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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can get the core rules for free, if you felt so inclined.

Legally? How?
I'm still pissed by the "rules of 40k!" in the Sisters of Battle big box that has nothing on the whole detachment/PC/stratagem thing (which, you know, is kind of a big deal), or that just tells us : "If a whole unit is in a terrain element, it has cover and therefore +1 save" (yeah, no mention of the whole 50% visible if not infantry and all).

There is a 12 or so page booklet available for download on the site that explains combat and how datasheets work. If you’re comfortable playing “line up models and kill them” or with making your own missions or finding available tournament packets (all if you don’t want to *gasp* pirate something simple like the missions), you just need your current codex and errata (and a selection of the most up to date points, but those are available just about anywhere), and now you can play.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They are unique models with plasma weapons in accordance with DA lore

lol "in accordance to DA lore".

Black Knights are a perfect example of bloat.

Generic Marines have bike squads
Dark Angels get better bike squads
Generic Marines get veteran bike squads
Dark Angels get even veteraner bike squads
Generic Marines get Primaris bike squads
Dark Angels will get...

Black Knights are one of the units which exists to justify Dark Angels having their own list separate from generic Marines.

They never existed before 6th edition, and bolting a bunch of plasma guns onto some bikes (looking to make some new Dark Angel background? - just add plasma and/or Fallen. Job done!) doesn't do anything more for Dark Angels than giving them the same veteran bikes as Generics have.

With every cycle of Marine books the Generics list picks up elements of the Variants, and then the Variants pick up elements of the Generics and bolt on more special stuff to differentiate them again.

Excactly, and Black Knights are one of the newest additions to the BA line and lore, and are the exact kind of thing that could be trivially spread to the other Marine books, much like the Storm Raven or Land Raider Crusader. Swapping a TL bolter for a TL plasma gun isn't exactly a unique unit and doesn't really require its own rules source, and if GW updates the Biker sprue and includes that one extra bit, voila they'll be everywhere.

 Vankraken wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares what GW said they want to do? What they want to do right now is what they did in 6th and 7th. That's not progress.

It's worse. They overly simplified the game and then they piled on layer after layer of bloat from so many sources. I will also say that 6th and to a lesser extent 7th didn't have nearly as many rules sources per army. Discounting forge world stuff, most armies only had their codex which may or may not of had a 6th edition release.

Alas, we'd have to largely go back to 5E, 6E-7E was the edition where rules sources exploded, where we had online rules for new units, Online Exclusive rules tied to sales bundles, stuff that was only available in White Dwarf, supplements for microfactions like Clan Raukaan, campaign supplements like Sanctus Reach or Curse of the Wulfen, etc

Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Tiberias wrote:
Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

Out of curiosity, can you name some wargames with comparable number of rules sources needed to play?

Tiberias wrote:

40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

You can have fleshed out and intricate rules without also having a bajillion different books, each with wierd arbitrary restrictions and allowances.

Nobody has ever said 'Wow my Blood Angel Terminator Ancient not being able to take a power fist, but having access to a Thunder Hammer instead makes him so much more Blood Angely than your Ultramarine Terminator Ancient!'

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.

The issue is that 40k is a complicated game, but not a fundamentally deep one, with very limited design space for certain things, particularly with a game limited by the D6.

GW basically has no idea how to define flavor except through adding power to units or armies in the most simplistic manner possible ("e.g. Red marines get +1 to wound!"), often for factions that are trivially tiny within the game universe (while much larger and varied factions get a fraction of such support), and in a game that has no idea what scale it wants to play at (we have rules for a dizzying array of pistols and power weapon blade types for a game that includes ICBM's, spaceborne air superiority interceptors, tank companies, and Voltron sized robots), we get tons of balance issues as a result, often for "flavor" that really has no business being represented at the scale the game is played at and "unique" units that are little more than weapon or special rule swaps.

But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

When armies may need 3 or 4 different books to be played, and owning the full content of rules for a tabletop wargame will end up costing several thousand dollars and weighing probably over a hundred pounds in books, that's an issue. You can get away with that in RPG's much more easily, but it becomes real awkward for a wargame, and the added value from that volume of content is very difficult to justify.

EDIT: spelling

The IG and marines should swap numbers of units. For starters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

The game never really lines up with the lore as I understand it. (I don't read their fanfic)

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game

that is the point, 40k should be a complex game, but not a complicated one, specially not with such simple rules that we have at the moment

so instead of quality we get quantity and more rules do not make the game more complex and not even more complicated but just bigger therefore we talk about "bloat" as there are too many pages of rules that are just duplicates of other rules with minor changes that add nothing to game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.

but this is what we would get if GW decides to treat AM like Marines and release new Models for different Regiments
each one would ge their own Codex and each one would need something different to make it unique "same same but different" and it would just add more bloat to game instead of more depth ore more possibilities/options

That is pretty accurate imo.

Martel732 wrote:
The IG and marines should swap numbers of units. For starters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

The game never really lines up with the lore as I understand it. (I don't read their fanfic)

That is true, maybe I phrased it badly. What I meant is that it is desirable that every playable faction has a different identity and playstyle on the tabletop. My point is that you can only achieve this if you have enough rules to distinguish said factions, this of course increases the much discussed rule bloat. But if you were to consolidate sub factions into a bigger book, you would diminish the richness of the lore and the depth of the setting that has been developed for about three decades...at least in my opinion.
Now you could say that the imperium has way to many subfactions and this in turn takes away from the possible releases other xenos factions would get for example, which would in turn increase that factions lore and depth and that would be a perfectly valid opinion. But 40k has always been imperium and chaos centered.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.

The issue is that 40k is a complicated game, but not a fundamentally deep one, with very limited design space for certain things, particularly with a game limited by the D6.

GW basically has no idea how to define flavor except through adding power to units or armies in the most simplistic manner possible ("e.g. Red marines get +1 to wound!"), often for factions that are trivially tiny within the game universe (while much larger and varied factions get a fraction of such support), and in a game that has no idea what scale it wants to play at (we have rules for a dizzying array of pistols and power weapon blade types for a game that includes ICBM's, spaceborne air superiority interceptors, tank companies, and Voltron sized robots), we get tons of balance issues as a result, often for "flavor" that really has no business being represented at the scale the game is played at and "unique" units that are little more than weapon or special rule swaps.

DING DING DING! We got a winner there.

But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

When armies may need 3 or 4 different books to be played, and owning the full content of rules a tabletop wargame will end up costing several thousand dollars and weighing probably over a hundred pounds in books, that's an issue. You can get away with that in RPG's much more easily, but it becomes real awkward for a wargame, and the added value from that volume of content is very difficult to justify.

I am one of the people that didn't buy v2.0 Csm
so:

CSM dex, Shadowspear, vigilus ablaze, F&F, CA (1 min maybee more for differing scenarios?)Rulebook. Just for my Daemonengine list to function. There is a reason why Battlescribe ,even though it is faulty often, is now in high use.

Maybe that should change. Since Chaos is a minor problem compared to Nids.

Too much emphasis on power armor lists is causing this. Marines need about 1/3 of the units they currently have. Two dreadnoughts, not 10 for example.

See, in a time were we had USR, we could 've significantly cut down on the rulesbloat and make the unique rules pretty much unique.

The problem is at a certain point you need to stop. Do Eldar have more variety now with their subfaction traits? In theory yes but in practice they don't meaningfully alter how they play and it ends up being best to take a particular trait instead.
It was the same issue with 7th - Formations theoretically gave you fluffier ways of playing but in practice didn't at all.

Having subfactions like alaitoc and catachan and imperial fist aren't good. While they have different methods of fighting there comes a point where the best choice is to just do it yourself with models chosen and leave the overall rules out of it.

Edit: I really miss USR. They could add one for their atrocious "roll a D6 and if you roll a 6 you deal a mortal wound" spam. I hate that rule.

pm713 wrote:
The problem is at a certain point you need to stop. Do Eldar have more variety now with their subfaction traits? In theory yes but in practice they don't meaningfully alter how they play and it ends up being best to take a particular trait instead.
It was the same issue with 7th - Formations theoretically gave you fluffier ways of playing but in practice didn't at all.

Having subfactions like alaitoc and catachan and imperial fist aren't good. While they have different methods of fighting there comes a point where the best choice is to just do it yourself with models chosen and leave the overall rules out of it.

Edit: I really miss USR. They could add one for their atrocious "roll a D6 and if you roll a 6 you deal a mortal wound" spam. I hate that rule.

i am of the opinion that traits for no pricepoint were a fault.

And gw knew this, or atleast FW, considering the R&H list in 7th where (proto)-traits actually cost points and had additional limitations.
Was that perfect, heck no, but i sure as hell would prefer such a system over the pick AL, IH or IF, x combination of build a trat, alaitoc, etc.

Any events that happen on 6s are great at slowing the game down, but poor at affecting the game. I often skip overwatch, etc to give myself more play time.

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

Martel732 wrote:
Any events that happen on 6s are great at slowing the game down, but poor at affecting the game. I often skip overwatch, etc to give myself more play time.

DttfE. says hi.
It's one thing when it as a mechanic is limited to sniper units. It's a whole other thing if you need to check the shooting off a 30 boyz blob...

Not Online!!! wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The problem is at a certain point you need to stop. Do Eldar have more variety now with their subfaction traits? In theory yes but in practice they don't meaningfully alter how they play and it ends up being best to take a particular trait instead.
It was the same issue with 7th - Formations theoretically gave you fluffier ways of playing but in practice didn't at all.

Having subfactions like alaitoc and catachan and imperial fist aren't good. While they have different methods of fighting there comes a point where the best choice is to just do it yourself with models chosen and leave the overall rules out of it.

Edit: I really miss USR. They could add one for their atrocious "roll a D6 and if you roll a 6 you deal a mortal wound" spam. I hate that rule.

i am of the opinion that traits for no pricepoint were a fault.

And gw knew this, or atleast FW, considering the R&H list in 7th where (proto)-traits actually cost points and had additional limitations.
Was that perfect, heck no, but i sure as hell would prefer such a system over the pick AL, IH or IF, x combination of build a trat, alaitoc, etc.

Personally I don't trust GW to try and balance that so I'd just remove them outright.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can get the core rules for free, if you felt so inclined.

Legally? How?
I'm still pissed by the "rules of 40k!" in the Sisters of Battle big box that has nothing on the whole detachment/PC/stratagem thing (which, you know, is kind of a big deal), or that just tells us : "If a whole unit is in a terrain element, it has cover and therefore +1 save" (yeah, no mention of the whole 50% visible if not infantry and all).

There is a 12 or so page booklet available for download on the site that explains combat and how datasheets work. If you’re comfortable playing “line up models and kill them” or with making your own missions or finding available tournament packets (all if you don’t want to *gasp* pirate something simple like the missions), you just need your current codex and errata (and a selection of the most up to date points, but those are available just about anywhere), and now you can play.

That's probably the leaflet I am talking about, just in digital format. Again, missing much more than just missions. The whole PC thing is missing, and that's... quite relevant to the game now.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Any events that happen on 6s are great at slowing the game down, but poor at affecting the game. I often skip overwatch, etc to give myself more play time.

DttfE. says hi.
It's one thing when it as a mechanic is limited to sniper units. It's a whole other thing if you need to check the shooting off a 30 boyz blob...

Yeah, I'm skipping about 1/3 of my rolls each game approximately. I don't take FNP rolls on DC. I don't take overwatch very often, etc. I've never had to do that in any previous edition. I sometimes don't even fire rapid fire on a moving unit outside rapid fire.

pm713 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The problem is at a certain point you need to stop. Do Eldar have more variety now with their subfaction traits? In theory yes but in practice they don't meaningfully alter how they play and it ends up being best to take a particular trait instead.
It was the same issue with 7th - Formations theoretically gave you fluffier ways of playing but in practice didn't at all.

Having subfactions like alaitoc and catachan and imperial fist aren't good. While they have different methods of fighting there comes a point where the best choice is to just do it yourself with models chosen and leave the overall rules out of it.

Edit: I really miss USR. They could add one for their atrocious "roll a D6 and if you roll a 6 you deal a mortal wound" spam. I hate that rule.

i am of the opinion that traits for no pricepoint were a fault.

And gw knew this, or atleast FW, considering the R&H list in 7th where (proto)-traits actually cost points and had additional limitations.
Was that perfect, heck no, but i sure as hell would prefer such a system over the pick AL, IH or IF, x combination of build a trat, alaitoc, etc.

Personally I don't trust GW to try and balance that so I'd just remove them outright.

I guess for the first time i'd actually believe, if handled correctly, with CA (and all my grievances about paid patches....) it could work, if they would as i have said before, actually bothered to do a propper foundational doccument.

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

Ok, I get that and call me naive, but why is the number of releases necessarily fixed. If the demand is there, as would be the case I think if they released new guard kits for the different regiments, why couldn't there be just more releases in general? Why does one necessarily have to take away from the other if the demand would be there for both?

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am of the opinion that traits for no pricepoint were a fault.

And gw knew this, or atleast FW, considering the R&H list in 7th where (proto)-traits actually cost points and had additional limitations.
Was that perfect, heck no, but i sure as hell would prefer such a system over the pick AL, IH or IF, x combination of build a trat, alaitoc, etc.

Depends on what the fault is.
I think GW doesn't care if every tournament Eldar army was Alaitoc. They don't see that as an issue - and trying to tweak things such that 1/5 was Alaitoc, Ulthwe, Iyanden etc isn't a goal.
I regret it - but its done. They certainly won't be trying to balance the dozens of options the various custom traits give you.

They do however vaguely care about external balance. If there were no Eldar ever doing well, that would be something to consider fixing - either through CA or through FAQs or through big buffs in books. We have seen Grey Knights buffed up considerably as a result - and before them Marines in general going from bad to the best. It takes time, but wheels do eventually turn.

Now I can appreciate if you go "But I'm an Iyanden player, I don't care about Alaitoc" this isn't great. But unfortunately I think their view is that such is life. They don't believe you can be a min-maxing tournament style player, and also be sad that your random sub faction tailored towards bad units isn't very good Either you min max or you don't, and if you do surely you'd just play the good stuff?

Now I'm not sure this is entirely fair - because I'm in this odd middle boat. I don't like using the mathematically optimal cookie cutter lists. But at the same time, I don't like taking stuff which is objectively awful. So its a fine line.

I'd have liked them to accept the Chapters were a thing now - and then internal balance would happen in the context of them existing. If Alaitoc is too popular and Iyanden too unpopular then nerf/buff respectively. But at least for this edition that's not happening.

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

Ok, I get that and call me naive, but why is the number of releases necessarily fixed. If the demand is there, as would be the case I think if they released new guard kits for the different regiments, why couldn't there be just more releases in general? Why does one necessarily have to take away from the other if the demand would be there for both?

Limited resources, limited time, limited amount of effort to be given etc etc. Take your pick really.

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Please educate me, because I genuinely don't understand the discussion about rule bloat.
40k is a complicated game, that has incredibly rich lore (imho) and a plethora of amazing factions. So wouldn't it be desirable to have more and more fleshed out and intricate rules for each faction.
In my opinion the best way to translate the rich lore into the game is not only by having cool models for each faction that create a consistent model line, but also giving said factions rules so they have their own identity on the tabletop.

I feel GW hasn't done a bad job in that regard so far, even with psychic awakening (which admittedly had some awful lore).
Also yes, some factions have been neglected and need and deserve new and updated models, thats for sure (*cough* imperial guard regiments *cough*).
But consolidating some of the smaller factions into a bigger codex would be a grave mistake in my opinion. Yes, there are a lot of rule books right now, but it isnt' THAT terrible.

One issue with this, is that you can't just always gets MORE of one thing without having LESS of something else. So, if you wanted, say, more Imperial Guard (say, supplements for different regiments), you would need to choose what planned releases that Games Workshop were planning to NOT be released and replaced, or to be delayed (same equivalently). You can only get so many releases and content out within a certain time frame that you have to limit the amount you do.

Imperial guard was probably a bad example. I meant they primarily deserve new models for the different regiments. in a perfect world those regiments would get 2 kits each maybe. That would not warrant a supplement for each regiment. The normal astra militarum codex would suffice in that case imho.
Also I get your point, but it does not always have to be MORE of everything, more rules more models etc. There is also the possibility of refinement. I think it would be fair to say that many players are fine with the rules for a certain unit for example, but are unsatisfied with the old kit for said unit. And there are many players who are satisfied with the kit for a certain unit, but the rules need tweaking.

I have been discussing this with my buddies for some time now and one argument always pops up: GW doesn't release more for xenos or doesn't update guard regiment kits as frequently because space marines just sell better. It would be bad business practice. But that is a self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. If most of your releases support one faction (and it's admittedly many subfactions), of course those will be played and bought most.

The example isn't particularly important to my point, but it would still stand. If you want IG models, you also have to consider what you wouldn't be getting in the future (the planned future releases). You can't just GAIN releases and new models without trading off another release. If there were only going to be 8 40k releases for models (as an example), you would have to select one of those model releases to be pushed back a year or to not occur in exchange for a different release. When asking for MORE of one thing, always plan on what there should LESS of as well, and it'll be a lot more based in reality.

Ok, I get that and call me naive, but why is the number of releases necessarily fixed. If the demand is there, as would be the case I think if they released new guard kits for the different regiments, why couldn't there be just more releases in general? Why does one necessarily have to take away from the other if the demand would be there for both?

The number of releases will always be limited by factory capacity, need to work on other games and a desire to avoid player burn-out. You can't constantly increase the number of releases. There's always going to be a bottleneck, and the reality is that new stuff comes at the cost of delaying something else.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can get the core rules for free, if you felt so inclined.

Legally? How?
I'm still pissed by the "rules of 40k!" in the Sisters of Battle big box that has nothing on the whole detachment/PC/stratagem thing (which, you know, is kind of a big deal), or that just tells us : "If a whole unit is in a terrain element, it has cover and therefore +1 save" (yeah, no mention of the whole 50% visible if not infantry and all).

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40000-Rules - aka, the same thing in your Sisters box.
It's the actual *core* rules, as in, no detachments, no command points, literally just how to roll the dice, how to read the datasheets, how to actually play the basic game. Which is still a completely valid way to play. In terms of things you *need*, you only need the Battle Primer, but obviously, it's good to have the full rules.

Sure, detachments, CP, and stratagems are what *most* people play with, but you don't *need* them in the official rules.

It is indeed the exact same as the thing included in the Sister's box.
Look at the "cover" box :

Terrain and Cover
The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection against incoming weapons’ fire.
If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase.

Half of the box is mood piece without any rules, and yet no mention of the fact that it works differently for infantry and the rest. Really it's not even correct rules in there...