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.

But relating to Not Online's point, I think the idea I saw earlier in the thread that codex variety should match the playerbase is putting the cart before the horse.

Of course the faction given some ten subfactions, each having their own bespoke book and special rules, that shows up in virtually every starter set, every campaign, every piece of marketing, is going to have the most players. And I can't think of a quicker way (short of outright squatting) to kill off xenos than to roll several xenos factions into a single generic book.

Sisters of Battle are the perfect example. The survey said people wanted plastic SoB, and GW was surprised. Then when GW released the initial boxed set, they thought they had enough stock to last several months, and once again were surprised that they sold out in minutes. GW clearly doesn't actually understand the link between model/rules support and faction popularity; they support the popular factions because they're popular, without regard for how a lack of support affects the others.

I do think that trying to draw meaningful differences between virtually identical armies (all the Space Marine variants) is a major source of bloat for the game. Going back to a single codex, with subfaction traits and maybe a special unit for each major chapter, would dramatically reduce the rules bloat and provide more design space for other factions. And maybe we'd see more actual variety in armies as a bonus.

Can't necessarily point the success to players alone though on Sisters' battlebox. There was definitely scalpers/"investment buyers" going on there.

catbarf wrote:I do think that trying to draw meaningful differences between virtually identical armies (all the Space Marine variants) is a major source of bloat for the game. Going back to a single codex, with subfaction traits and maybe a special unit for each major chapter, would dramatically reduce the rules bloat and provide more design space for other factions.

Like I said earlier, I'd make the other stuff supplements. DA, BA, and Wolves can easily be utilized as supplemental books in the vein of the newer examples. Move some of their units into the generic pool(others have mentioned it, but there's no way that only Blood Angels have Librarian Dreadnoughts or Dark Angels have biker champions/apothecaries or terminator champions/apothecaries), the remainder can be in the supplement proper.

We don't need Baal Predators, Crusader Squads, Murderfangs, etc across all the Chapters--but the supplement sizes wouldn't be too wild if they were to be added in that way.

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Still nothing to do with special characters vs make your own characters .

 catbarf wrote:


Sisters of Battle are the perfect example. The survey said people wanted plastic SoB, and GW was surprised. Then when GW released the initial boxed set, they thought they had enough stock to last several months, and once again were surprised that they sold out in minutes. GW clearly doesn't actually understand the link between model/rules support and faction popularity; they support the popular factions because they're popular, without regard for how a lack of support affects the others.

It's especially baffling given that Dark Eldar had literally the exact same thing happen to them...three editions and a decade ago. GW let the line wither and die for over a decade without support, they went to online only for years, and then suddenly when they got updated and made available, they became popular, fancy that

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

Still nothing to do with special characters vs make your own characters .

I sorta agree that some of the "special characters" could be just written out of rules. I mean, just in terms of Marines off the top of my head, Asmodai, Corbulo, Crowe, Tellion, etc. don't fill any niches outside "we need to release more characters". Nobody will miss their rules and the models function fine for the generic options.

Telion is literally the only Scout-armored character that I can think of right now.

There used to be Sergeant Naaman for the Dark Angels, but he's been discontinued for a looooooooong time.

I don't think it's an issue with the marines it's an issue with the game. You don't just need the codex but the FAQ. Same with the rulebooks, FAQ needed. Then you've got any supplements and its FAQ also CA?? and it's FAQ. Now you have 8 documents needed when they should only have 4.

This is 8th editions issue, marines just suffer most because of the supplements IMHO.

The fact that they charge as much for these broken, out the box, books is shamefull in my eyes.

kryczek wrote:
I don't think it's an issue with the marines it's an issue with the game. You don't just need the codex but the FAQ. Same with the rulebooks, FAQ needed. Then you've got any supplements and its FAQ also CA?? and it's FAQ. Now you have 8 documents needed when they should only have 4.

This is 8th editions issue, marines just suffer most because of the supplements IMHO.

The fact that they charge as much for these broken, out the box, books is shamefull in my eyes.

Marines are more of a problem becuase the bloat is in two distinct parts:

1. Stupid amounts of near identical datasheets for single weapons or armour.
2. Multiply that by then reprinting the same crap for several base codexes for subfactions with minor name changes or the odd weapon here and there,.

Huge bloat.

Serious question:
Do people not know how to read prices?

Codices are $40USD.
Supplements are $30USD.
Psychic Awakening books are $40USD.

If you want to argue that PA is overpriced?
I won't dispute that. Most of them feel like $30 books, and that's being generous. They should be $25, IMO.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Serious question:
Do people not know how to read prices?

Codices are $40USD.
Supplements are $30USD.
Psychic Awakening books are $40USD.

If you want to argue that PA is overpriced?
I won't dispute that. Most of them feel like $30 books, and that's being generous. They should be $25, IMO.

I haven't bought a Psychic Awakening book yet (my faction is still waiting) but I never noticed that they were priced the same as Codexes. That's quite shocking, honestly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Telion is literally the only Scout-armored character that I can think of right now.

There used to be Sergeant Naaman for the Dark Angels, but he's been discontinued for a looooooooong time.

We have the Phobos dudes that do the same exact Infiltration thing.

That's not the only thing he brings to the table, is it?

Serious question--I'm not sure if his rules went a bit more with the shift to the supplement book. He used to have his "Voice of Experience" or whatever for Scouts.

Hybrid,

You asked why I wasn’t reading your messages. Did you mean reading your posts? I have been. I was wondering if you meant private messages.

I will try to use your RPG analogy, awkward as it is. The factions are not pregenerated characters but rather classes. Picking a class means some things are open and others are closed. Call the standard Fighter the Space Marines and the Dark Angels are the Paladin. You want to allow a player to take a Fighter but cherry pick stuff from the Paladin and others.

I will say it again, the Dark Angels and the other main chapters are important aspects of the lore and the 40k IP. You can still home brew, but within constraints and restraints. It’s not like Death Company, Wulfen and Ravenwing were previously available to all Chapters. An individual desire to make a fringe or home-brew Chapter is good and should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the more popular established Chapters. Lore is a major part of the game and what keeps it going. I recognize that you do not agree and wish you the best in your gaming.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Hybrid,

You asked why I wasn’t reading your messages. Did you mean reading your posts? I have been. I was wondering if you meant private messages.

I will try to use your RPG analogy, awkward as it is. The factions are not pregenerated characters but rather classes. Picking a class means some things are open and others are closed. Call the standard Fighter the Space Marines and the Dark Angels are the Paladin. You want to allow a player to take a Fighter but cherry pick stuff from the Paladin and others.

I will say it again, the Dark Angels and the other main chapters are important aspects of the lore and the 40k IP. You can still home brew, but within constraints and restraints. It’s not like Death Company, Wulfen and Ravenwing were previously available to all Chapters. An individual desire to make a fringe or home-brew Chapter is good and should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the more popular established Chapters. Lore is a major part of the game and what keeps it going. I recognize that you do not agree and wish you the best in your gaming.

Says he’ll try the RPG analogy.
Tried indeed.

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

One of the problems with 40k is there is probably a lot of problems.

I think one of the big issues with rules is they are waiting for a creative team to make the models, who may not know the game well.
Lots of bloat if you have to both fill gaps and leave gaps open for a team that may or not be making models for a future release.

Apple fox wrote:
I think one of the big issues with rules is they are waiting for a creative team to make the models, who may not know the game well.
Lots of bloat if you have to both fill gaps and leave gaps open for a team that may or not be making models for a future release.

Other companies have solved this problem by dividing teams into development and design. This would enable them create new units in two ways:
"We've got this cool miniature, please make some rules for it!"
"Army X desperately needs something that does Y, can you create a sculpt for it?"

Obviously with feedback loops between the teams.

 Jidmah wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I think one of the big issues with rules is they are waiting for a creative team to make the models, who may not know the game well.
Lots of bloat if you have to both fill gaps and leave gaps open for a team that may or not be making models for a future release.

Other companies have solved this problem by dividing teams into development and design. This would enable them create new units in two ways:
"We've got this cool miniature, please make some rules for it!"
"Army X desperately needs something that does Y, can you create a sculpt for it?"

Obviously with feedback loops between the teams.

I mean yeah, but that would require inter branch comunication, and sofar GW hasn't been up to par with that, what with the massive diffrences in New designs, ranging from utterly worthless to gamebreaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
But relating to Not Online's point, I think the idea I saw earlier in the thread that codex variety should match the playerbase is putting the cart before the horse.

This is partially the point.

Of course the faction given some ten subfactions, each having their own bespoke book and special rules, that shows up in virtually every starter set, every campaign, every piece of marketing, is going to have the most players. And I can't think of a quicker way (short of outright squatting) to kill off xenos than to roll several xenos factions into a single generic book.

Sisters of Battle are the perfect example. The survey said people wanted plastic SoB, and GW was surprised. Then when GW released the initial boxed set, they thought they had enough stock to last several months, and once again were surprised that they sold out in minutes. GW clearly doesn't actually understand the link between model/rules support and faction popularity; they support the popular factions because they're popular, without regard for how a lack of support affects the others.

I mean, this is where the misshandling and desinvestment comes in. Remember the R&H exemple, a minimum requirement under the old FW rules cost you:
Command squad R&H variation 30£
6 times upgrade sprue at each 12£ for 72£
6 times Cadian shocks 120£.

that nets you
40 pts for the CMD command squad, + 20 average for the demagogue devotion.
and 60 x 3 pts for the troops. aka 180 pts.

In the best case you get about another 80 pts in equipment that is actually usefull.

Now tell me again why the line never really was successfull, when you allready pay more then 200£ for less then 500 pts

I do think that trying to draw meaningful differences between virtually identical armies (all the Space Marine variants) is a major source of bloat for the game. Going back to a single codex, with subfaction traits and maybe a special unit for each major chapter, would dramatically reduce the rules bloat and provide more design space for other factions. And maybe we'd see more actual variety in armies as a bonus.

Why just one unit, might aswell make the Supplements if they really need to be there worth it and let them keep the actual special units.

ccs wrote:

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....

BTW Stephen Box does the same thing.

Martel732 wrote:

ccs wrote:

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....

BTW Stephen Box does the same thing.

Lot of people smoke, but most all of us know that’s unhealthy.

Apple fox wrote:

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

One of the problems with 40k is there is probably a lot of problems.

I think one of the big issues with rules is they are waiting for a creative team to make the models, who may not know the game well.
Lots of bloat if you have to both fill gaps and leave gaps open for a team that may or not be making models for a future release.

wasn't there an article with a guy, who worked for GW, telling how sometimes they would desing and test something and then the head design would let a unit or rule in without any crucial changes, ending with some stuff costsing 200pts less then they should or costs a lot more then they should, because the cost includes in the initial model cost were for something that didn't make it to the end rules?

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

ccs wrote:

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....

BTW Stephen Box does the same thing.

Lot of people smoke, but most all of us know that’s unhealthy.

That's a terrible comparison. Bottom line, if you are pressed for time, skipping phases is to your advantage.

Martel732 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

ccs wrote:

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....

BTW Stephen Box does the same thing.

Lot of people smoke, but most all of us know that’s unhealthy.

That's a terrible comparison. Bottom line, if you are pressed for time, skipping phases is to your advantage.

Isn’t this just straight up cheating? I don’t think the rules allow you to skip parts, whether that’s rolling saves or FNPs or whole phases. In fact it is specifically called out as not allowed in the fight phase. Eligible units must attack which means carrying out the whole attack sequence and so rolling all relevant dice.

Sounds to me that you are deliberately seeking an advantage by breaking the rules on purpose. If that’s not cheating I don’t know what is.

If its a house rule for his club which timers also are (and using ITC rules in many clubs) thats not cheating

I'm not skipping any mandatory phases to my knowledge. Certainly not melee attacks. Those are mandatory. I'm allowed to concede a unit's death to save time if the outcome is obvious.

I know I can skip overwatch and shooting for sure.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not skipping any mandatory phases to my knowledge. Certainly not melee attacks. Those are mandatory. I'm allowed to concede a unit's death to save time if the outcome is obvious.

I know I can skip overwatch and shooting for sure.

You can absolutely choose not to select a unit to move or to shoot or to fire overwatch, but as far as I’m aware, there is nothing in the rules allowing you to skip your save rolls no matter how obvious you think the outcome is. By the same logic you could just skip rolling any dice at all and assume that the results of all dice rolls are spot on the odds. Instead of rolling 18 3+ saves against 18 wounds, don’t bother rolling and assume 2/3 pass so remove 6 models since it saves time. I don’t think so.

Part of playing the game is making decisions under pressure. In a competitive environment, especially using chess clocks it is even more important to work on your time management. If you want to free up time because, skip the parts you’re allowed to : don’t move, shoot, fire overwatch with a unit. But skipping saves or other mandatory rolls is not allowed and especially so if it gives you a competitive advantage. This is cheating.

Unless of course there is a specific house rule a allowing it. I’m not aware of any competitive house rules that give players the option to assume dice results.

I guess I'll have to stop skipping the useless FNP rolls when I use DC. I wish they'd just take it away if I can't skip them.

Plus, there could be situations where deliberately failing saves could lead to a tactical advantageous situation (failing saves on a model in order to leave the squad that was attacking them exposed and able to be shot).

 Mr Morden wrote:
If its a house rule for his club which timers also are (and using ITC rules in many clubs) thats not cheating

The. You get to the point where you have to wonder: Am I actually playing 40K?

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If its a house rule for his club which timers also are (and using ITC rules in many clubs) thats not cheating

The. You get to the point where you have to wonder: Am I actually playing 40K?

Why would you wonder that? GW's rules aren't gospel.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If its a house rule for his club which timers also are (and using ITC rules in many clubs) thats not cheating

The. You get to the point where you have to wonder: Am I actually playing 40K?

House rules are very prevelent - how many people use the ITC variant rules in their games these days.