Switch Theme:

What’s most broken about 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






 slave.entity wrote:
Isn't the 95 documents of FAQ pretty similar to the 233 page comprehensive rules document that MtG has though?


No, because MTG puts it all in once place. You have one document to keep track of and that's it. 40k has 95 separate documents, any one of which could be updated or become obsolete at any time. There's an immense difference between having exactly one source to check and having to remember if it was CA17 or CA18 or the 40k rulebook FAQ or your codex FAQ that changed the thing your opponent thinks was changed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 23:35:15


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. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Would it be more acceptable to you if it was all in one giant document that GW just kept up to date?

That seems like something GW would totally do if enough people asked for it. That's just formatting.

Personally I haven't had much of a problem with the process of googling 'X faction FAQ' and clicking the first result. Or even just navigating to the FAQ page and finding the one I'm looking for. Yes, it could be more convenient, but it seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 00:00:14


--- 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






The 233 page MtG document that is available for free is more like the 281 page BrB you have to pay for. Except that the free document is all you need to play MtG rules wise and the BrB isn't enough without a codex.

If the MtG 233 doc was full of logic errors, general imbalances, unclear language, and a bunch of other bs and then required a FAQ/Errata to fix it along with 3 times a year updates that then all got their own FAQ erratas along with each color of mana having their own books along with artifacts and colorless and then each of those were full of logic errors, general imbalances, unclear language and a bunch of other bs and then required a FAQ/Errata to fix those, THEN we would be heading in a direction where the 2 were even remotely comparable.

They are not.

And no, I would not prefer things to stay broken. I prefer that they get their gak together and made it right the first time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/02 00:36:26



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






 slave.entity wrote:
Would it be more acceptable to you if it was all in one giant document that GW just kept up to date?

That seems like something GW would totally do if enough people asked for it. That's just formatting.

Personally I haven't had much of a problem with the process of googling 'X faction FAQ' and clicking the first result. Or even just navigating to the FAQ page and finding the one I'm looking for. Yes, it could be more convenient, but it seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.


Yes I totally agree, it would be a massive improvement.

I've been an advocate of this when the last survey came out trying to get the idea out there. Not sure how many people bothered to mention it though.
All it takes is for the battle primer to be updated & re-uploaded whenever they get enough emails & questions about it. Its very easy to do for the core rules because they are free.

It becomes a bit trickier for codexes because they cost money.... But I would argue if you buy the PDF version you should be able to have the most up to date errata'd version whenever an update is made I wouldn't even mind getting a book version and a PDF version YMMV.

40K as a game is far from perfect and could use lots of improvements. Some people will just hate on 40K because '40k sucks!'. That's their opinion and they need everyone to know it... I don't understand what it brings them because they could just ignore 40k - not play, collect, and not waste any time thinking about how much they hate it.

I just ignore it and enjoy painting and playing with my models.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 01:07:21


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




 slave.entity wrote:
Would it be more acceptable to you if it was all in one giant document that GW just kept up to date?

That seems like something GW would totally do if enough people asked for it. That's just formatting.

Personally I haven't had much of a problem with the process of googling 'X faction FAQ' and clicking the first result. Or even just navigating to the FAQ page and finding the one I'm looking for. Yes, it could be more convenient, but it seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.



If it was in one document they would just change to complaining about how many pages it was. With this group there is no improving the situation. Just screaming into the void.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





This thread isn’t just about complaining. It is about identifying the broken things in the game so we can create fixes. I’m working on simple changes that would fix the game. But I would need help. I’d need volunteers to take the new basic structure and then adapt a coded to it and revise it along the new lines I’ve set up. It’s too much for one man to do. But it would be doable. And it would make 40k a much better game without so much cheese and things that piss you off
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Unless you're part of the GW 40k team you aren't going to come up with a fix. Not to denigrate your efforts, but even then you're like the programmer that sees 8 different standards and writes a new languages with the features of all 8 and creates a 9th.

But hey, while I'm here, I wish there was more interactivity, like going to ground and pinning. I miss those things.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





House rules my friend. House rules.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




You can't travel with house rules.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Bharring wrote:
That none of the options on the table are perfect. Rhino Sniping can certainly be silly, but the Anti-Rhino Sniping rules provide similarly silly scenarios.


So you're both making the same point, but you're making it to dispute his version of making the same point - which was literally the answer to the question asked?

Q: Whats wrong with True LOS?

A: Rhino Sniping forcing specific casualty removal

Whataboutism: Untargetable Characters - which is a flaw with the shooting at characters rule (change), not the True LOS rules. IIRC the original rules didn't include invalid/hidden/etc targets - so if a character was the closest one you could see- it was fair game.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Breton wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That none of the options on the table are perfect. Rhino Sniping can certainly be silly, but the Anti-Rhino Sniping rules provide similarly silly scenarios.


So you're both making the same point, but you're making it to dispute his version of making the same point - which was literally the answer to the question asked?

Q: Whats wrong with True LOS?

A: Rhino Sniping forcing specific casualty removal

Whataboutism: Untargetable Characters - which is a flaw with the shooting at characters rule (change), not the True LOS rules. IIRC the original rules didn't include invalid/hidden/etc targets - so if a character was the closest one you could see- it was fair game.
I mean, GW had a perfectly acceptable rule for protecting characters in 3rd though 7th, so why not just use that again?

An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firing model and it is not within 2" of another enemy unit.


And I personally would want to improve the CHARACTER rule such that they can only be screened by equal or "larger" units (and yes, I am aware this hits Rowboat Girlyman but he shouldn't have the MONSTER keyword to begin with). This would make Old One Eye usable for a start.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 07:04:33


 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Well they need the pricehike to hire more incompetent practicants to write their rules.

I tell you

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I mean, GW had a perfectly acceptable rule for protecting characters in 3rd though 7th, so why not just use that again?


I solved that problem by simply going back to 3rd Ed. which only leaves me a few issues to contend with. They don't break the game, but you do have to plan for it.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 BaconCatBug wrote:
I mean, GW had a perfectly acceptable rule for protecting characters in 3rd though 7th, so why not just use that again?

Were you not around for those editions? Did you somehow miss how many rules and FAQs were related to just handling independent characters? Just download the 5th edition BRB somewhere an check the chapter(!) about characters. Plus the issue with any character missing that ability just being target practice.
Oh, and challenges.
The current character rules are the by far the best ones we had so far, characters finally do what they are supposed to do.

An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firing model and it is not within 2" of another enemy unit.


And I personally would want to improve the CHARACTER rule such that they can only be screened by equal or "larger" units (and yes, I am aware this hits Rowboat Girlyman but he shouldn't have the MONSTER keyword to begin with). This would make Old One Eye usable for a start.

OOE is 9 wounds, what would this change?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
 slave.entity wrote:
Would it be more acceptable to you if it was all in one giant document that GW just kept up to date?

That seems like something GW would totally do if enough people asked for it. That's just formatting.

Personally I haven't had much of a problem with the process of googling 'X faction FAQ' and clicking the first result. Or even just navigating to the FAQ page and finding the one I'm looking for. Yes, it could be more convenient, but it seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.



If it was in one document they would just change to complaining about how many pages it was. With this group there is no improving the situation. Just screaming into the void.


This is 2019. The only time GW should be generating a PDF for their FAQs should be when someone hits the "print this" button on their searchable database.
There are third party webpages of questionable legality that already have organized all the rules (BRB, CA, Vigilus, FAQs, Index, FW, all codices and every single promotional model) in a way that you can find any rule in the game with no more than 5 clicks.
The only reason not to do this is incompetence or greed - and ockham's razor points us to incompetence.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 08:26:27


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Sorry, for some reason I had a brainfart and thought OOE had 10 wounds.

I am not suggesting reintroducing Independent Characters joining squads, just that a Character next to a bodyguard/screening unit can't be shot but one in the open can.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/02 08:25:12


 
   
Made in gb
Irked Necron Immortal





 slave.entity wrote:
Would it be more acceptable to you if it was all in one giant document that GW just kept up to date?

That seems like something GW would totally do if enough people asked for it. That's just formatting.


GW would never to this because it would mean they'd have to stop charging for rules.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
 slave.entity wrote:
Isn't the 95 documents of FAQ pretty similar to the 233 page comprehensive rules document that MtG has though?


No, because MTG puts it all in once place. You have one document to keep track of and that's it. 40k has 95 separate documents, any one of which could be updated or become obsolete at any time. There's an immense difference between having exactly one source to check and having to remember if it was CA17 or CA18 or the 40k rulebook FAQ or your codex FAQ that changed the thing your opponent thinks was changed.


Also worth pointing out the MtG 233-page document is more like the full, official rules of something like golf, including all its variants like foursomes and fourballs. You don't generally need to use the full rules when playing a game and the document is written to be as watertight as possible. There's about 3 pages just on colours, for example, which are a really simple concept to grasp but need a lot of explaining to provide completely watertight language.

The problem with 40k's current pile of documents is they include everything from answers to truly idiotic questions to genuinely useful answers, to full-on errata, all scattered about the place. The number of 90+ is hyperbolic in that you'll never need that for an individual game, but I do think GW could improve things by consolidating all the non-Codex FAQ/errata info into a single document so you only need your Codex FAQ and one master FAQ for all other sources.
   
Made in gb
Soul Token




West Yorkshire, England

 small_gods wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

Again, you can absolutely enjoy 40k. Lots of people enjoy bad things. Thats fine. Like what you like.


Gee thanks I feel validated now.

But in all seriousness why are you wasting so much time and energy telling people that '40k is bad'? It feels like it would be more enjoyable and mentally healthy to talk about things you like. For instance I'm not spending my time on harry potter forums bitching about how much I dislike them and anyone who enjoys them is 'an idiot, flapping their jaw'.


They spend all that energy, because that is what they derive pleasure from. There's no other explanation for how some people can keep chanting the exact same complaints for years and years at a time. Asking why someone invests so much time in something they don't like is the obvious question, but it's missing the point--endlessly mewling and kvetching about something they hate (and sneering at those who do enjoy it) is their joy.

"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich." 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Don't know about anyone else, but I spend time and money on the version of the game I actually enjoy. I keep coming here to keep my finger on the pulse of modern 40K in case the newest edition somehow jibes with how I want to play, or to maybe drum up any interest in retrogaming.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Breton wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That none of the options on the table are perfect. Rhino Sniping can certainly be silly, but the Anti-Rhino Sniping rules provide similarly silly scenarios.


So you're both making the same point, but you're making it to dispute his version of making the same point - which was literally the answer to the question asked?

Q: Whats wrong with True LOS?

A: Rhino Sniping forcing specific casualty removal

Whataboutism: Untargetable Characters - which is a flaw with the shooting at characters rule (change), not the True LOS rules. IIRC the original rules didn't include invalid/hidden/etc targets - so if a character was the closest one you could see- it was fair game.
I mean, GW had a perfectly acceptable rule for protecting characters in 3rd though 7th, so why not just use that again?

An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firing model and it is not within 2" of another enemy unit.


And I personally would want to improve the CHARACTER rule such that they can only be screened by equal or "larger" units (and yes, I am aware this hits Rowboat Girlyman but he shouldn't have the MONSTER keyword to begin with). This would make Old One Eye usable for a start.

Breton makes a good point. My post was more about agreement and expansion of BCB's point. I didn't write it well.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Just Tony wrote:
Don't know about anyone else, but I spend time and money on the version of the game I actually enjoy. I keep coming here to keep my finger on the pulse of modern 40K in case the newest edition somehow jibes with how I want to play, or to maybe drum up any interest in retrogaming.


I also spend my time and money on the version of the game I actually enjoy
The only wrong way to do a hobby is not having fun.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




I guess we can count "Complaining about 40k" as a legitimate hobby now, enough people seem to enjoy doing it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Well, I stopped playing “normal” games of 40k becuase somehow the game just crawls along at a very boring pace. The top two reasons I noticed were absolutely ridiculous amounts of dice rolling, and tracking all the special rules, stratagems, cps, etc... during a game. Definitely the dice rolling though is the number one issue.

I still play at home with small Point sizes and the more simple units, but the typical game is just frankly boring the way it plays out. I don’t know if I’d say it’s broken, just a real slog even if (and usually this is not the case), everyone knows every rule by heart.

I dunno, somehow they managed to take the stripped down version that is 8th and bloat it up real fast.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Crimson Devil wrote:
I guess we can count "Complaining about 40k" as a legitimate hobby now, enough people seem to enjoy doing it.


Just as long as we also count "whining about negativity" as a hobby.

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. 
   
Made in gb
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot




UK

I guess I fall into the camp of "it's far from perfect, but not really that broken". But as it's fun to complain, my biggest gripe is paper books.

I just don't get the addiction to printed rules, they get errata'd, FAQ'd or CA'd pretty intensively and are basically obsolete within a set timeframe (whether that's a few days before the rules are arbitrarily changed or at best when a new edition lands). As an accountant it makes me wince thinking about how many unsold worthless out of date books must be scrapped by GW, and as a hobbyist I cant help but feel like free electronic rules distribution would strip away any barriers to me starting up smaller alternative armies (i.e. sell me more models - the mark up on plastic is better than paper and models only go out of date if no one buys them).
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Elemental wrote:
 small_gods wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

Again, you can absolutely enjoy 40k. Lots of people enjoy bad things. Thats fine. Like what you like.


Gee thanks I feel validated now.

But in all seriousness why are you wasting so much time and energy telling people that '40k is bad'? It feels like it would be more enjoyable and mentally healthy to talk about things you like. For instance I'm not spending my time on harry potter forums bitching about how much I dislike them and anyone who enjoys them is 'an idiot, flapping their jaw'.


They spend all that energy, because that is what they derive pleasure from. There's no other explanation for how some people can keep chanting the exact same complaints for years and years at a time. Asking why someone invests so much time in something they don't like is the obvious question, but it's missing the point--endlessly mewling and kvetching about something they hate (and sneering at those who do enjoy it) is their joy.


I didn't sneer at anyone. Stop projecting. I legit want you to enjoy the things you enjoy. Who cares if its crap if you have fun with it? I read comics. Any idea how fething dumb those are?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




 Peregrine wrote:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
I guess we can count "Complaining about 40k" as a legitimate hobby now, enough people seem to enjoy doing it.


Just as long as we also count "whining about negativity" as a hobby.



It's a package deal. I can't talk about 40k on Dakka without you lot pissing all over the topic, and you can't complain without us calling you out. We are doomed to repeat this endless cycle of bullgak as we fall forever. Our fingers wrapped around eachother's throats for eternity.



So
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Sounds appropriate for 40K.
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

And this cycle of negativity explains my frequent absences from this forum.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




It's grimdark though, right? Everything is supposed to suck.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: