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.

A lot of this seems to boil down to "GW can't make up its mind if it wants to neuter everything or make everything bonkers powerful." Although there are ways to balance/change things that GW hasn't attempted yet. Discounting units that cannot be deployed for X turns or that automatically dissolve after X turns for example. Certain factions/subfactions/warlords can be better at it or offer a variety of options to match their lore. Instead we have 40 different ways to reroll things.

Ah. Thanks for explaining. That does sound powerful. Well at least the game had to be very fast with all armies throwing instant kill on +2 stuff around.

Still must have made people that like to paint really unhappy. paint for 2-3 months, remove it from the table after 5 min on turn 1.

Wow. 4th page of balance related post without a mention of "AA solves everything" argument.

There is hope afterall.

FWIW, I don't see a particular issues with wombo combos as long as they're not (practically) free.

Well the thing is the good ones more or less are a free. A combo made out of units you would take anyway, with gigantic return on investment aren't really costs. Real costs, if they exist, are only for bad armies and bad stuff. And then they are a double handicap, because they come with a cost and have to face armies who work without them.

It is like taking a castellan, loyal 32 and some scouts with BA characters. Neither of the parts of the army was a cost, and even the tax units had their specific use like early objective grabing or CP generation or screen creation.

Karol wrote:
Ah. Thanks for explaining. That does sound powerful. Well at least the game had to be very fast with all armies throwing instant kill on +2 stuff around.

Still must have made people that like to paint really unhappy. paint for 2-3 months, remove it from the table after 5 min on turn 1.

See, the thing is 7th was more absurd on both ends of the spectrum. Offense and defense.

I briefly mentioned Invisibility - that was a psychic power that almost any psyker in the game could attempt to roll for (you used to randomly roll for your powers, so a 2-power psyker would have a bit above a 1/3 chance of getting invis in the partiuclar discipline it was in) and what it did was "the psyker and the unit he is attached to may only be shot with Snap Shots (always only hit on a 6 no matter your BS) and may not be targeted with template weapons"

so if your opponent had a D-cannon, which was a Strength D blast, and you had invisibility, congratulations! You have complete, total immunity to that D cannon as long as he doesn't peril the cast. It just came down to that good good random roll right at the beginning of the game. And people think who goes first in 9th swings the game a lot, LOL.

You also had multiple popular combos that would allow you to get a unit up to a re-rollable 2++ invulnerable save - 35/36 chance to save. So mathmatically, you could get a unit of screamers plus a lord of change to the point where it could literally stand in front of the entire opposing army, tanking all of its fire and doing nothing for a full 6 turns, and have a decent chance of survival.

I always forget about the immunity to templates portion of invisibility. That's so weird to me, AOE is the way you hit invisible enemies in basically every other game.

@the_scotsman must be my brain getting old and mixing up the old edition again. Thanks for the correction!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Wow. 4th page of balance related post without a mention of "AA solves everything" argument.

There is hope afterall.

FWIW, I don't see a particular issues with wombo combos as long as they're not (practically) free.

Initially I read that as "Anti-Air solves everything" and was confused because they needed flyers to be easier to shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I always forget about the immunity to templates portion of invisibility. That's so weird to me, AOE is the way you hit invisible enemies in basically every other game.

Stuff like that is what I point at when people say Matt Ward was the worst rules writer. They were doing this stuff well after he left and yet people hate Ward more.

7th was a disaster, all the accumulated stupidity finally reached boiling point. It's why they did a hard reset in 8th.

This is how GW games work - bloat bloat bloat bloat until it collapses in on itself and they do a hard reset. Then things are temporarily better for a while, until the bloat starts building up again. We're currently four years into the cycle, so we've probably got at least another 5 years to go before the next hard reset. Though who knows, with the pace GW is putting out bloat, we might get the hard reset in 10th this time around.

yukishiro1 wrote:
7th was a disaster, all the accumulated stupidity finally reached boiling point. It's why they did a hard reset in 8th.

This is how GW games work - bloat bloat bloat bloat until it collapses in on itself and they do a hard reset. Then things are temporarily better for a while, until the bloat starts building up again. We're currently four years into the cycle, so we've probably got at least another 5 years to go before the next hard reset. Though who knows, with the pace GW is putting out bloat, we might get the hard reset in 10th this time around.

I don't agree on them bloating as much as 7th did. GW has been removing some stratagem for example instead of just laying on more and more rules.

That said, they desperately need to prune the Marine codex. Over a hundred datasheets in a single book (without even talking about all the stuff in the supplements) is not good for balance or game health.

Well, except that you now have a core rulebook. Then a grand tournaments pack. Then a codex. Then a campaign book. And the codex now typically has three layers of rules, depending on the purity of your army. Plus CORE for every army (with a different definition in each one). Plus usually at least one other keyword besides core that also has big impacts on the army. Plus possibly an army of renown from your campaign book on top of all that.

The layering of rules is as bad as it's ever been IMO.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, except that you now have a core rulebook. Then a grand tournaments pack. Then a codex. Then a campaign book. And the codex now typically has three layers of rules, depending on the purity of your army. Plus CORE for every army (with a different definition in each one). Plus usually at least one other keyword besides core that also has big impacts on the army. Plus possibly an army of renown from your campaign book on top of all that.

The layering of rules is as bad as it's ever been IMO.

Campaign books are optional, GT pack is only intended for competetive play, and do you really need the core rulebook past the list building phase?

Like you don't have to invest morr than you want to in this game.

Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

Well if your not playing competetively you can completely ignore the GT packs. If you are playing tournaments then you don't need the core rulebook past the list building stage unless you need to double check a rule since the GT missions and secondaries replace the core ones.

The amount of rules you have to I teach with are not that out of control, especially compared to the rules bloat of 7th. Tyranids had like core rulebooks just to play their full army IIRC

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

Are you required to appoint an arbiter with the authority to change rules on the fly to play Warhammer?

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

You know that the rules bloat is so bad that in single codexes the rules are bloated right? Like in the new Sisters codex a single unit could potentially be effected by:
- factions trait
- warlord trait
- battleforged trait
- hymns or whatever they are (I dunno if this is the same as the battleforged trait)
- acts of faith
- stratagems
- its own special rules
- other misc character auras
-relic auras

I think thats everything?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

You know that the rules bloat is so bad that in single codexes the rules are bloated right? Like in the new Sisters codex a single unit could potentially be effected by:
- factions trait
- warlord trait
- battleforged trait
- hymns or whatever they are (I dunno if this is the same as the battleforged trait)
- acts of faith
- stratagems
- its own special rules
- other misc character auras
-relic auras

I think thats everything?

That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.

It's odd really because I've seen talk about preferring the complexity of past editions, but when it's the current edition people seem to treat any complexity as "bloat". Is this a rose colored glasses bias in effect, or just a group who prefered a more complex game versus one who thinks the game was better when it was the indexes?

Frankly I don't know. I do know that despite the very vocal minority decrying how "bloated" the game is 8th edition was the most popular edition since 5th, and 9th took the best parts of 8th, refined some of the weaker parts and seems to be working to keep things balanced within the edition (I feel admit the 9th vs 8th games are generally skewed more towarss 9th but from what I've been hearing 9th vs 9th books are fairly well balanced against each other and Dark Eldar shows that GW are more than willing to address major issues with the game).

I'm starting to think some of the complaints aimed at 8th and 9th are more due to personal preference for past editions that were more geared towards the simulation end of the spectrum versus the current shift towards abstraction, but based on the growth of the game it's sitting in a good place for new players and far more people enjoy the current game than dislike it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions...

Really? How many of those existed in 7th? (Three, by my count. Four if you were Space Marines and had sub-factions.)

 Sim-Life wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

You know that the rules bloat is so bad that in single codexes the rules are bloated right? Like in the new Sisters codex a single unit could potentially be effected by:
- factions trait
- warlord trait
- battleforged trait
- hymns or whatever they are (I dunno if this is the same as the battleforged trait)
- acts of faith
- stratagems
- its own special rules
- other misc character auras
-relic auras

I think thats everything?

Faction trait - a thing only one faction enjoyed in the previous two editions, now opened up to everyone. Great!
Warlord trait - a thing that existed in 7th and before.
Battleforged Trait - literally just obsec.
"purity bonus trait" - the only thing I would actually remove/agree with you here. I think GW should never have implemented doctrines/taken doctrines out to where "Specialist Detachments' eded up rather than shoehorning this in with everyone. The new CP system was all that was needed to curb souping.
Acts of Faith - An army-wide rule various concepts of which have kicked around since sisters' inception. The new version is extremely easy to manage, and is not really 'a rule affecting a unit'
Relic Auras - again a thing from previous editions.

So we've added...stratagems, purity bonuses, and uh...that's it really. Character abilities existed in previous editions. special rules existed in previous editions. It seems like the mental real estate that was taken up by formations and challenges and other mechanics has been shifted to keeping track of strats and subfaction bonuses. I like subfaction bonuses way better than formations because they're not just blatantly a sales ploy.

mrFickle wrote:Does anyone believe 40K can be balanced wi the out a total overhaul.

Balance should be simply achieve by consistent application of points to units but that for some reason isn’t achievable

O it's entirely achievable, just not in the best interests of shoveling money @ GW for the new shiny!

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Uh ok yeah, I guess you can just ignore some of the rules of the game, if you're not playing competitively and you want to. I'm not really sure how that refutes the rules bloat, though.

IDK are you required to own every supplement that exists for the current edition to play dnd?

You know that the rules bloat is so bad that in single codexes the rules are bloated right? Like in the new Sisters codex a single unit could potentially be effected by:
- factions trait
- warlord trait
- battleforged trait
- hymns or whatever they are (I dunno if this is the same as the battleforged trait)
- acts of faith
- stratagems
- its own special rules
- other misc character auras
-relic auras

I think thats everything?

Faction trait - a thing only one faction enjoyed in the previous two editions, now opened up to everyone. Great!
Warlord trait - a thing that existed in 7th and before.
Battleforged Trait - literally just obsec.
"purity bonus trait" - the only thing I would actually remove/agree with you here. I think GW should never have implemented doctrines/taken doctrines out to where "Specialist Detachments' eded up rather than shoehorning this in with everyone. The new CP system was all that was needed to curb souping.
Acts of Faith - An army-wide rule various concepts of which have kicked around since sisters' inception. The new version is extremely easy to manage, and is not really 'a rule affecting a unit'
Relic Auras - again a thing from previous editions.

So we've added...stratagems, purity bonuses, and uh...that's it really. Character abilities existed in previous editions. special rules existed in previous editions. It seems like the mental real estate that was taken up by formations and challenges and other mechanics has been shifted to keeping track of strats and subfaction bonuses. I like subfaction bonuses way better than formations because they're not just blatantly a sales ploy.

I quit playing in 7th because it was rubbish so all you're doing is proving my point. Also the battleforged trait was not "just obsec". I forget the name of it but it was an additional set of random rules you got for taking all SoBs. You either rolled two randomly or chose one.

Just to further elaborate my point in a game of 8th my basic SoB squad would usually be effected by:
- Our Martyred Lady trait
- +3 to Deny The Witch tests
- Canoness reroll aura
- Imagifier aura
- general universal army rules

Thats 4 additional rules on a BASIC squad without me even really doing anything else other than taking very basic unit choices. That is bloat. In previous editions I only had the last one to worry about.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions...

Really? How many of those existed in 7th? (Three, by my count. Four if you were Space Marines and had sub-factions.)

Are we really pretending we couldn't stack rules onto single units like a Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiances? Because that is complete BS if we are.

Just because where the rules come from and how they can be applied has changed doesn't mean that it's really that different than what we've seen before.

Besides, at least stratagem have a built in limited resource associated with them meaning they can't be as freely spent as some other buffs are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while we lacked Order traits in previous editiins, characters still buffed Sisters,the Imagifier still buffed the army and we had Uses as well as various versions of Acts of Fait, some of which failed to scale with game size.

Seriously, the bias right now is large enough to park a bus in.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.

That's flat out wrong.

They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.

I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.

That's flat out wrong.

They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.

I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.

Considering almost every rule complained about in the Sisters army above has been pointed out to already have existed in some.form (and Sacred Rites previously existed in 2nd and made a come back for mono faction builds) I'm going to hard disagree with that.

Is it complex? Yes. But I'd say it's no complex than any other game that allows you to build combos to improve the abilities of your units to include past editions of 40k.

In a lot of ways, despite the complaints here about bloat and the hyperbole of calling rules "needless nonsense" regardless of how they add to the flavor of the army and help create variety in lists (Dark Eldar players for example have one of the modt well rounded books that allow for a wide range of interesting and still good builds for example), 9th edition has been far easier for people to pick up and run with than nearly every edition before it (including 8th since it clarified rules that 8th struggled with).

So I disagree about the bloat claims unless we start talking about how bloated C:SM is because that needs a pruning bad. No codex should have 100+ individual datasheets. And even if you combine some of the duplicate units with different wargear into a single datasheet the book is in some desperate need of jettisoning some units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.

That's flat out wrong.

They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.

I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.

True, 9th rules and some of 8th for some armies units can have literally 10 different buffs. When sisters, marines, etc.. has pages of rules for 1 unit thats insane.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.

That's flat out wrong.

They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.

I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.

True, 9th rules and some of 8th for some armies units can have literally 10 different buffs. When sisters, marines, etc.. has pages of rules for 1 unit thats insane.

Can we stop acting like all those buffa are free? FFS the amount of nonsense in this thread is getting out of hand.

How about adding up how many points and CP you have to pour into some of these "bloat" combos people are complaining about?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...Are we really pretending we couldn't stack rules onto single units like a Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiances? Because that is complete BS if we are...

No. We're pretending that the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences has somehow improved in 8th/9th, when it's at least as complex as the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences that was 7th, and frequently worse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop acting like all those buffa are free?

I don't think it matters whether they're free or not.

If we've got Marine rules, Doctrines, Chapter rules, War Lord trait aura, Relic auras, psychic powers, Chaplain stuff, strats and then unit special rules all rubbing up against each other there is a point where you have to go "ENOUGH!".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop acting like all those buffa are free?

I don't think it matters whether they're free or not.

If we've got Marine rules, Doctrines, Chapter rules, War Lord trait aura, Relic auras, psychic powers, Chaplain stuff, strats and then unit special rules all rubbing up against each other there is a point where you have to go "ENOUGH!".

Bull fething gak. Marines set the bar, others meeting that bar should not be treated as being excessive. All I'm seeing is a circljerk about how much we want to pretend GW is doing more than the used to do and pretending it's only alright for Marines to have set the bar and all others being able to be on the same level as them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
All I'm seeing is a circljerk about how much we want to pretend GW is doing more than the used to do and pretending it's only alright for Marines to have set the bar and all others being able to be on the same level as them.

I'll take your word for it that that is all you are seeing, but it isn't anybody else's fault that you're misreading what other people are writing. Literally nobody here has said that, or even anything like it. People are complaining about the bloat across the whole game, marines included. Nobody is saying "I'm so mad ad mech have the same rules bloat that marines do!"

It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone who insists on arguing with a straw man.