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.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

the entire "problem" with bloat is a purely subjective issue. how many rules is too many? you will get a differant answer for every fething player.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

I do. You're not being objective. You're trying to force your opinion (which is subjective), by presenting it as fact.

You two are so cute

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

the entire "problem" with bloat is a purely subjective issue. how many rules is too many? you will get a differant answer for every fething player.

I understand why you would say this. I do.

But you are wrong.

You can objectively find a superior refined model. Every time you can accomplish the same thing with less rules it is objectively less bloated and likely (often - but not always) a superior product.

There is a concept that me and other designers have taken to calling an exception cascade. You write a rule or a set of rules for a game and thats fine. But the way in which you wrote those rules don't work because of the way you wrote them. So to patch it you write an exception. Example: First turn advantage exists because of the turn structure. So night fighting!

But then these exceptions have impacts on the rest of the fabric of the game. So you have to write more exceptions. And then they cascade...

The core rules of 40k are a fething mess. And then the codexes are a mess. And the stratagems are a mess. And all of these warrant exceptions. Rule of 3. Bolter Discipline. Angels of Death. etc etc...

And with every publication we get another FAQ errata to add more exceptions to correct more errors.


Objectively - The game is a bloated mess and every publication adds more bloated mess to the pile. You like THIS bit of the bloated mess because it allows the guys you like to function better within the sea of bloated mess. But objectively these options are just adding more cascading crap to the pile that is taking what was already a non elegant poorly made game and and making it more complicated, less elegant, and more of a bloated mess. SM might perform better. But the game itself has gotten worse in the process.

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

the entire "problem" with bloat is a purely subjective issue. how many rules is too many? you will get a differant answer for every fething player.

I understand why you would say this. I do.

But you are wrong.

You can objectively find a superior refined model. Every time you can accomplish the same thing with less rules it is objectively less bloated and likely (often - but not always) a superior product.

There is a concept that me and other designers have taken to calling an exception cascade. You write a rule or a set of rules for a game and thats fine. But the way in which you wrote those rules don't work because of the way you wrote them. So to patch it you write an exception. Example: First turn advantage exists because of the turn structure. So night fighting!

But then these exceptions have impacts on the rest of the fabric of the game. So you have to write more exceptions. And then they cascade...

The core rules of 40k are a fething mess. And then the codexes are a mess. And the stratagems are a mess. And all of these warrant exceptions. Rule of 3. Bolter Discipline. Angels of Death. etc etc...

And with every publication we get another FAQ errata to add more exceptions to correct more errors.


Objectively - The game is a bloated mess and every publication adds more bloated mess to the pile. You like THIS bit of the bloated mess because it allows the guys you like to function better within the sea of bloated mess. But objectively these options are just adding more cascading crap to the pile that is taking what was already a non elegant poorly made game and and making it more complicated, less elegant, and more of a bloated mess.

The problem is, you don't know that the rules aren't 'refined'. And what level of streamlined is required to not be bloat is also a subjective position. Furthermore, these aren't patches, their rules evolution.

By exceptions, you mean factions.

That's subjective. Followed by subjective, More subjective, and a continuation of subjective.

Because GW is the only game with FAQ? 3.0and 4.0 D&D had entire books written to hold their FAQ (3.0 called it 3.5 just to give you an example of how much stuff got fixed).

Subjectively, you think the game is a bloated mess. You don't like them adding to the game, so you call it a bloated mess, because adding more than one small base state line confuses you. Because subjectively, these options are just adding more cascading crap (your words).

Seriously, no one is making you buy any of this.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pm713 wrote:
There's a difference between not adding things and not bloating.

And I suspect the differance is in the eye of the beholder. you might see supplement ultramarines as bloat, whereas someone who plays ultramarines might be excited to have some unique options for them

I suspect that the people really excited to receive bloat for themselves are too close to the issue to see the problems.

You really need to start understanding what subjective means.

And you really need to start understanding what objective means.

the entire "problem" with bloat is a purely subjective issue. how many rules is too many? you will get a differant answer for every fething player.

I understand why you would say this. I do.

But you are wrong.

You can objectively find a superior refined model. Every time you can accomplish the same thing with less rules it is objectively less bloated and likely (often - but not always) a superior product.

There is a concept that me and other designers have taken to calling an exception cascade. You write a rule or a set of rules for a game and thats fine. But the way in which you wrote those rules don't work because of the way you wrote them. So to patch it you write an exception. Example: First turn advantage exists because of the turn structure. So night fighting!

But then these exceptions have impacts on the rest of the fabric of the game. So you have to write more exceptions. And then they cascade...

The core rules of 40k are a fething mess. And then the codexes are a mess. And the stratagems are a mess. And all of these warrant exceptions. Rule of 3. Bolter Discipline. Angels of Death. etc etc...

And with every publication we get another FAQ errata to add more exceptions to correct more errors.


Objectively - The game is a bloated mess and every publication adds more bloated mess to the pile. You like THIS bit of the bloated mess because it allows the guys you like to function better within the sea of bloated mess. But objectively these options are just adding more cascading crap to the pile that is taking what was already a non elegant poorly made game and and making it more complicated, less elegant, and more of a bloated mess.

The problem is, you don't know that the rules aren't 'refined'. And what level of streamlined is required to not be bloat is also a subjective position.

I can look at ANY other game on the market as a comparison and see how much worse 8th ed is doing.

Furthermore, these aren't patches, their rules evolution.

Thats not a bug! It's a feature! EA isn't pitching gambling to kids, it's surprise mechanics!

By exceptions, you mean factions.

By exceptions I mean further breaking out of the constraints of the rules of the game. As SM grow like this now everyone else will need to grow in turn. Where are nid hive fleets pick 2 features? Or taus? Or orks? And if they don't get them then why not? And if they do get them then here comes another cascade of exceptions as the avalanche of rules create more problems that require more fixes.

That's subjective. Followed by subjective, More subjective, and a continuation of subjective.

Because GW is the only game with FAQ? 3.0and 4.0 D&D had entire books written to hold their FAQ (3.0 called it 3.5 just to give you an example of how much stuff got fixed).

GW is the only game with 50+ faqs released over the course of 2 years. At this point they almost have enough FAQs that they could have been releasing one every 2 weeks since 8th dropped.

Subjectively, you think the game is a bloated mess. You don't like them adding to the game, so you call it a bloated mess, because adding more than one small base state line confuses you. Because subjectively, these options are just adding more cascading crap (your words).

Seriously, no one is making you buy any of this.

And I won't be buying any of it. Again, I think you are too close to see the issues.

I can look at ANY other game on the market as a comparison and see how much worse 8th ed is doing.

yeah the best selling minis game on the market, clearly 8th edition is doing worse!

BrianDavion wrote:

I can look at ANY other game on the market as a comparison and see how much worse 8th ed is doing.

yeah the best selling minis game on the market, clearly 8th edition is doing worse!

Every Michael Bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. That doesn't make any of them good movies.

8ths RULES are doing worse. Apparently when discussing the rules I need to clarify that my comment is in reference to the rules and not the companies profit margins. Rest assured, I agree that GWs profits are up. This SM release will see a new fat stack of cash in their coifers when everyone runs out to buy 2 books and 2 decks of datacards and a new set of dice for their ultramarines despite already owning the LAST set of ultramarine dice, purchasing the last single set of datacards, and already owning the single book they needed previously. I am sure a great many of you will be very happy to make your new purchases.

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I can look at ANY other game on the market as a comparison and see how much worse 8th ed is doing.

yeah the best selling minis game on the market, clearly 8th edition is doing worse!

Every Michael Bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. That doesn't make any of them good movies.

I think what you are going for is that other games have superior rules, but are boring as hell to most people, while GW makes bad rules that are surprisingly fun and entertaining. That would actually explain the market bias while retaining your perspective on the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am sure a great many of you will be very happy to make your new purchases.

I'll probably buy the dice. I like to collect dice. It is one of my vices.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I can look at ANY other game on the market as a comparison and see how much worse 8th ed is doing.

yeah the best selling minis game on the market, clearly 8th edition is doing worse!

Every Michael Bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. That doesn't make any of them good movies.

I think what you are going for is that other games have superior rules, but are boring as hell to most people, while GW makes bad rules that are surprisingly fun and entertaining. That would actually explain the market bias while retaining your perspective on the issue.

I wouldn't say that. I would say other games have superior rules but the sheer up front investment to get into a wargame makes it prohibitive without a community of opponents. I can buy a board game that only me and a friend I see every 3 months enjoys and it costs me 40 bucks. Thats not THAT much of an investment. But a Mini wargame requires time in assembly and paint and a massive cash investment. If I don't have opponents even if it's cheaper than GW it's less likely to get purchases. These games live and die by their communities. GW for sure has the lions share of opponents. 40k is not entertaining to me. And I have seen a LOT of new and old players look at the rules with confusion and frustration... not entertainment. I can't say I have ever played a game of stock 40k that didn't devolve into the player whos-turn-it-is-not staring at their phone while waiting to find out how many saves they have to roll by turn 3.

There are other variables at play that account for GWs profitability. At this point I take my collection of models and I play apoc at regular 40k scale. I need a single book to play and the rules just work and the down time is basically non existent. Still GW, because opponent availability. But not 40k. That gaks a boring (subjective) mess (objective).

@Lancer

Most of what you wrote doesn't have much to do with the discussion.

You basically told me "It's raining in Texas, so it must be dry in Montana."

 Mmmpi wrote:
@Lancer

Most of what you wrote doesn't have much to do with the discussion.

You basically told me "It's raining in Texas, so it must be dry in Montana."

I am very well aware that you don't understand. Thats fine.

No, the problem for you is that I do understand.

But we've said our piece, so shall we go back to the main topic?

 Mmmpi wrote:
No, the problem for you is that I do understand.

But we've said our piece, so shall we go back to the main topic?

I am on topic. Bloat for the Bloat God. Rules for the Rule Throne. It's not my fault (or problem!) that you can't understand how "rules evolution" is an issue.

Games Workshop now adapting to the "live service" style of game that's plaguing the video game market. Can't say I'm surprised, but anyone thinking this is somehow in the customers' benefit are deluding themselves. We've seen this whole story before.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
No, the problem for you is that I do understand.

But we've said our piece, so shall we go back to the main topic?

I am on topic. Bloat for the Bloat God. Rules for the Rule Throne. It's not my fault (or problem!) that you can't understand how "rules evolution" is an issue.

No, I meant the part where you tried to force your twisted opinion on everyone else, while trying to pass it off as fact, rather than an uneducated, logic-less mess.

part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

understand that these supplements etc offer OPTIONAL rules, you may choose to use or not, is entirely up to you.

now you may argue that "well some of these new options are better so I have to!" but using the D&D comparison again, no you don't. D&D often had arguably better stuff in their Splhat books too.

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

Hey guess what, Pathfinder solved this issue by having an open and free online compendium.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/

It's not hard to have an open ruleset online, it's just anti-capitalist to want to do so.
Ideally it's an online subscription based system, and grandpaps that dont want to learn the tech can cart around their wheelbarrows of books.

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

understand that these supplements etc offer OPTIONAL rules, you may choose to use or not, is entirely up to you.

now you may argue that "well some of these new options are better so I have to!" but using the D&D comparison again, no you don't. D&D often had arguably better stuff in their Splhat books too.

As others may or may not have pointed out in those discussions dnd is a fundamentally different game with an arbitrator who is free to pick and choose what does and does not get used. Everyone sitting at their table knows the rules. Likewise when you go to a ITC tourney they spell out their rules because it's their tables.

When I meet some dude at the local game store we are supposed to be able to spend a couple hours playing the same game. There is no arbiter dictating what is and is not allowed. For that reason WH DOES require a cohesive set of rules for what is and is not allowed/up to date.

No, you don't need every book for every army to play. But you DO need a index and its FAQ errata and the core book and it's faq errata minimum. And if you want to use strats then you need the codex and it's faq errata, which just because 2 books for SM and will be 2 more faq erratas within weeks of their release. (Maybe they will pull a space wolves and release the faq errata before the actual release date of the product again). The fact that they let you bring old stuff if not in the new stuff means you might need the index anyway, which means also the flow chart for what is and is not allowed to transfer from the index to the codexes (this btw was a big fething mistake because bloat). And if you are playing with points then you need CA and IT'S faq errata.

It's easy to argue BCB is blowing it out of proportion. But he's not blowing it THAT out of proportion. It is an issue. And it's one thats going to get worse by the end of the month.

Said it since the beginning that the core game is so bare bones that it's going to take slapping layer after layer of USRs (unique special rules) on top to give it any "depth". It's the same looking bloat as 7th formation shenanigans but with less gameplay mechanics(edit- auto correct had a stroke) and more numbers to plug into the mathammerulator. 8th is bloating horribly because there just isn't much to work with in the core rules set so it needs more exceptions and stacking bonuses thrown in to keep things interesting. Just with 8th it seems like these rules injections are getting a lot less bang for your buck where as at least 7th campaign books typically had a lot of rules (formations) for multiple armies. Game complexity still pales in comparison to other editions while requiring as much if not more (paid for) sources.

These changes are also blatant power creep but nobody seems to want to point that out.

 Vankraken wrote:
Said it since the beginning that the core game is so bare bones that it's going to take slapping layer after layer of USRs (unique special rules) on top to give it any "depth". It's the same looking bloat as 7th formation shenanigans but with less game vhangongechanics and more numbers to plug into the mathammerulator. 8th is bloating horribly because there just isn't much to work with in the core rules set so it needs more exceptions and stacking bonuses thrown in to keep things interesting. Just with 8th it seems like these rules injections are getting a lot less bang for your buck where as at least 7th campaign books typically had a lot of rules (formations) for multiple armies. Game complexity still pales in comparison to other editions while requiring as much if not more (paid for) sources.

These changes are also blatant power creep but nobody seems to want to point that out.

Exactly this.
Are you ready for the "Terrain of the 41st Millennium" supplement to make terrain matter?

An online Core Rulebook is required, that includes ALL the CORE and OPTIONAL rules ever released. This needs to be free.
Army rules should also be online, but require a gated entry (ie, enter your unique product key found in the physical codex).

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

The continuation of B-D's argument though is that in 40K, if you play UltraMarines, you need the UM supplement, the SM book, and the core rules. You don't need the Chaos Marines book, the eldar book, ect. Sure, maybe they're nice to read, but they don't actually add to your army. The Vigilus books add things, but they might not be things you want for your army.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

The continuation of B-D's argument though is that in 40K, if you play UltraMarines, you need the UM supplement, the SM book, and the core rules. You don't need the Chaos Marines book, the eldar book, ect. Sure, maybe they're nice to read, but they don't actually add to your army. The Vigilus books add things, but they might not be things you want for your army.

This would be the same amount as in 7th, the edition we agree was Bloat Hell. I don't see the difference personally.

Since Battletech was brought up earlier of a system that was good, I do feel obliged to note that battletech is actually a good example of bloat manage,ent. Battletech tends to have a lot of rules, useally a page or two at the back of their sourcebooks, however it's often pretty minimal because the player base eagerly gobbles up books with fluff. Btech can put out sourcebooks that are 200 pages of background info and a page of rules. 40k does that and people hate it. (see the 6th edition codex suppelments)

but moving on from this, many of the core important rules (stuff beyond the equivilant of narrative missions) later on get folded into the core rulebook the next time they put out a revamp of it. so yeah back when it first came out you needed to buy field manual federated suns for RAC 5 rules, but now the rules are in the tech manual.

obviously faction specific stuff is ahrd to do but I hope that stuff like new mission types etc introduced in CA are put into new printings of the core rule book down the line. which is what a living game system REALLY does. rather then each new edition being completely differant, it instead collects stuff that has developed organicly throughout the games lifetime into a single source

 Mmmpi wrote:

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

The continuation of B-D's argument though is that in 40K, if you play UltraMarines, you need the UM supplement, the SM book, and the core rules. You don't need the Chaos Marines book, the eldar book, ect. Sure, maybe they're nice to read, but they don't actually add to your army. The Vigilus books add things, but they might not be things you want for your army.

And if playing points you need CA, and if you want to bring a librarian on a bike you need the index. and then you need the faqs for all of those.

Your UM bare minimum example still requires 6 publications if playing with power level. Why is that acceptable to you?

Darsath wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

The continuation of B-D's argument though is that in 40K, if you play UltraMarines, you need the UM supplement, the SM book, and the core rules. You don't need the Chaos Marines book, the eldar book, ect. Sure, maybe they're nice to read, but they don't actually add to your army. The Vigilus books add things, but they might not be things you want for your army.

This would be the same amount as in 7th, the edition we agree was Bloat Hell. I don't see the difference personally.

the problem I had with 7th edition was the USRs got a tad rediculas. you had USRS that granted several USRs which granted several USRS. if "doom bringer" grants the killer and murderer USR, why bother giving a unit the doombringer USR? why not just give them the killer and murderer USRs?

I completely agree with the redundant USRs in 7th (missle lock anyone?). 8th has the opposite problem, where a lot of stuff that should be USRs aren't. I think most people agree with things like Deep Strike and Feel No Pain becoming USRs would be an easy fix, and it looks like GW are moving back to this in their recent books.

BrianDavion wrote:
Since Battletech was brought up earlier of a system that was good, I do feel obliged to note that battletech is actually a good example of bloat manage,ent. Battletech tends to have a lot of rules, useally a page or two at the back of their sourcebooks, however it's often pretty minimal because the player base eagerly gobbles up books with fluff. Btech can put out sourcebooks that are 200 pages of background info and a page of rules. 40k does that and people hate it. (see the 6th edition codex suppelments)

but moving on from this, many of the core important rules (stuff beyond the equivilant of narrative missions) later on get folded into the core rulebook the next time they put out a revamp of it. so yeah back when it first came out you needed to buy field manual federated suns for RAC 5 rules, but now the rules are in the tech manual.

obviously faction specific stuff is ahrd to do but I hope that stuff like new mission types etc introduced in CA are put into new printings of the core rule book down the line. which is what a living game system REALLY does. rather then each new edition being completely differant, it instead collects stuff that has developed organicly throughout the games lifetime into a single source

I actually brought it up as an example of a game who's books cost on par with GW codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
part of the problem 40k has with bloat is the assumption some people make that you need EVERYTHING. going abckll to how people have talked about D&D and pathfinder, D&D 3rd edition had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 books, no one in their right mind assumed you needed 60 books for every game, even if they had them all, they proably only used a handful, and then pulled out some other ones for special case circumstances. among the 40k player base there seems to be this impression that "NOTHING IS OPTIONAL" case in point BCB's claim that 8th edition has 80 some odd documents "Required" to play the game.

nevermind that if you're playing space marines vs chaos space marines, you might only need, between the two of you. 3 books (core rules and the codices) now obviously we can CHOOSE to add more to it. the CSM player might choose to play black legion and take vigilus ablaze for the formations and other abilities. I might choose to play an ultramarines list and take vigilus defiant the SM codex and the ultramarine supplement, but they're not NESSCARY.

This reads more like a Devil's Advocate position than a persuasive one. Suggesting that the new books which add a bunch of rules and buffs and flavour to your army aren't necessary is certainly true. No debating that you don't need them to play the game. But you will lose to anyone who does have them. Better pay out to keep viable. Just like with Chapter Approved, which is a balance patch which you pay for. It's awful for the consumer.

The continuation of B-D's argument though is that in 40K, if you play UltraMarines, you need the UM supplement, the SM book, and the core rules. You don't need the Chaos Marines book, the eldar book, ect. Sure, maybe they're nice to read, but they don't actually add to your army. The Vigilus books add things, but they might not be things you want for your army.

And if playing points you need CA, and if you want to bring a librarian on a bike you need the index. and then you need the faqs for all of those.

Or you and six friend buy CA and each photo copy the points changes.

Your UM bare minimum example still requires 6 publications if playing with power level. Why is that acceptable to you?