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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties?

And? Neither were good systems, but this one is still worse.

This isn't a morale system. It's just a punitive "lose more" system. You took casualties, so now take some more that ignore all facets of the toughness/wounds/save/damage system completely. Sweeping Advance was also awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.

Once again: And?

9th is supremely lethal. Too lethal. This is something that is a completely known factor about this edition of the game. We've had whole threads about vehicles being too weak, or perhaps certain AT weapons being too good at their job.

And you've yet to answer any of catbarf's points.

 Blndmage wrote:
I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.

Yeah, I believe it. We've been talking about just cutting CP and Stratagems here.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The question I have: does anyone trust GW could come up with a better system?

They certainly could (and have). They just choose not to, for whatever reason. I genuinly think the motivation has been corrupted. This is the first time in my 25 year history of playing the game that I'm seriously thinking of designing my own ruleset.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.

That isn't really true, either, unless the opponent has enough units in range to take out whatever it is - and that's after you put your guns down range.

I was literally responding to your own assertion that anything you expose will die. So you're disagreeing with yourself. Almost as if you've lost track of the number of weird arguments you've made in this thread.

Much like a lot of post-modern ideas, 40k currently, is somehow convoluted, confusing, and yet lacking any semblance of substance.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties?

And? Neither were good systems, but this one is still worse.

This isn't a morale system. It's just a punitive "lose more" system. You took casualties, so now take some more that ignore all facets of the toughness/wounds/save/damage system completely. Sweeping Advance was also awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.

Once again: And?

9th is supremely lethal. Too lethal. This is something that is a completely known factor about this edition of the game. We've had whole threads about vehicles being too weak, or perhaps certain AT weapons being too good at their job.

And you've yet to answer any of catbarf's points.

Because we're kind of just talking past each other. Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system and it will just slow the game down a ton.

You guys keep asserting that there are all these other systems, but I have yet to see one that would be viable and can't be gamed by certain armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system

Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system

Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.

I will refer to Sherrypie's post:

If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).

System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.

To get changes like that you need a new edition, and GW probably starts to work on it in earnest, around mid prior edition, so in order to have something kin to that we would have to wait for 10th, if GW notices it and decides the change it worth it, or in 11th ed, or later, if not. How many people playing right now are going to be playing in 3-5 years time?

I would agree that 40k's rules are horribly convoluted.

I do, however, disagree with those praising the core rules as being simple and elegant. The simplicity of the core rules is precisely the problem - there is nothing to them. Playing a game with them alone would be equivalent to smashing two spreadsheets together. There are no USRs, no core mechanics beyond the most basic move/shoot/fight, and absolutely nothing else for armies to actually build around.

Hell, the closest thing to a core mechanic (CPs) basically exists in a different universe from the rest of the game. Instead of fuelling abilities on models, players instead use that resource to influence the battle via Yugioh cards in what has to be one of the worst game mechanics ever devised.

Thus, every army is festooned with special rules in a desperate attempt to hide how shallow the game is. The core rules have no depth to them but this is hidden behind every action requiring dozens of dice rolls to resolve. See, the real problem is that all the bells and whistles add almost nothing of value to the gameplay. 99% of the time they just boil down to rerolls or bonuses to hit/wound/AP/damage. The issue being that so many of these mechanics are always-on, requiring no cost or sacrifice to activate. Auras, for example, add absolutely nothing to the game. Stratagems could, in theory, add something if they didn't exist in a different world to everything taking place on the board. And if there wasn't such a hilarious disparity in what they did. "Hmm, do I use the Stratagem that maybe possibly inflicts a single Mortal Wound on an enemy squad if I roll the right number and jump through six hoops or do I use the stratagem that costs the same CP and lets my heavy weapon unit have a second shooting phase? Choices, choices."


The sad thing for me is that I used to like 40k because it offered so much more character customisation than other, comparable games. However, despite the massive increase in complexity, the focus has shifted much more towards special characters and piles of wargear have been removed from units to make way for more Yugioh cards. Sigh.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system

Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.

I will refer to Sherrypie's post:

If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).

That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.

 catbarf wrote:
System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.

And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all. None of this addresses the facets of 40K. What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?

Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game. It has a retreat system where you basically run away when you get under 25%. And that works, because it is a model by model AA skirmish game. You literally can't use the same system for 40K. You also can't make direct comparisons to WW2 morale systems against a game with flying dragons, zombies, and magic.

Again - I'm not saying you can't do something different, but so far nothing presented gives me confidence that there is a simple solution.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.

Sure, but that's not where we're at. Such a change would mean longer games with units hanging around for much longer.

It was 25% casualties that caused a check, right? Are we going to make 3 man units test at the loss of a single model? With less ranged damage what are you going to do about orcs and other hordes or W3 bikes without rolling back all the profiles to 4th edition?

Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 catbarf wrote:
System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.

And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all. None of this addresses the facets of 40K. What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?

Is it just me or does that sound exactly like how the Deldar would fight???

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.

Sure, but that's not where we're at. Such a change would mean longer games with units hanging around for much longer.

It was 25% casualties that caused a check, right? Are we going to make 3 man units test at the loss of a single model? With less ranged damage what are you going to do about orcs and other hordes or W3 bikes without rolling back all the profiles to 4th edition?

I see nothing wrong with rolling back profiles to 4th, having to roll for morale for small units, or units lasting a little longer.

But the statement I first responed to was the claim that lower model-loss would result in shooting being MORE effective, I guess by virtue of very specific assumptions? Because lower model loss itself just means lower model loss.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all.

We're not in a system where units regularly get wiped out in one turn? News to me.

It looks like you misunderstood Sherrypie's post to be saying that if fewer models were removed and morale effects applied instead, IGOUGO would be worse. As if I'm somehow worse off as the going-second player if my unit is half-dead and at reduced effectiveness due to morale, rather than simply removed entirely. Sherrypie's point was that morale represents a form of 'soft' damage that, when applied in addition to 'hard' damage (model loss), results in a net increase in damage inflicted, and IGOUGO makes that problematic. But you skewed that into saying that morale is worse than model removal under IGOUGO, and that's both nonsensical and just plain wrong.

For a concrete example: It's pretty common in 9th Ed for me to have an Infantry Squad get shot at by a unit of Tacticals or Intercessors, lose 8-9 models, and then morale wipes out the rest. Whereas in 3rd/4th Ed, the same matchup might only result in 4-5 Guardsmen dead, and then a failed morale test. The latter system has less model loss and more 'soft' damage, and gives more of a chance for that unit to be useful again in some capacity rather than just deleted before it had a chance to do anything. While IGOUGO makes neither situation particularly great, the system with less model loss is less punishing for me as the going-second player.

Was 'Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system' maybe an overly generalized idea?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?

This really looks like another one of those 'if you added this proposed mechanic while making zero changes to anything else then it would be bad' kinds of statements.

I mean, if you're giving me the reins to alter 40K while still staying IGOUGO, reaction fire is an easy one to give defenders some opportunity to respond to a turn-1 Raider rush.

But even failing that, suppression works both ways: DE would have the initial momentum and have an easier time pinning the defenders in place (as it should be- you described their fluff perfectly!), but as they start taking casualties and sustaining friction, they'd get caught out and bogged down in attritional warfare. Of course that assumes morale effects reduce movement, which isn't a necessity. Limiting a unit's ability to shoot or fight is another common implementation of morale.

Plus if we're supposing significant core rule changes to reduce raw lethality while implementing morale, that will have significant effects too. Maybe they all come in flying boats over the terrain, pin the enemy, but can't slaughter the enemy wholesale in the first turn of contact, allowing more opportunity for counterattack.

Or, just, yknow, rebalance the units and armies according to how the core rule changes impact them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You also can't make direct comparisons to WW2 morale systems against a game with flying dragons, zombies, and magic.

Well, 40K has ray guns and Titans and historicals don't, but we can directly compare shooting mechanics all the same.

There are things in 40K that probably shouldn't be affected by morale, but for the rest there's no reason we can't make comparisons. Every mechanic can be tweaked for effect.

Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...

What do you call Guts rolls?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...

What do you call Guts rolls?

Sorry, you're right. It's been a while. It's still a system that doesn't do well at the 40K model count.

Action penalties are obviously less debilitating than outright removal of units for the performance of one's army, no doubt there.

My main contention is that this debate on the level of acceptable losses at a given time still tiptoes around the core problem, which is the lack of equal opportunity for affecting the enemy. If by going first you can silence a meaningful chunk of the enemy, whether by destroying or suppressing them, the whole dynamic of the rest of the game gets lopsided. IGOUGO indeed exacerbates this, unless there are extensive contingency systems in place to allow for counter-play.

Regardless of the tweaks applied to the level of lethality, so as to make this effect somewhat acceptable for the game to at least work, I do think the IGOUGO in general is at odds with the idea if we want to keep the firearm heavy nature of 40k as it is. It can be alleviated, but that is still a struggle against the framework instead of a natural extension to it. In comparison to various flavors of AA, there is no choice to act with non-suppressed units in retaliation, there is no pressure to limit the action economy of the opposition, no shifting of the schwerpunkt to address the points that are wavering in your lines, no dynamic operational friction in the Clausewitzian sense.

(As a sidenote, If the silenced amount per turn is less numerically significant but strategically well placed, the game gets more interesting to begin with).

As for incorporating soft damage properly, 40k would need to be concerned with something else than raw damage output. Command and control, the things first damaged by chaotic disruption morale systems usually model, aren't present in any credible form in the game. Part of the identity crisis the game has, that: the table sizes and rules chassis are suited for pub house brawls with barely any tactics above squad level, while the army compositions and materiel assets people try to cram in it try to tell you it's a company level clash.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...

What do you call Guts rolls?

Sorry, you're right. It's been a while. It's still a system that doesn't do well at the 40K model count.

Eh. Matter of taste. I think it works very well at the 40k model count; not as well in 6th/7th where GW started making everything immune to morale and it was often a feel-bad "why is my army subject to this rule but yours gets to ignore it?" whenever it came up, but in 3rd-5th, Bolt Action/Antares, WHFB and derivatives, and in Black Powder and derivatives having morale and units getting panicked and pinned down or running away works very well.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.

Yes and some of that I detect as people's nostalgia to return to the "way things were". And at times I think that colors their perception of how they think 9th plays and gives this sort of analysis that I find frustrating. And then we just get posts about how what it is now is bad and other systems are good, but no one gives anything concrete that doesn't result in what I think are impractical changes.

I would like to see something that fits within the context, because anything else to me is just feels like complaining for the sake of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.

Yes and some of that I detect as people's nostalgia to return to the "way things were". And at times I think that colors their perception of how they think 9th plays and gives this sort of analysis that I find frustrating. And then we just get posts about how what it is now is bad and other systems are good, but no one gives anything concrete that doesn't result in what I think are impractical changes.

I would like to see something that fits within the context, because anything else to me is just feels like complaining for the sake of it.

I find when we're talking about Warhammer specifically I'd rather it be harder for every unit to attack at full effectiveness every turn; I liked fire arcs, harsher move-and-fire penalties, shorter ranges and move distances, suppression, random Reserves, risky Deep Strike, and the like because it made it feel to me more like what choices I made on the table had an impact on the game. 9th feels to me like everything gets to do everything it wants to every turn, so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless. When I talk to people who like 8th/9th better than the way things were before I find they often don't share my view; they didn't like older editions because they felt like if they had to pay points for a unit they should get to use it at full effectiveness more reliably. They didn't like older editions because their units' usefulness could be wildly situational depending on terrain/matchup and skew lists had a lot more potential to leave units/armies unable to participate. I don't think it's a matter of practicality or fitting the context of 40k so much as it is a simple disagreement between two different personal preferences on how the game should feel; they're both valid points, I just personally happen to like one answer more than the other.

The new GK codex is full of situational rules likes this, and I don't think it is a good thing to do. When other factions can do secondaries just by planting a unit on them, limitations in the form of , you have to destroy a unit with a unit of that deep struck this turn or get points if you kill a demon, are just bad. Same with stuff your opponent can easily avoid or just ingore it, because their army just doesn't do some stuff, like coming in from reservs or running specific units like psykers etc.

Having rules that work all the time are much better, specially when if your skew is really hard, the people with armies that you are good against will just not play you. And then your army is just worse in general against the entire local field.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I find when we're talking about Warhammer specifically I'd rather it be harder for every unit to attack at full effectiveness every turn; I liked fire arcs, harsher move-and-fire penalties, shorter ranges and move distances, suppression, random Reserves, risky Deep Strike, and the like because it made it feel to me more like what choices I made on the table had an impact on the game. 9th feels to me like everything gets to do everything it wants to every turn, so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless. When I talk to people who like 8th/9th better than the way things were before I find they often don't share my view; they didn't like older editions because they felt like if they had to pay points for a unit they should get to use it at full effectiveness more reliably. They didn't like older editions because their units' usefulness could be wildly situational depending on terrain/matchup and skew lists had a lot more potential to leave units/armies unable to participate. I don't think it's a matter of practicality or fitting the context of 40k so much as it is a simple disagreement between two different personal preferences on how the game should feel; they're both valid points, I just personally happen to like one answer more than the other.

I get you.

I used to explicitly take 3 man CSM terminators with melta to drop behind tanks or slide my tank out so the turret could see, but I still had cover. Those mechanics were fun, but then there were the other mechanics that really sucked the life out of some things - especially based on the army you took, which to mirror your words "so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless".

I don't feel that way in 9th ( 8th was touch and go, but at least they were moving things forward ) and I find consequence to movement and decisions.

I don't know how to reconcile these different points of view though. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
The new GK codex is full of situational rules likes this, and I don't think it is a good thing to do. When other factions can do secondaries just by planting a unit on them, limitations in the form of , you have to destroy a unit with a unit of that deep struck this turn or get points if you kill a demon, are just bad. Same with stuff your opponent can easily avoid or just ingore it, because their army just doesn't do some stuff, like coming in from reservs or running specific units like psykers etc.

Having rules that work all the time are much better, specially when if your skew is really hard, the people with armies that you are good against will just not play you. And then your army is just worse in general against the entire local field.

The GK secondaries fit the army. Not all secondaries will be a good choice just as not all kill based secondaries will apply to your opponent. Part of being successful is making good choices and then executing that plan in the face of mounting losses.

The teleport secondary is quite achievable under any circumstance when you can Gate to weak units. Purify will come down to how much of your army you want to commit. And while you have an anti-daemon secondary the anti-daemon abilities overall seem to be way down from prior.

After having played Bolt Action I can imagine a hypothetical version of 40k with

- BA-style pinning, orders, to-hit penalties, and method of resolving needing more than a six to hit. (And ditching the +/- 1 cap.)
- A more deterministic method of determining AA than just picking dice out of a bag.
- Mapping 40k's phases to BA's actions so a unit can move and psychic, move and shoot, move and charge, or move and perform a mission secondary action in addition to BA's Go to Ground, Overwatch, and Run actions.
- Combine the Warhammer "every one of these generals has a specific toolkit" with 40k's "make them your dudez" focus by treating every faction's ridiculous pile of strats as a pool to pick special rules for your warlord. Choose six strats at army creation and you can only use them while your warlord is still alive. (Excluding Core strats, those are always available.)

It makes me sad how much better that would be, and it seems like it would address a bunch of issues.

All roads inevitably lead to the fact that IGOUGO just doesn’t work for 40K anymore. The size and tedium of the games drags on for way too long while each player takes a turn droning on about which weapon and strategems they will use to delete units while the other player nods along and then maybe rolls a few armour saves before packing models up.

Just look at the average length of each players turn 2 in most battle reports. The core system needs to be reworked. At the very least damage needs to be assigned at the end of the turn, like in Apocalypse.

GW afraid to do this however as 40K is their golden goose and they’re afraid to inadvertently ruin their gravy train.

Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


The GK secondaries fit the army. Not all secondaries will be a good choice just as not all kill based secondaries will apply to your opponent. Part of being successful is making good choices and then executing that plan in the face of mounting losses.

The teleport secondary is quite achievable under any circumstance when you can Gate to weak units. Purify will come down to how much of your army you want to commit. And while you have an anti-daemon secondary the anti-daemon abilities overall seem to be way down from prior.

Fit or not they are worse by the sole virtue of being harder to do. The ad mecha, DE, or DG ones are much easier to do and you don't need your opponent to interact with you. Something like purify would have been okey, if most GK characters kept the ability to cast 2 powers per turn, or if GK went down in cost and could play a horde army. A DG can make a succesful choice by planting a unit of poxies on an objective, the GK secondaries require a ton of preping, and if you fail to kill stuff coming from deep strike you practiclly screwed yourselfs by taking the objective. Rules that require opponents to do what you want are always worse, then does that require no interaction and vice versa. Plus the codex change nothing about GK giving up a secondary for just being GK.

Maybe not all secondaries should be good. For super efficient armies with above avarge rules, having easy to do secondaries is a bit much. I agree with that. But armies that have it up hill, having situational rules are just becoming worse.

Plus the codex change nothing about GK giving up a secondary for just being GK.

Do you know what you get for that? Totally unimpeded psychic dominance. It isn't as if your units got easier to kill, either.

The ad mecha, DE, or DG ones are much easier to do and you don't need your opponent to interact with you.

Hold on a sec.

Admech #1 - requires opponent to have large vehicles or exposed warlord. Quite similar to your Daemon one.
Admech #2 - requires admech vehicles and for them to kill more infantry than they lost vehicles. You can't score it at all if you don't have a vehicle. How is this not interaction?
Admech #3 - hold an objective at the end of specific round - you literally know where they want to be and can work against it. How is this not interaction?
Admech #4 - hold one specific objective. Again - you know what you need to do to push them off.

DE #1 - Destroy units in melee. Low effort.
DE #2 - Destroy monster, cavalry, beast with wyches. Not dissimilar to your daemon objective.
DE #3 - Fleeing models. Sounds thematic and ridiculously hard to score well with.
DE #4 - Score for quarters without enemies - something you can work against.

Something like purify would have been okey, if most GK characters kept the ability to cast 2 powers per turn

Sounds like you have sour grapes about the new book already?

drbored wrote:
Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.

I wouldn't call it a consensus - even if we call the results of your poll definitive - which they are not.

I played in a tourney yesterday. I never had to pull out the core rulebook. I had to confirm some stats on units from time to time and show one of my unique Strats to an opponent that had not seen it before, but other than that we worked through our turns without coming to a halt or having to call for a ruling. The hardest thing was setting up the diagonal deployment zones for Vital Intelligence. This contrasts with my Flames of War experience where each game has a contentious visit or two to the core rules. Never mind Advanced Squad Leader...

I like having a clean core rules structure that we then layer rules upon. That can be taken too far, and some of the Codexes have missed the mark (Necron Command Protocols come to mind). Nevertheless, I find modern 40K to be a clean gaming experience. I understand, though, that others feel quite differently. As such, there is not a general consensus.