need to constantly be on the lookout for new material, which GW is usually pretty bad at explaining. The new Chaos Codex was a great example of how bad they are at this. From their announcement prior to the Codex release, I had assumed you just needed to get the new Codex to get all the rules. Turns out a huge chunk of the rules for Chaos are actually in Vigilus.

It's bad enough now but give it a year, with multiple campaign books, more WD articles and more updated Codices and it's going to be almost impossible to figure out where your rules are located.

**SHUPPET**

Argive wrote:
Oh yeah too much content for peoples armies.. must be a real bummer!

im sitting here with a bunch of failcast 15 year old sculpts :p.

Exactly this lol. We're spoiled for content. I just feel bad for people playing the niche armies that missed the boat. Unbelievable that people complain about having more, optional, additions, added to their army.

**Phaeron Gukk**

Slipspace wrote:
The new Chaos Codex was a great example of how bad they are at this. From their announcement prior to the Codex release, I had assumed you just needed to get the new Codex to get all the rules. Turns out a huge chunk of the rules for Chaos are actually in Vigilus.

Of the recent blunders, I thought that the CSM Codex 2.0 omitting the new Daemonkin rules but still keeping print errors (65pt Oblits!) was pretty heinous. You can't even use the new rules unless you buy the new models, which come in the same box as the Daemonkin codex!