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.

I imagine GW has noticed rules bloat on datasheets as well. In a lot of the upcoming special marine codexes it appears they're removing Shock Assault for just an extra base attack.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

Seconded.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

Having psychic powers doesn't win you games. Even if smites are what they should have been since day one in 8th ed. I am comparing this codex to what came out lately. And neither the GK, nor the 1ksons one look as if they were better then DE, Ad mecha or SoB. And it doesn't even matter what I think about it. At the time the either of those factions had their full rules leaked, we had 30 pages of talk about the faction. We don't even have a thread about 1ksons or GK. That is how worried the community is about their power level.



Hold on a sec.

Admech #1 - requires opponent to have large vehicles or exposed warlord. Quite similar to your Daemon one.

A demon is something few armies have. you litteraly have to play vs a chaos army. Teleporting around Ad mecha have a much easier time finding targets to kill a vehicle or a warlord.

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?

so 1 in 4 vs 2 in 3. That is a big difference. Plus ad mecha don't have the abhore the witch problem. GK should have easier to do secondaries, if they give up theirs much easier.

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?

Yes, that is assuming you will be succesful. Still how is this comperable to this secondary only works if your opponent plays chaos?

Admech #4 - hold one specific objective. Again - you know what you need to do to push them off.

and ditto here.

DE #1 - Destroy units in melee. Low effort.

DE #2 - Destroy monster, cavalry, beast with wyches. Not dissimilar to your daemon objective.

there are far more armies with those then there are armies running demons.

DE #3 - Fleeing models. Sounds thematic and ridiculously hard to score well with.

great so 1 in 4, is bad. I guess this means GK will have a 70% win rate too.

DE #4 - Score for quarters without enemies - something you can work against.

yeah something. how do you work something when your opponent doesn't bring demons, or has demons and just says he won't play you?

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

Because it would have been a good book, if it came out instead of the 8th ed codex. Would be great. I don't see how the codex is better then any of the good armies being played right now. And as I said, this isn't even what I think. Whole codex has been leaked already and the communities reaction is , move along nothing to see here. On a personal level they again made termintors worse then strikes, so yeah I don't like that change.


GW when writing rules for armies should first make sure that the army has good core rules. Then they can play around with thematic stuff. All the good armies in 9th right now, have thematic rules, but they exist in addition to a powerful core. When someone starts with copy pasting stuff and then sprinkling some rules around, then a codex can either end up just bad or ment for something wierd like narrative, or it turns in to codex Dreadknight or Hive tyrant.

Maybe Morale needs to be turned on its head and become a bonus not a negative.

Only problem is its a slower system and 40K drags already.

But something like

Test on 2D6 each time you lose models. +1 for every model lost this turn.

Melee
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
Break and die. Move once away from the enemy, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn, lose one model for every point you are over LD.

All other casualties caused by the enemy (shooting, psychic powers, etc. - does not include out of coherency removal)
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
1st time - contact drills, receive +1 save for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay model down as reminder)
2nd time - go to ground, receive -1 to hit for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay 2nd model down as reminder)
3rd time - Break. Move one full move away from the enemy, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn (including step 1 and 2 above) - face models away from enemy or mark unit in some way.
4th time - Lose one model for every point you are over LD.

Karol wrote:
Having psychic powers doesn't win you games. Even if smites are what they should have been since day one in 8th ed. I am comparing this codex to what came out lately. And neither the GK, nor the 1ksons one look as if they were better then DE, Ad mecha or SoB. And it doesn't even matter what I think about it. At the time the either of those factions had their full rules leaked, we had 30 pages of talk about the faction. We don't even have a thread about 1ksons or GK. That is how worried the community is about their power level.

They do win you games when you can teleport to your heart's desire. Are you saying there's no power creep?

Because it would have been a good book, if it came out instead of the 8th ed codex. Would be great. I don't see how the codex is better then any of the good armies being played right now. And as I said, this isn't even what I think. Whole codex has been leaked already and the communities reaction is , move along nothing to see here. On a personal level they again made termintors worse then strikes, so yeah I don't like that change.

GW when writing rules for armies should first make sure that the army has good core rules. Then they can play around with thematic stuff. All the good armies in 9th right now, have thematic rules, but they exist in addition to a powerful core. When someone starts with copy pasting stuff and then sprinkling some rules around, then a codex can either end up just bad or ment for something wierd like narrative, or it turns in to codex Dreadknight or Hive tyrant.

I don't see anything copy paste with GK. I think people are struggling with the design not being what they wanted, but GK have always leaned into melee.

You're also going to want terminators/paladins. If your whole army is W2 then D2 will have a field day. GK Terminators are transhuman eligible with a couple options for 4++.

I’m pretty sure Karol is insatiable.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...GK Terminators are transhuman eligible with a couple options for 4++...

GK Cataphractii?!?!?

(Yes, I know this doesn't actually exist and is unlikely to ever exist, but I just had a moment of amusement at the parallel with Nullificators (the 30k proto-GK anti-Daemon unit).)

Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list

Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list

GW made a mistake in 5e by making GK six units with all the same equipment and slightly different statlines/rules. Every edition since one of the six has been just better and you're supposed to spam it and ignore the others, because they all do the exact same thing.

Yeah I don't disagree at all. I just wish this time the unit you're supposed to spam is terminators! Ive got 50 of those waiting on the shelf, and I just hate the PAGK

Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list

Yea, though I doubt GK termies will come down too far since they're fairly similar to Scarabs, but Scarabs offer a lot of value over Rubrics. 35 to 38 points might make more sense.

Regardless of cost, I hate looking at grey knight armies with more than just one or two non terminators. Terminator spam grey knights are cool as hell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list

Yea, though I doubt GK termies will come down too far since they're fairly similar to Scarabs, but Scarabs offer a lot of value over Rubrics. 35 to 38 points might make more sense.

Yeah I don't disagree. I'm hoping for a points drop in however long that takes, or maybe they have an all terminator army of renown coming down the pipe . Speaking of scarabs, they're essentially the same guy as a GKT with sword but fearless, All is Dust, ignore heavy penalty, a -1D strat ( that GKT used to have but lost ), AP-2 guns and are cheaper, but aren't troops and have less options. I'm personally pretty sad about GKT for the moment, but who knows what the future brings. Back on topic I'll just echo what other have said, the game isn't super complex, the rules are pretty simple and easy to learn and you can bust out a good sized game in an hour and a half if you're tryin. I'm personally having more fun with the game than I have since our HH scene died

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

@techsoldaten
You could save yourself a lot of work if you check out OnePageRules.com and their Grimdark Future rules. Streamlined, balanced and approachable. It has rekindled my gaming energy. Played about 10 games in six weeks and have had a lot fun with it.

GK's suffer from the fundamental problem of being more expensive Marines that die like ordinary Marines.

Which is why at the height of GK power they either didn't die like Marines (the invis Paladin deathstar) or simply didn't field GK's and spammed Psybolt vehicles and Inq henchmen.

The GK right now with the buffs are very cheap for what they can do. Or at least they are cheap enough they can be spamed. With all the buffs added a unit of strikes, may not be great at shoting, but in melee it is very strong, as long as the opponent doesn't have an option to make the strike last. Which, I think , is their main problem along side getting in to melee fast enough.

If they had an open topped rhino or impulsor, They would be very powerful.

GK termintors is an example of what happens when someone at DT decides that something is an elite option and should cost extra.

In my pregame math, when I play an army rather new to me in the new edition, I write down
- special rules (cmd phase, auras, abilities),
- stratagems that I might use,
- secondaries, and
- command protocols (Necrons).
This can help a lot.

Creating color-coded cards or using colored card shields for the official ones to sort stratagems by phase also is a good way of providing a good overview of stratagems for both you and your opponent.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

I feel like comparing 40k to Advanced Squad Leader, a game considered to be probably the most complex game ever made is disingenuous. The issue is that 40k is not actually supposed to be a complicated/complex/convoluted/unwieldy game. Its supposed to be an engine to play out stories and scenarios without a great deal of baggage. Its supposed to be an excuse to hang out with friend to play while you have a few drinks, such as beer and snacks, like pretzels, while you play. When people play Advanced Squad Leader they KNOW the game is dense and complicated and brain melting and thats what they sign up for when you open the box. Its not why people play 40k.

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

I feel like comparing 40k to Advanced Squad Leader, a game considered to be probably the most complex game ever made is disingenuous. The issue is that 40k is not actually supposed to be a complicated/complex/convoluted/unwieldy game. Its supposed to be an engine to play out stories and scenarios without a great deal of baggage. Its supposed to be an excuse to hang out with friend to play while you have a few drinks, such as beer and snacks, like pretzels, while you play. When people play Advanced Squad Leader they KNOW the game is dense and complicated and brain melting and thats what they sign up for when you open the box. Its not why people play 40k.

Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).

I think some people confuse having lots of options as harder, because they can't memorize everything an army does, which is different from the core rules actually being too complex.

I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.

I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.

Bloated, sure. Admech is the only unwieldy book since it is basically two armies, but it can be broken down into --

Sub-Faction Abilities ( Forge Worlds )
HQ Upgrades ( Tech Priest only )
Purity Bonus ( Doctrina and Canticles )
WL Traits
Relics
Strats

Things you can do fall into very categories governed by the phases. e.g. Affect dice rolls / breaking, granting, or enhancing rules / etc. Everything you do can be broken down to that level.

I know what you can normally do. All I have to ask is "can you break this rule?".

"I want to shoot this Vanguard unit. What can you do to them?". I already know that they want they can do falls within basic possibilities like armor / cover / wounding / extra saves.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).

Don't agree at all. Even 2nd (as well as 3rd-6th, as there is a stark division in the game design in those two categories) is a lot more consistent rules-wise, and far fewer moving parts for the sake of having moving parts (army rules, strats, traits, chapter tactics, purity bonuses, etc, etc). Consistency alone makes a huge difference, as does the lack of obfuscating mechanics that lets people pretend that re-rolls and minor bonuses from a dozen different things make the game somehow more 'interesting'

It also helps that the older editions have fundamental mechanics for a wargame, like morale, routing and rallying rather than rolling dice to see if you roll dice to see if models just vanish into the ether.
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice. Its at the point where it could just have simple look-up tables where if <unit> fires at unit <type> (infantry/vehicle/character) X damage is done, rather than rolling at all. It would save about an hour for each game, and I'm not convinced the results would be significantly different- the sheer mass of dice and rerolls will converge to expected results anyway.

drbored wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.

I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.

Well, it definitely does not take 10 to 30 games to get core rules down.

Could you give a specific example as to what an "overly complicated rules interaction" would be?

Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.

The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

And that's before we add in any:

1. Army abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
2. Unit abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
3. Strats that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
4. Special auras or buffs (ala Chaplains) that change that test, or the final dice roll for MW.

And on and on it goes...

Voss wrote:
It also helps that the older editions have fundamental mechanics for a wargame, like morale, routing and rallying rather than rolling dice to see if you roll dice to see if models just vanish into the ether.

Like rolling dice to see if your opponent was faster than you thereby causing your models to vanish? Or rolling dice to see if you can't interact with your unit again this turn unless you're an army that ignores that?

I'm not convinced the results would be significantly different- the sheer mass of dice and rerolls will converge to expected results anyway.

This makes me think you've never played Warhammer in your life. The amount of key rolls on three dice or less are quite high and subject to lots of variance. Even if your dice rolls were perfectly average there are key moments that matter more than others.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.

The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

And that's before we add in any:

1. Army abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
2. Unit abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
3. Strats that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
4. Special auras or buffs (ala Chaplains) that change that test, or the final dice roll for MW.

And on and on it goes...

Could you give an example rule for each of the four items above?

drbored wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.

I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.

A Dakka poll and $1.85 CAD are worth a coffee. Before delivery etc

Do we really find the rules of 40K 9th too hard to understand? I am just not seeing it out in the wild. If someone finds 9th too dense to penetrate then heaven help them with editions before 8th.

Some of it has to do with intuitiveness.

A rule that makes something act as expected is easy to remember (e.g. the Blast rule doing more damage to horde units isn't typically forgotten).

A rule that makes no sense is harder to remember (e.g. the precise nature of the coherency rules). These typically only get remembered after they are encountered once, which can feel like a gotcha.