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.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

If I'm paying for tea, I expect it to be made correctly.

There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE other type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

People are being snarky but saying you can house rule GW's bad rules so things are fine is just a bit disingenuous. Which I think is Slayer's whole issue although I also don't think it's "objective fact" that everything is garbage either. Just it does feel like getting cheated when you're paying money for expensive books and then have to also spend time fixing the problems. Doubly so when you don't have a small, close-knit group where you can establish house rules.

Remember, most of us in the USA play at public stores where anyone can turn up for a game. Regulars, people new to the area, people just passing through, etc. It's not exactly common or easy to have a list of additions to the game and expect everyone to know or use them. That's why having a solid core is so important; people don't want to house rule. They want standard and official rules that are used universally and expected to be good for the price paid. Saying oh well it's bad but my group changes the rules so it's not is kinda proving the point. You shouldn't need to do the work of so-called professional designers if they were any good at their job.

There's a difference between house ruling to add extras and house ruling to fix flaws in the game's design.

Wayniac wrote:
People are being snarky but saying you can house rule GW's bad rules so things are fine is just a bit disingenuous. Which I think is Slayer's whole issue although I also don't think it's "objective fact" that everything is garbage either. Just it does feel like getting cheated when you're paying money for expensive books and then have to also spend time fixing the problems. Doubly so when you don't have a small, close-knit group where you can establish house rules.

Remember, most of us in the USA play at public stores where anyone can turn up for a game. Regulars, people new to the area, people just passing through, etc. It's not exactly common or easy to have a list of additions to the game and expect everyone to know or use them. That's why having a solid core is so important; people don't want to house rule. They want standard and official rules that are used universally and expected to be good for the price paid. Saying oh well it's bad but my group changes the rules so it's not is kinda proving the point. You shouldn't need to do the work of so-called professional designers if they were any good at their job.

There's a difference between house ruling to add extras and house ruling to fix flaws in the game's design.

My group only has one house rule and its just to make cover easier (units in terrain get cover saves) to remember because we're all getting older and already forget loads already. We get by fine, but then we also play wrong and apparently do our best not to kill each others armies I'm told by people on here.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How much of the game are we supposed to write ourselves? The core rules are four pages....

Like the amount of honey, lemon or milk in your tea, as much as you need to get you what you want.

Okay, but to add those I have to have tea first, not just a bunch of unfiltered river water.

Yes, I could filter and boil it myself.
Yes, I could go get my own tea leaves.
Yes, I could brew my own tea if I wanted .

That is where 40k is now. It isn't really tea. It's a brown liquid, but that's because they just took a scoop out of the bottom of a river...

I hate to be a pedant but there are literally two-year-old gamebreaking bugs in the code (ref:assault weapons) that we are all reasonably house-ruling around.

Excuse me if I order tea and get upset when I am served unfiltered river water, even if I really *could* make it work. At that point it is easier to just start my own tea (by that I mean write my own game).

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

I’m all about the home brew, myself.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Catulle wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


There's no "correct" proportion of milk, sugar, honey or lemon in tea, Slayer...

Tea At All Costs-er!

Name ONE otjher type of tea that's as poorly balanced as Lady Gray! I'll wait.

Rooibos is clearly the red-headed stepchild of the range. Objective. Fact.

A lot of people have mixed feelings about Roobois' recent resurrection and becoming Lord Commander of the Teaperium.

That's t'eacclesiarchy for you...

I’m all about the home brew, myself.

I really enjoy a caffeinated breakfast tea. It helps my psychic awakening in the morning.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it changed a lot, but not the basic mechanics behind the game

Neither did 8th. Its still a d6 system with hit/wound/save rolls.

of course, I guess than Draughts and Go are just different names for the same game

 kodos wrote:
Of course, I guess than Draughts and Go are just different names for the same game

I suppose T.E.A. can be bottled to go, but it's a different experience if you can find a place serving it on draught.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Don't use bad analogies then. Your point of view for the analogy was bloody terrible that I was surprised someone would even try to use it. Paying for a product means your product shouldn't be super defective or not what you ordered. Have some respect for yourself.

It wasn't even MY analogy you !

Goodnight.

Don't defend the bad analogy then.

The only way I can think to make the tea analogy even slightly work is you're charged £15 for a mug of hot water, and told that if you wanted tea you should have brought your own bags, milk and sugar.

Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

It wasn't "40k is a like a cup of tea! You modify it to suit your own tastes, and shouldn't complain if it's not fully completed!!", it was "House rules are like what you add to a cup of tea, in that one does it to whatever amount suits your preference".

Look back at what the exchange actually was:

Alice: "how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
Bob: "However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"
Slayer: "ARGH IF I ORDER TEA I WANT IT MADE CORRECTLY ARGH"
Me: "There's no one correct way to add milk / sweetener to tea…"
Slater: "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ANALOGY"
Me: "Well, you aren't applying the analogy to what it was actually referring to…"
Slayer: "YOU MADE A BAD ANALOGY" (followed by lots of incredibly rude, patronizing BS that was bad enough to actually get deleted)

…

It's really not that hard to understand the point of the tea analogy, and it works just fine if you're not taking it out of context or trying to make some weird straw man with it.

Jiminy Crickets.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

AGAIN:

It's not an analogy for the game or the game's rules. It is not saying they are like tea. It is saying that HOUSE RULES are like WHAT YOU PUT IN TEA in terms of THERE BEING NO PARTICULAR AMOUNT YOU'RE "SUPPOSED" TO DO SO.

For crying out loud!!!

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Guys. The tea analogy was just to answer that there's no one single set amount that you're supposed to add house-rules. It can be as much, or as little, as you want. It's not an overarching analogy for the whole game.

"how much additional rules are we supposed to add, then?"
"However much you want, like milk and sweetener for your tea"

It's not that hard to understand.

Jiminy Crickets.

Well, yes it is, actually. Because some people pay for the rules so that they don't have to do any work.

We could write the whole game from scratch in each of our garages. Sure, we could. But I didn't pay $80 or whatever for a set of rules that says "do whatever man" on each page with the rest of the space being spent on huge art spreads.

House-ruling 40k isn't like adding sugar or lemon to tea at all. House ruling 40k is akin to being handed hot water and asked to harvest and implement your own tea leaves!

AGAIN:

It's not an analogy for the game or the game's rules. It is not saying they are like tea. It is saying that HOUSE RULES are like WHAT YOU PUT IN TEA in terms of THERE BEING NO PARTICULAR AMOUNT YOU'RE "SUPPOSED" TO DO SO.

For crying out loud!!!

That is patently false, because without house rules certain core mechanics (ref: assault weapons, pistols) fail to function.

So clearly the answer is "however many to patch those" at the very least.

And that's the problem. 0 should be an option.

*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

I play with them the way they are. It's fine, in real life. I've never even trotted out that silly argument IRL.

But that's a house-rule, you know. And a perfect example of awful rules writing.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

Well I mean the assault rules can be PROVEN to be broken by the way the rule is written. Of course, nobody in their right mind (okay maybe BCB ) would play it that way. But the rule fundamentally doesn't work and it's only because essentially everyone playing the game is able to determine what it actually meant that it works. Most "house rules" don't have that luxury of being a universal "yeah of course that's what it is" to be able to work.

Wayniac wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

Well I mean the assault rules can be PROVEN to be broken by the way the rule is written. Of course, nobody in their right mind (okay maybe BCB ) would play it that way. But the rule fundamentally doesn't work and it's only because essentially everyone playing the game is able to determine what it actually meant that it works. Most "house rules" don't have that luxury of being a universal "yeah of course that's what it is" to be able to work.

This is fundamentally the problem.

My group tried to implement more reified terrain rules in a similar style to Urban Conquest, and then at the end of the year poll found out that:

1) New players who wanted to join the club were turned off by the house-rule document we had posted on our website.
2) Half the old players weren't using the rule ever because games with non-club members didn't use them, so they didn't bother even with other club members.
3) The club members who did use them sometimes got them wrong.

We eventually had to abandon the idea of club house rules, because there's like eighty of us and growing. It just doesn't work in such large groups, unless you have more impact (i.e. ITC and its ability to run huge tournaments).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

Well I mean the assault rules can be PROVEN to be broken by the way the rule is written. Of course, nobody in their right mind (okay maybe BCB ) would play it that way. But the rule fundamentally doesn't work and it's only because essentially everyone playing the game is able to determine what it actually meant that it works. Most "house rules" don't have that luxury of being a universal "yeah of course that's what it is" to be able to work.

This is fundamentally the problem.

My group tried to implement more reified terrain rules in a similar style to Urban Conquest, and then at the end of the year poll found out that:

1) New players who wanted to join the club were turned off by the house-rule document we had posted on our website.
2) Half the old players weren't using the rule ever because games with non-club members didn't use them, so they didn't bother even with other club members.
3) The club members who did use them sometimes got them wrong.

We eventually had to abandon the idea of club house rules, because there's like eighty of us and growing. It just doesn't work in such large groups, unless you have more impact (i.e. ITC and its ability to run huge tournaments).

Exactly. And that's why people dislike house rules in most cases. it's too unwieldy, some people don't know about them, some people forget them because they aren't standard, and a myriad of other problems that come up. Not every house rule is something like the assault weapon rule where it's blatantly obvious what it should be and just has really poor wording. But I can't think of any other problematic rule that has a near-universal acceptance of what it should be, and that's where the issue pops up.

Unit if you haven't already you should post your anecdote in the "creating rules for 40k" thread to show the issue with that approach.

This might sound a lot more mean than I actually intend it, but… the longer this thread goes on, the more it seems to me that a lot of you (though definitely not everyone) having a really unpleasant time with the game are really in a hell of your own making, and that the problem has a lot more to do with your own attitudes and the way you approach games and/or competition than it does to do with GW's mistakes.

I think if you really seriously think the game is awful, it's worth taking a step back and thinking earnestly about why you continue playing and investing in it, and how much of your complaints are problems with the game itself, and how much might be issues with you expecting the game to be something other than what it is, with approaching it as though it's something other than what it is, with taking very serious and very competitive attitudes to contexts where they aren't appropriate, and/or with being inflexible in your expectations of gaming.

This doesn't apply to everyone in the "the game is broken" camp, of course, and I'm not trying to imply what the answers to those questions are. I just think it's something worth considering if you find yourself in that position.

Just a thought…

Anyway, I'm going to try to leave this thread alone again. God help me I hope I do, otherwise I'll be the one in a hell of my own making. :-P

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*sigh*

You guys are being stubborn and fussy to the point of willful misinterpretation of very clear, simple ideas.

Not everyone thinks assault guns are broken. Zero is, indeed, an option. Just like black tea. It may be an unpopular option, like black tea with no sugar, but it is an option. And the analogy was just there to answer one weird question. That's it.

This is just…

…

Something. Let me just say this thread sure is… Something.

Something something need to "win" over desire to have a *conversation* kind of encapsulates the whole debate something something emotional intelligence something something psychosocial development something...

Catulle wrote:
Something something need to "win" over desire to have a *conversation* kind of encapsulates the whole debate something something emotional intelligence something something psychosocial development something...

I'm kind of tired of people using the social contract / conversation with your opponent concept as an excuse for poor writing.

Yes, I am a socially functional adult and can talk with a prospective opponent before the game to ensure we want the same thing, and make changes if necessary.

No, this is not a panacea for writing problems. Because we can both want a casual, balanced game, and then disagree entirely on what is needed to achieve it ('I have to take an optimized list to make it fair because your faction is better'). Or maybe we disagree on the optimal house rules ('Nah, the default cover rules are fine for my Marines'). Or maybe we just play the game without worrying too much about balance, but then afterwards disagree over whether the outcome was a result of player skill or balancing, and some resentment arises. Or maybe we want to make a narrative scenario, and then two hours later one side has won with no real challenge and it's been a big waste of time for both of us. It is an inherently adversarial conversation, because when an opponent says 'I don't want to play with your house rules', it is actively saying 'I believe your fun will come at the expense of mine'. If you're already friends and have a good interpersonal relationship then you can resolve that amicably. If it's a random dude at the local shop, maybe not.

I don't want to win. I just want to pay money for someone else to do the hard work of game design, so that I don't have to, and so that I can reasonably expect other players to be on the same page as me. If I have to write my own rules to make it an enjoyable experience, and then negotiate with an opponent to convince them that my homebrew is the way to play... well, I might as well be using a 100% homebrew system that plays exactly how I want, then.

 catbarf wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Something something need to "win" over desire to have a *conversation* kind of encapsulates the whole debate something something emotional intelligence something something psychosocial development something...

I'm kind of tired of people using the social contract / conversation with your opponent concept as an excuse for poor writing.

Yes, I am a socially functional adult and can talk with a prospective opponent before the game to ensure we want the same thing, and make changes if necessary.

No, this is not a panacea for writing problems. Because we can both want a casual, balanced game, and then disagree entirely on what is needed to achieve it ('I have to take an optimized list to make it fair because your faction is better'). Or maybe we disagree on the optimal house rules ('Nah, the default cover rules are fine for my Marines'). Or maybe we just play the game without worrying too much about balance, but then afterwards disagree over whether the outcome was a result of player skill or balancing, and some resentment arises. Or maybe we want to make a narrative scenario, and then two hours later one side has won with no real challenge and it's been a big waste of time for both of us. It is an inherently adversarial conversation, because when an opponent says 'I don't want to play with your house rules', it is actively saying 'I believe your fun will come at the expense of mine'. If you're already friends and have a good interpersonal relationship then you can resolve that amicably. If it's a random dude at the local shop, maybe not.

I don't want to win. I just want to pay money for someone else to do the hard work of game design, so that I don't have to, and so that I can reasonably expect other players to be on the same page as me. If I have to write my own rules to make it an enjoyable experience, and then negotiate with an opponent to convince them that my homebrew is the way to play... well, I might as well be using a 100% homebrew system that plays exactly how I want, then.

I may have been (was) flippant up there, but you're *not wrong*.

The "conversation" I referred to is as much an allegory for the game process as it was for this... conversation, and the winning as much bittersweet observation.

Think of it as theatre if that helps, or music. Some people want to put on the best damn production or performance of a classic pice as they can. Others want to get together and improv, do jazz or just jam, where the journey/process matters more to them than the art. The second needs instruments and/or space, the first needs that plus a scrIpt/sheet music, and getting through that perception gap is what requires practical application of empathy.

Which is where that stages of psychosocial development quip comes in. It may be an exaggeration in pursuit of the absurd, but It's only a slight one.

Had to comment....

I´ve been playing GW games since pre 40k.

This has always been a narrative driven games company. Everything exists to sell figures. In the early years competitive gamers were called "beardies" in the store I worked in. They were actively discouraged from hanging around too much as they scared away new gamers with lines like "you don´t want to buy that, you´ll lose for (whatever) reason." They were always the most likely people to want to hang around aswell...

The newer GW has taken those people on board. Since they are taken by the new hotness, we´ve had a ton of crap extra fluff and rulebooks, which only serve to dilute the codices and they don´t add balance, they just add more crap to carry and a new hotness.

Playtesting for complete balance would be prohibitively expensive. Players will always squeeze any advantage they can from a ruleset and force accumulation. The man hours involved to research all the permutations of the interactions between the 1000? odd possible armies that could be played, including all the possible takes for that army (Biel Tan is not the same as Saim Hann, for example - Do you balance Aspect Warriors for BT or SH?). Then you have to do the statistical analysis and number crunching.

Finally you realise that that was all a waste of time, as the "best" players don´t do the playtesting work, and they´ll find the place to squeeze. So you wasted all that money trying to achieve the impossible.

So basically, if you play competitively... Thanks. Lots more rules in crappy books, to feed your addiction. Unless the demographics have changed, you´re in the minority of the total sales base; but yeah, you´ve changed the sales model. Congratulations.

Whilst I recognise that the game is far from perfect, it still seems to me that certain people here are being absurdly negative.

Now, my assessment of the game is that it is somewhat flawed. I find it feasible if somewhat unlikely that GW could produce a version of the game that I would find significantly better, if not perfect. I also do not find the current situation intolerable, only mildly annoying at worst. I still have fun with the game.

But whether or not complaints of the most vocal 'haters' are rational or whether they have just whipped themselves into some hyperbolic 40K hating frenzy, it seems to me completely impossible that GW could ever meet their demands. Their grievances of the game are so big and fundamental that it is inconceivable that 40K would ever be changed such way that they would be satisfied. Furthermore they seem to find the current situation completely intolerable and it causes them constant misery.

So their realistic options are either 1) giving up and finding a new hobby 2) endlessly raging about it and making themselves and others miserable 2) a change of attitude.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:
you cannot compare 40k to Warmachine or say that there are 30 years of experience/development

while Warmachine (or Kings of War, or most other games out there) are still the same game after an Edition change, this is not true for 40k

8th is a completely new game, all past experience with design, gameplay or points values is worthless
This is a reason why just adjusting points without changing rules in the beginning did not work well (looking at Brimstones) because no one really new which stats will be the important ones that needed change or how well old profiles will translate into the new game.

So 40k is a 2 year old game and we now get the first faction books written for 8th that are based on experience with the new game.
while everything before can be seen as public Beta test.


you can still blame GW for that, as instead of fixing their game, they just release a new one without thinking/developing it through (and test the new game with faction rules from the old game)

WMH mk2 to 3 changed loads about the game so I think its a fair comparison.

I've sat through edition changes to a couple of games other than 40k and I really don't think it's a fair comparison. To enumerate:

Warmachine Mk.3 added Power Up to warjacks, cleaned up some under-used power attacks and terrain rules, removed a morale mechanic that was barely relevant to anything, removed the 'reach' weapon keyword in favour of giving melee weapons numerical ranges, slightly tweaked how ranged weapon ROF worked, and since launch has removed the ability to attack your own models even if you would get some benefit out of it. The turn structure, structure of cards, structure of abilities, and general resolution mechanics are all the same.

Infinity N3 clearly defined exactly what in your list is public and what is private, redefined silhouettes for line of sight, altered face-to-face die rolls so a tie cancels both instead of allowing both through, presented an exhaustive and centralized list of 'game states', added Command Tokens, and tweaked/nerfed a long list of skills and equipment I won't go through in detail here (things like "hacking devices no longer contain repeaters" that I'd interpret as army-list changes rather than core rule changes in any other system). The turn structure and structure of cards is the same, the structure of abilities and general resolution mechanics have been revised slightly.

The core rules for 8e 40k reworked the statline to add move rate and remove Initiative, removed separate vehicle statlines and critical tables in favour of using the same system as everyone else, inflated wound counts to add damage stats to weapons, redesigned 'cover', removed characters added to units in favour of the closest-target rule, changed AP to incremental rather than all-or-nothing, introduced uniform pricing for weapons independent of platform, dramatically altered how moving and charging worked, introduced "-1 to hit" as a mechanic, completely reinvented morale, completely reinvented psykers, completely deleted USRs from the rules in favour of putting a paragraph of text in a bunch of weapon statlines and unit entries, and removed blasts and templates in favour of random-ROF weapons. And that's all within the 'core rules', ignoring things like stratagems people will then tell me are optional add-ons. The turn order is mostly the same (melee has been reorganized) but the structure of cards, structure of abilites, and general resolution mechanics have been shredded and rewritten.