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.

Brief synopsis only gets you so far.
"These are poxwalkers, they're just chaff"
Pretty good synopsis right?
"Now I'm popping this strat so these Poxwalkers are throwing out mortal wounds"

"These are Assault Intercessors, they're chaff-killers, I'm sure you're aware that marines get melee buffs in turn 3 onwards"
Do you think that's a fair synposis?
"Now I'm going to use this strat so my Assault Intercessors get their melee buff NOW (turn 1 or 2), which makes them AP2 and I'm going to shred your elite unit"

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy

Realm-racer - moves faster
Lighning Flayer - fights better
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Bewitching Aura - you fight worse a totally different type of "fight worse" from Symphony of Pain; -1 attack in an aura is much worse than -1 to-hit on the closest unit; especially when stacked with the Aura of Acquiescence stratagem that further debuffs your attacks to -2, minimum 1. Doesn't work in shooting though, which Symphony of Pain does
Sinistrous Hand - gains wounds based on melee damage but only against non-vehicle models, otherwise it can't regain wounds; and it must slay at least 1 or else it doesn't heal anything; it doesn't actually matter how much damage it does. Kill 1 or more non-vehicle model(s) = heal.
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Jewel of Excess - casts/denies better
Symphony of Pain - psychic debuff: you fight worse also works on shooting, not just fighting, and a totally different type of "fight worse" from Bewitching Aura; only works on the closest unit
Hysterical Frenzy - psychic buff: unit fights again but only in my psychic phase after I have gotten the power off, not in the fight phase subsequently or anything like that

=> That guy over there is a fast melee monster. I can debuff your stuff and buff my stuff. The most powerful things are fight first and to fight again in my psychic phase. fighting again in my psychic phase is rather useless unless I have some other way of making you not fall back, since it has to be in combat through your turn. Bewitching Aura is far more powerful than Hysterical Frenzy and is quite the gotcha when paired with "Aura of Acquiescence", which is also a -1 attack aura, stacking to -2 attacks. Too bad you didn't know everything this model could do, eh?

Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria

Blessing of the Dark Prince - more tanky against shooting and totally immune to weapons Strength 3 or lower, which is significant against certain horde armies (i.e. Imperial Guard, Termagants with Str 3 guns, Skitarii). So outright immune, sometimes, not just tanky.
Quicksilver Reflexes - more tanky But does not stack with Warp Surge, which can be used to 4++ another Daemon unit. But you'd only know that if you had access to the Daemon FAQ, otherwise it DOES stack with Warp Surge for a 3++
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Celerity of Slaanesh - moves faster
Shining Aegis - more tanky
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Forbidden Gem - Gotcha item that needs explanation yeah, a gotcha.
Delightful Agonies - more tanky buff for another unit [color=red]The Keeper of Secrets can buff itself with this actually, but it doesn't stack with Shining Aegis
Phantasmagoria - debuff your moral

=> That guy is overall still a fast melee monster, but less than the guy before. He is way more tanky. he's about as capable, and actually considerably less tanky, given that healing from the Sinistrous Hand will earn you more wounds back than the Shining Aegis will save on average in a game. The only thing he has that the other Keeper doesn't have access to is -1 to be wounded by shooting attacks. The other keeper's debuffs make it considerably tougher against most threats. In every other way, the other keeper is both Killier and Harder to Kill, except that the relic on this keeper is absolutely obnoxious and requires a non-trivial amount of explanation. The two things you should know is that I get -1 to wound from shooting and got a mean relic that works like this.

A few details that you missed, highlighted in red, that might help you counter these guys. The details matter.

 Blackie wrote:

 kodos wrote:
losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more

I get it but reading stuff from other codexes an mastering it takes time, even in older editions. I'd rather play a few games without any knowledge and learn from those games, if time is basically the same. Which is actually what I do.

it was always there with 40k and it was always the point people complained about with "too complex"

needing a rulebook, codex, WD Article, campaign book etc. to get all the rules to know what the enemy is going to do because learning by playing is only a valid options for those who play a lot

while other games have a different way of doing it and you can play X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone or Kings of War without the need to read all the fractured rules for the opponent army to get what they are going to do

 Blackie wrote:
There's no need to keep up with new rules releases, reading reviews is just a shortcut to gain knowledge. In my opinion playing games is the way to learn rules, including combos from other armies. I don't read every codexes reviews and I definitely don't even take a quick look to codexes from armies I don't play and yet I don't remember experiencing that many gotcha moments so far. Things I ignored, that I would have handled differently if I had the knowledge, avoiding mistakes? Definitely. A game that was ruined because of that? I never had that feeling honestly.

I can't think of another game that forces me to make those sorts of compromises.

Whenever I played Warmachine, I could glance at my opponent's cards and understand their army. When I play Horus Heresy, my opponent will plop down a unit I'm not familiar with, I ask 'So what do those guys do', and the answer is a combination of wargear I already know plus USRs I already know. When I played Epic I can fit all of my opponent's army rules on a single page, and in BFG each army has a few special rules for weapons but everything else is just on the ship sheet. In Flames of War or Team Yankee the reference cards have all the stats and everything uses USRs. When I play Chain of Command or Bolt Action I already know what everyone does. In 3rd/4th Ed 40K you could learn an army in, like, ten minutes.

It's really just modern 40K where people say it's not complicated, you simply need to give up on knowing an opponent's rules before the game.

 Blackie wrote:
Some people just consider themselves some sort of military strategists and can't accept being caught by surprise or make mistakes as they believe only noobs do that, and shame on you if the opponent is more experienced. It's an attitude that I don't think is appropriate in this context, which is playing a game in a friendly environment (even at tournaments), but it's just my opinion of course.

I don't think that's fair at all, because this is a game of assumed perfect information. I could make you sit there for thirty minutes while I scan your rulebook and take notes on all the stratagems. It's assumed, going in, that you know how the game is played, and that includes the rules for both armies.

A game that wants you to be caught by surprise would be one where information is concealed. Then it doesn't matter how well you know the rules; you don't know the exact strength of a unit because it's hidden from you, not because you don't understand the interplay of a relic with a WLT with a subfaction with a formation bonus.

'More experienced' should mean tactical skills developed through play, not that they know the rules and you don't. Knowledge of the rules isn't mastery of a game system; it should be just the bare minimum to play. If a game is hard to learn, that's generally regarded as a bad thing- 'easy to learn, hard to master' is the goal.

And I mean, it's worth reiterating that this is not just about the complicated mechanics themselves, it's also the poor arrangement of rules that hinders learning. Looking at a unit entry does not tell you what that unit is capable of; you also need to go find their unit-specific stratagems, weapon stats, generally relevant stratagems, applicable subfaction traits, army-wide abilities, and buffs from other units/WLTs/etc before you have a complete picture of what a unit does on the table- and god help you if any of that has been errata'd. I know people who own the codices but exclusively use Wahapedia simply because it's a much better depiction of a unit.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.

That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.

If it's laid back an casual, how are there gotchas? Why aren't you asking your opponent? Why isn't he telling you?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.

That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.

If it's laid back an casual, how are there gotchas? Why aren't you asking your opponent? Why isn't he telling you?

Because the rules are written that way?

Some games encourage imperfect information built into the system (e.g. Chain of Command, where you deploy "jump off points" rather than units. These represent the front line, so you roughly know the enemy's disposition, but you don't know the precise locations of enemy units ahead of time unless you go find them).

Deploying a unit in that situation in COC isn't a "gotcha", it's a normal part of the rules. The idea is that if you're the attacker, you have to approach JOPs cautiously - set up a base of fire with overwatch, ready to open up on any enemy units springing an ambush. You need to read the terrain, to anticipate where the enemy units are based on his JOP (he can only deploy within a known radius), given that he will deploy in cover rather than in the open. You can use scout teams (a couple guys or an armored car or the like) to approach the JOP and force the enemy to deploy off of it without having to risk your entire assault force, etc. etc.

In this case, the game is BUILT with imperfect knowledge of the battlespace as a deliberate game mechanic, and experience doesn't let you know your opponent's disposition ahead of time simply because you've played a lot - but it does help you read the terrain, understand how to maneuver your 2 man scout team, understand how to set up a base of fire that can cover the likely enemy positions, etc. etc.

A noob player might move their entire assault force (including a tank) up towards JOPs with either an absent or improperly positioned base of fire. This means those units are likely to get ambushed and killed (yes, even the tank).

An experienced player will likely set up a base of fire and a concentration area for his assault force, sending forwards scouting parties/vehicles to test the JOPs under the cover of the tank and base of fire, trying to provoke the enemy into shooting the scouts and revealing his positions before the assault goes in, and covering the scouts to help secure their survival with the platoon's machine-guns and any supporting armor.

The difference isn't knowing the rules. It's in employing the rules that are commonly known.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...

False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.

So, how do you WYSIWYG psychic powers? Or veteran traits? Vows? Sagas? Psybolt ammunition? Extra armor?

There were plenty of non-visible upgrades in past editions of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Brief synopsis only gets you so far.
"These are poxwalkers, they're just chaff"
Pretty good synopsis right?
"Now I'm popping this strat so these Poxwalkers are throwing out mortal wounds"

"These are Assault Intercessors, they're chaff-killers, I'm sure you're aware that marines get melee buffs in turn 3 onwards"
Do you think that's a fair synposis?
"Now I'm going to use this strat so my Assault Intercessors get their melee buff NOW (turn 1 or 2), which makes them AP2 and I'm going to shred your elite unit"

Both are a person intentionally misleading their opponent about the possibilities of their army. This has nothing to do with laid back gaming, but either with a cutthroat attitude or even bad sportsmanship.

That person will find a way to be a donkey even if you memorize their entire codex.

It's not intentionally misleading.
If I were to go through the entire capabilities of my army, including all the strats, psychic powers, auras, relics, and combinations there-of that modify those capabilities, we would easily be sat talking about it longer than we would be playing the game.
So you don't do that, you give a brief synopsis that summarises a unit and it's capabilities as best you can.

How would you explain a unit of Assault Intercessors to your opponent? Bearing in mind you need to give an equivalent explanation to every unit in a 2000pt army, and your opponent needs to remember, comprehend, and understand all of that as your barraging them during deployment?

We haven't had a 10 page discussion on 40k being complicated/bloated/whatever you want to call it because the game is simple to understand and explain in thirty seconds.

 Jidmah wrote:


That person will find a way to be a donkey even if you memorize their entire codex.

I do love the "its the player not the game" argument. Protip: if a game enables someone to be a donkey, its the games fault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A few details that you missed, highlighted in red, that might help you counter these guys. The details matter.

At the same time that you missed my point, you make it for me.

So you are able to give a quick rundown of your two special rules monsters. What is the problem then? We can disagree on the level of detail or what ability / combo you deem noteworthy, but the point is: You don't have to tell your opponent the exact wording and stats of every_single_thing_on_that_unit. Depending on what you are playing against, some details matter more than others. Pure infantry army? Pure melee or only weak shooting? No vehicles that would want to go into melee anyway? And so on.

In addition, the two examples you picked are on one end of the scale. A Space Marine Captain with a Teeth of Terra and The Imperium's Sword is really done with "he is good in melee". That's the other end.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...

False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.

So, how do you WYSIWYG psychic powers? Or veteran traits? Vows? Sagas? Psybolt ammunition? Extra armor?

There were plenty of non-visible upgrades in past editions of 40k.

Nice strawman. If you actually read the codexes of those editions you'll know several of those were exempt from WYSIWYG. It was only all weapons and wargear.

Slipspace wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.

And it would take you 30 seconds to understand new rules from another army.

When I explain Rituals to someone who hasn't seen them before I say, "I gain points each turn for abilities from extra damage to auto-cast or undeniable. They cost from 4 to 9 points each. Your best way to interact with this rule is to kill my units - these are what each unit provides."

If your opponent doesn't do this then your question is - "How do I stop you from using these abilities?"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.

And it would take you 30 seconds to understand new rules from another army.

When I explain Rituals to someone who hasn't seen them before I say, "I gain points each turn for abilities from extra damage to auto-cast or undeniable. They cost from 4 to 9 points each. Your best way to interact with this rule is to kill my units - these are what each unit provides."

That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.

I think this problem gets blown up more on a theoretical level, than it is on a practical one.

I play once or twice a week against the same pool of ~10 different (sub)factions.

I read Dakka and Goonhammer and watch the occasional battle report while painting or building stuff.

I'm sure I don't know all the rules of all my opponents, but I'm quite confident I know enough about most units and armies capabilities without going out of my way to prepare for a game.

I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.

Or who play other games. Going from something like Chain of Command or LOTR or Horus Heresy to 40k is a huge amount of whiplash.

"What this squad?"
"Well, 2x beltfed LMGs with 2 crew, 5x riflemen, one Junior Leader; normal German national characteristics" - got it, I know exactly what all of that means as all the terms and roles are defined in the main rules. I don't need my opponent's army list to know what any of this means. Similarly:

"What this warband?"
"11 men Lead by Easterling Captain, Pike infantry with shields, Fight 4. Phalanx rule means 2 models can Make Way in a fight instead of 1." Got it, everything defined in the rules but there's one special rule to get an exception - which slightly changes an existing MRB rule ("Make Way"). Similarly:

"What is this unit?"
"Terminators with Cyclone Missile Launchers on every model, preferred enemy, Cataphractii plate, Feel No Pain from attached apothecary" - got it. Everything is in the base rulebook, I don't have to buy or know his arcane special sauce to understand this unit.

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds" (i.e. asking how good modifiers are against the reroll)
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend

 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.

It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons. Warmachine isn't like that and it requires a ton of reference material. Tables are covered in unit cards.

The allure of Warhammer - the reason it has staying power - is because it provides incredibly diverse factions that people become attached to. When you strip that out you get Kings of War or 9th age.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.

It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.

The irony is that 40k doesn't actually do that aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons thing that well.

My opponent commented this weekend that "Slaanesh Daemons are just like Tyranids with invulnerable saves" when he saw the monsters + daemonettes list and he isn't really that wrong. The actual "totally off the wall/impossiblewhackyfun stuff" doesn't really have that much support.

It's the Space Marines and Adeptus Mechanicus - you know, humans with tanks and guns (and horses and wings, to be fair to AM) - that have the absolutely crazy rules layering.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other two fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds"
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend

Linebreaker and Hunter-Killer have been removed across the board so far in 9th. Linked Fire is likely destined to be removed.

Additionally, none of the 9th edition codexes reference failed rolls. It is just reroll hits / wounds / psychic test / deny.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.

It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons. Warmachine isn't like that and it requires a ton of reference material. Tables are covered in unit cards.

The allure of Warhammer - the reason it has staying power - is because it provides incredibly diverse factions that people become attached to. When you strip that out you get Kings of War or 9th age.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.

No other system I can think of has as much...side dishes to the main meat and potatoes of the rules. A leman russ tank is not inherently any harder to model in game than a WW2 KV1 tank, but most rules for WW2 gameplay focus on what happens on the table- moving, shooting, morale, while in 40k that's just the background noise to Special Rules that kick in when shooting and the Stratagem system which is like magic, but unlike normal 40k magic it uses a second, premium currency to activate.
It'd be like having a card game on top of 40k game that can affect the 40k game, but otherwise exist on a separate level.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other two fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds"
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend

Linebreaker and Hunter-Killer have been removed across the board so far in 9th. Linked Fire is likely destined to be removed.

Additionally, none of the 9th edition codexes reference failed rolls. It is just reroll hits / wounds / psychic test / deny.

Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.

You can't forge a narrative without adjectives.

I get the feeling the discussion is mainly about stratagems changing the role of a unit or improving a unit surprisingly. Well, you can explain to your opponent what you have in the pocket, you always had to when playing 40K against someone who's not familiar with your faction. And as usual these are things you learn pretty fast. After one game against 9th edition Necrons I knew Lychguard can kill anything they touch due to some stratagems.
It's just practice. People keep saying 40K is unique in that, I'd say they should try Star Trek Attack Wing (or I assume X-Wing), where your base model only gives you a hint what it can do, while the real strength comes from the equipment.
I do get the complaint about the base rules being pretty light (they always were, just more complicated with no positive effect in earlier editions) but I'm not following the arguments against faction rules and such. I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.

As a narrative player myself, this is something I don't understand and would like explained to me. Why is it hard to be a narrative player if your faction doesn't have special rules? Would you rock up to a table and be like "Nope, this isn't narrative, the 1937 Soviet rifleman model doesn't have enough rules to differentiate it from the 1937 Japanese rifleman model".

It's honestly bewildering that every little subfaction has to have special rules - and not just minor ones, either, but straight up utterly different than any other little subfaction even within the same major faction (e.g. CSM).

It is far more important to me, as a narrative player, that the game be immersive (in that my troops on the table are behaving the way they could be expected to in the same situation in the setting) than it is that they have some extra special super sauce rule collection to make sure they're extremely different from their comrades who are identical in everything except battlefield doctrine.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.

*shrug* I get it and lots of people will be missing this knowledge, because they haven't been able to experience it due to covid or what have you, so I can't fault them for feeling this way. All I can do is show how things have improved ( Admech book aside, but that's more because they tried to make two sort of distinct armies one cohesive army. It's a complaint I've seen before that didn't bother me, but I get what they were talking about more now. ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.

So much this. DG ( and others ) have never been manifested so well and with such distinction until now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.

*shrug* I get it and lots of people will be missing this knowledge, because they haven't been able to experience it due to covid or what have you, so I can't fault them for feeling this way. All I can do is show how things have improved ( Admech book aside, but that's more because they tried to make two sort of distinct armies one cohesive army. It's a complaint I've seen before that didn't bother me, but I get what they were talking about more now. ).

It's not that I was missing this knowledge, it's that it's irrelevant. All of my armies still exist in 8th edition, which means I have to remember (and my opponents have to remember) the difference between "reroll ALL X" and "reroll all FAILED X".

That still exists in the game, still needs to be remembered, and still needs to be addressed. It's not gone, it's not going anywhere soon (we've seen the roadmap for the next four months and none of my books are on there unless the Imperium one at the end is Imperial Guard and not Custodes or some other Marine Chapter supplement or something). This phenomenon is still definitely contributing to the bloat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.

As a narrative player myself, this is something I don't understand and would like explained to me. Why is it hard to be a narrative player if your faction doesn't have special rules? Would you rock up to a table and be like "Nope, this isn't narrative, the 1937 Soviet rifleman model doesn't have enough rules to differentiate it from the 1937 Japanese rifleman model".

It's honestly bewildering that every little subfaction has to have special rules - and not just minor ones, either, but straight up utterly different than any other little subfaction even within the same major faction (e.g. CSM).

It is far more important to me, as a narrative player, that the game be immersive (in that my troops on the table are behaving the way they could be expected to in the same situation in the setting) than it is that they have some extra special super sauce rule collection to make sure they're extremely different from their comrades who are identical in everything except battlefield doctrine.

This unit:


Fought like this unit, but only sliiiiightly tougher:


And now this unit is entirely distinct in it's feel from other models of it's type, fights it's own way, and spreads disease:


Comparing again to WW2 models completely misses the allure of 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


It's not that I was missing this knowledge, it's that it's irrelevant. All of my armies still exist in 8th edition, which means I have to remember (and my opponents have to remember) the difference between "reroll ALL X" and "reroll all FAILED X".

That still exists in the game, still needs to be remembered, and still needs to be addressed. It's not gone, it's not going anywhere soon (we've seen the roadmap for the next four months and none of my books are on there unless the Imperium one at the end is Imperial Guard and not Custodes or some other Marine Chapter supplement or something). This phenomenon is still definitely contributing to the bloat.

Sure, that's fair and I can't expect you to put that aside.

so you need competitive rules to play the narrative in 40k?

 kodos wrote:
so you need competitive rules to play the narrative in 40k?

Hmm? No. Competitiveness aside the new Death Guard feel like Death Guard should. That feeling is evocative and it what can drive people's interest.

It's not much different than when I was a kid and I saw some cool miniature and I could envision how it would act in real life as I made pew pew noises.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This unit:

Spoiler:

Fought like this unit, but only sliiiiightly tougher:

Spoiler:

And now this unit is entirely distinct in it's feel from other models of it's type, fights it's own way, and spreads disease:

Spoiler:

Comparing again to WW2 models completely misses the allure of 40K.

1) Why is "there is a huge amount of minutiate you have to worry about to differentiate roughly similar units" alluring?

2) Those look pretty much the same for me, colors aside. I don't know WHY the lower of the three photos needs to be its own thing - they still have some pretty creepy mutations, and the one guy with the stylized flamethrower looks like the dripping fuel was painted the wrong color. Oh, and there's a good mix of wicked looking melee weapons in both photos. Nothing - outside the color - of the lower unit screams to me "THESE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER UNIT". If you painted the red unit in green, or the green unit in red, I'd be hard pressed to tell a thematic difference at a glance.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think this problem gets blown up more on a theoretical level, than it is on a practical one.

I play once or twice a week against the same pool of ~10 different (sub)factions.

I read Dakka and Goonhammer and watch the occasional battle report while painting or building stuff.

I'm sure I don't know all the rules of all my opponents, but I'm quite confident I know enough about most units and armies capabilities without going out of my way to prepare for a game.

I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.

Really I tend to think GW's focus has always tended to be on trying to make repeated matchups between the same factions within a small group of friends(or even just two friends) fresh but offering a lot of potential complexity in terms of army construction in a game that ultimately is sposed to be somewhat competitive but also fun.