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.

 Sgt_Smudge 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).

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.

If I were going to judge the game based on the bare minimum, I'd honestly find the game extremely boring and lacking.

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

And I would say that Detachments, at least the most common ones, are easy enough to commit to memory as is the CP they generate once learned. Even then, I am not about to ever make a Battleforged army list without some computer program assistance which also has that information. Same could be said for the BRB stratagems that are actually worth using.

The only thing I even use in the BRB anymore is the deployment diagrams. Only reason I carry my BRB is because I only play BRB + Codex so I tend to be carrying less books than my opponents who often goes Codex+PA and Sometimes CA since they don't really need to carry a BRB. The only tough part is not having a CA as their missions are head and shoulders better than BRB ones. I would make up missions to play, but I don't play full 40k nearly enough to do a good job.

Darsath wrote:

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.

Sure, but I mean it does not have to be exponential growth right? Let's say in theory GW realizes that they could increase their margin if they release new guard regiments alongside their usual space marine stuff and the bare minimum xenos stuff they do. It's in the realm of possibility that they then would invest to increase their output to support both guard and space marines for example if they can increase their revenue accordingly. Which in turn would create an opportunity to further invest to expand the xenos releases in a best case scenario.
I know this is just theory, but I don't quite get the point that all is limited by factory capacity etc. all those things can be expanded if people buy your additional stuff.

The problem, again, is that you can't just release more stuff than you have the capacity to. And every company has a capacity. Games Workshop can't simply choose to release more stuff. If they could, they would. It increases their profits after all. But they have to pace things so that their designers can complete projects, shipping has time to reach stores, people don't burn-out of the whole thing and so on. You have to make TRADE-OFFS, not just gaining more and more without sacrificing anything. It ignores the reality that has already been happening the past few years in the company as is.

They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

I think a relatively small team could churn out a codex very quickly if they really wanted to. Models are perhaps a bit different.

With GW I think market saturation (or desire in general) is a much bigger concern than capacity. It would be interesting for instance to track book sales in general, and then Iron Hands versus say Salamanders (which points I think to how power balance impacts sales).

I don't think creating "Codex Mordians" for instance need necessary take very much time or effort at all. But if it was going to be bought by three people its not going to be commercially sensible. This is the issue of IG regiments - it just seems inefficient to have a dozen kits that are essentially the same and so must compete with each other. This possibly wasn't true in the classic metal era.

Taken to extreme, hands up if you play Dal'yth Sept? What's that? No one? Who'd have thought it. Whose going to buy that book?

I feel that bloat is A problem, but not THE problem. There are others too.

Tyel wrote:
I think a relatively small team could churn out a codex very quickly if they really wanted to. Models are perhaps a bit different.

With GW I think market saturation (or desire in general) is a much bigger concern than capacity. It would be interesting for instance to track book sales in general, and then Iron Hands versus say Salamanders (which points I think to how power balance impacts sales).

I don't think creating "Codex Mordians" for instance need necessary take very much time or effort at all. But if it was going to be bought by three people its not going to be commercially sensible. This is the issue of IG regiments - it just seems inefficient to have a dozen kits that are essentially the same and so must compete with each other. This possibly wasn't true in the classic metal era.

Taken to extreme, hands up if you play Dal'yth Sept? What's that? No one? Who'd have thought it. Whose going to buy that book?

It's much easier in an all-digital format. Without the expensive typesetting and printing, those subfaction books could be produced at lower cost and be easier to update. Without minimum order volume or a physical stock to account for, the only real cost of developing a Codex: Mordians would be the salaries of the people involved.

The leaked Deathwatch rules, showing the old wordings for Doctrines and stratagems, demonstrate the inadequacy of relying on print media (with 3-6 month lead times, minimum) while trying to maintain a 'living' game. Anecdotally, I know several players (myself included) who have stopped buying books because of how little value for money they represent and how quickly they are rendered obsolete.

If GW would just get out of the 90s, embrace digital distribution, and maintain living rules with inline errata rather than requiring a half-dozen FAQs, erratas, and designer's commentary just to play as intended, the perceived bloat would be much reduced.

Darsath wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

It takes more time because GW is stuck in the 90s.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

It takes more time because GW is stuck in the 90s.

Very well could be. Though I know formatting and moulding models is always going to be time consuming. Still, there are solutions here, but they're all trade offs, not just strict advantages (i.e. faster releases at the expense of physical copies). Not matter what choice you make, someone is going to get burned.

It is bloat meant to sell you more stuff, but it must be working so they will keep doing it. They could easily put all the marine gameplay rules into one book if they wanted to.

It's not bloat, it's variety. Fantastic.

If you have OCD and need every book that's on you. If you're a power gamer struggling to keep on top of everything, again, that's on you.
You don't need the supplements to play the various chapters.

TIL wanting the complete game rules for my tabletop wargame makes me an OCD powergamer.

Nobody used to think that when I could buy the rulebook and every codex for a little over a couple hundred bucks, and fit it all in a backpack (and carry it without breaking my spine)

 Ishagu wrote:
It's not bloat, it's variety. Fantastic.

If you have OCD and need every book that's on you. If you're a power gamer struggling to keep on top of everything, again, that's on you.
You don't need the supplements to play the various chapters.

Releasing more Marine books does, however, take away opportunities for other factions to get updates. The Codex update was entirely necessary. The supplements, though? I doubt it was more important than updating the chaos or xenos lines. Maybe you'll see it differently though.

Tyel wrote:
This is the issue of IG regiments - it just seems inefficient to have a dozen kits that are essentially the same and so must compete with each other. This possibly wasn't true in the classic metal era.?

Looks at all the Space Marine Lieutenants and other units with a single weapon difference, or a name change and a single rule....

Martel732 wrote:

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.

And then he wonders why he loses & posts about how terrible his BA are....

Actually its pretty beneficial. I won more skipping rolls. I need more turns in games where I'm winning.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually its pretty beneficial. I won more skipping rolls. I need more turns in games where I'm winning.

Unless you play with timers, this simply makes no sense? You lose nothing (except time) by doing the extra rolls. Sure, if you want to skip them, fine by me, but you can't complain about your army not doing well if you don't use the basic mechanics of the game (eg, Overwatch). That'd be like me complaining about my army doing terribly if I just never shot with them because they had too many guns and shots, and I wanted to save time.

We are using timers. It just got too long without them.

Darsath wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They actually could, seeing that they basically make the rules by throwing darts at a board. They could also go with the future and do digital for ease of update. That would hurt the people that go "but muh book!!!1!" but they're the last people that should have a say.

Making a book takes a lot of time to design and format. Designing new models and moulds etc is similar. You could say that Games Workshop could hire more designers, more floor space etc. And they could. But it's still a trade off. This time, it's Games Workshop's money at expense. And Games Workshop is unlikely to want to do that if they can't guarantee that the new team will only make high profit margins as a result.

It takes more time because GW is stuck in the 90s.

Very well could be. Though I know formatting and moulding models is always going to be time consuming. Still, there are solutions here, but they're all trade offs, not just strict advantages (i.e. faster releases at the expense of physical copies). Not matter what choice you make, someone is going to get burned.

I'm referring to writing rules and formatting codices in terms of GW being stuck in the 90s

Hybrid,

If you think you are sending me messages there are none in my inbox. Apologies if I seemed rude to not answer. Feel free to keep insulting me in the open though! I’ve been playing since 2nd Ed - are you talking about Black Dragons? I have not encountered them on the tabletop in 25 years. Doesn’t mean anything, but you have to admit that they are fringe. Are you upset that the chapters with established lore and a real following get things dedicated to them and others do not? You said you do not play Space Marines, so I am guessing its academic.

If what you want are Wulfen they play with Space Wolves and your own Edge-Lord Chapter paint scheme. If somebody wants a bike-heavy chapter force then base their home brew on Scars or DA. Once again it’s an edge case.

We’ll see what the future holds for the DA/BA etc. Ritual of the Damned really emphasized Deathwing and Ravenwing, so that is encouraging ( for me at least). If the DA are rolled in I will have to find a way to get over it. It’s what people do.

Cheers,

T2B

Racerguy180 wrote:

ccs wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop referencing Psychic Awakening as mandatory. There is every indication that we will be seeing a new edition or codices within the next year or so.

Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know anything about that. And to effectively play a game nowadays you need PA.

Oh. I didn't get that memo.

And in our last game I still kicked the Death Guard all over the table - using only Codex: Dark Angels (& CA'19 for pts).

Game played just fine, so I'm still not wasting $ on Vigilous, &/or PA.

You NEED to have everything to play "competitively", which is the stupidest thing ever(guess which part of that has the most emphasis). But that seems to be a bed of their own making, not GW.

By "competitively" do you mean;
A) Able to win?
B) Allowed to enter the tourney scene?

I can do A just fine. Even against armies built using all their books.
Sometimes not even using the strats in the codex. All Vig & Pa do is add options. (Ok, I hear PA also has updated DA pts - well, everything I'm using is oldmarines, so I can't imagine their new pts went up. Since I can already hold my own/win I'm not worried about now over-paying. And my opponents don't mind me over-paying/not using all my options....)

As for B? Not worried about it. Should the cold day in Hell come where I find myself in a tourney environment? I'm set. I've got the basic 2.0 Marine dex. I can run generic green marines that look suspiciously like DA 3rd Co (but totally aren't!).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you think you are sending me messages there are none in my inbox. Apologies if I seemed rude to not answer.

What the hell are you talking about?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Feel free to keep insulting me in the open though!

Thanks for the permission.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
are you talking about Black Dragons?

I am specifically speaking of Dragon's claws, the units where Black Dragon marines with the elbow blades mutation get put together.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I have not encountered them on the tabletop in 25 years.

Woah, incredible that you have never witnessed a chapter with 0 rule support and 0 model support. How crazy that a chapter whose fluff cannot be represented at all on the tabletop because of GW's design decision isn't popular!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Are you upset that the chapters with established lore and a real following get things dedicated to them and others do not?

I am upset that the rules encourage you to go with an already established chapter and punish you for choosing a niche chapter or creating your own. That's what I am upset about. It's like an RPG that punishes you for creating your own character instead of using a pre-generated one. Actually, that was my first analogy...
I mean, I've been speaking about it from the start, the fact that you still haven't got it isn't encouraging...

I am upset that the rules encourage you to go with an already established chapter and punish you for choosing a niche chapter or creating your own. That's what I am upset about. It's like an RPG that punishes you for creating your own character instead of using a pre-generated one. Actually, that was my first analogy...
I mean, I've been speaking about it from the start, the fact that you still haven't got it isn't encouraging...

Desinvestment cycles, neither gw nor most of it's custommer get's it but here , taketh a new primaris leutnant..

What you mean there are hydra symbols on him?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I am upset that the rules encourage you to go with an already established chapter and punish you for choosing a niche chapter or creating your own. That's what I am upset about. It's like an RPG that punishes you for creating your own character instead of using a pre-generated one. Actually, that was my first analogy

This is because players requested it

Making your own Chapter with your own Heroes, taking their own equippment resulted in stronger armies than taking the pre-made ones and people were upset that the Vanilla Captain on Bike is better on the table than the Special Character.

This is also why it was considered cheesy by some as a "Special Character" should be "special = stronger" than something custom.

So 40k Players want to have their pre-generated RPG Heroes to be better than those you could create on your own and those who do should be punished because the flexibility of such armies (as you can adjust your custom background to the needs of the list) as for WAAC only.

Yeah then players sucks and should be eradicated.
EXTERMINATE ALL PLAYERS!!!

Seriously though, this mentality sucks :(.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah then players sucks and should be eradicated.
EXTERMINATE ALL PLAYERS!!!

Seriously though, this mentality sucks :(.

It's not the players fault though, it's GW's fault of not realising that ranges without updates or improvements are not enticing.
Take sisters, Metal makes for an annoying material for most hobbiests.

And then there are ranges doomed from the beginning, take R&H from FW, not only is it a horde army, in lore and game but it also consisted out of upgrade sprues and lacked rulessupport more often then not.
to contextualise, to field a singular troop choic you payed another 12£ on top off what the cadians cost that make their base, and another 12£ for autoguns and assult weaponry if you feel so inclined.
That single troop choice also was only worth 30 pts. However R&H also beeing in many ways PDF and therefore in organisation well related in many cases with IG you also had to field platoons off atleast 3 squads.
So you pay 44£ for 10 dudes that grant you neither a troopslot nor fill your point limit effectively.

And boy did you need alot them to field an effective army.

And whilest IA 13 gave you ways to field an army more effectively not based upon the backs of the humble militia men only, (or gave you ways to actually make them pay pts worth in upgrades to lessen the masses you needed) , 8th edition and the death of bleigh with the "great and improved" FW rules indexes we had sofar, have basically been the nail in the coffin off the few actually willing to pay for them, making the range go OOP.

Not online!!!, we were not talking about Marines cannibalizing other ranges, we were talking about the mostly unrelated problem of named factions/characters taking over generic faction/character building.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not online!!!, we were not talking about Marines cannibalizing other ranges, we were talking about the mostly unrelated problem of named factions/characters taking over generic faction/character building.

Again that is not the marines fault, it's fault of GW not realising that some lines need more to be profitable because they failed in their first design of the line or simple rule support.
That has nothing to do with marines themselves. They are just the easy market thet get's dumped all the attention instead, and from a high up perspective that makes sense, which is again why they were so surprised when the survey result showed up demanding sisters.