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.
Crunch enables you to feel the fluff manifesting on the tabletop. That's it.
Let's condense the model and rules range of 40k back to a single model: A tactical Space Marine (from 3rd edition).
That is the model and the rule everybody has to use, even though in the fluff some people play Guard, some play Orks, some Tyranids and so on.
Pretty gakky for immersion, innit?
So we add a new model, the imperial Guardsman.
Now at least we can already have Marines, Renegades, Imperial Guard and Traitor Guard visually distinct on the battlefield, even if they all play the same.
What's worse, it doesn't feel right that the much smaller looking Guard model got the same save like the Marine, the same weapon, even though the fluff makes a big fuss about how much better a Bolter is to a Lasgun and all across the same stats.
The logical next step is to give the Guard model different stats from the Marine, to make it feel right.
If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.
The reason we need rules distinction for (sub)factions in a nutshell.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
a_typical_hero wrote: Crunch enables you to feel the fluff manifesting on the tabletop. That's it.
Let's condense the model and rules range of 40k back to a single model: A tactical Space Marine (from 3rd edition).
That is the model and the rule everybody has to use, even though in the fluff some people play Guard, some play Orks, some Tyranids and so on.
Pretty gakky for immersion, innit?
So we add a new model, the imperial Guardsman.
Now at least we can already have Marines, Renegades, Imperial Guard and Traitor Guard visually distinct on the battlefield, even if they all play the same.
What's worse, it doesn't feel right that the much smaller looking Guard model got the same save like the Marine, the same weapon, even though the fluff makes a big fuss about how much better a Bolter is to a Lasgun and all across the same stats.
The logical next step is to give the Guard model different stats from the Marine, to make it feel right.
If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.
The reason we need rules distinction for (sub)factions in a nutshell.
Nobody said they need to be competitive, though.
Right, but all this is secondary.
Lets take your example and start with the 3rd edition Space Marine. Everyone has to play him, no matter what army identity they choose. During the turn, they can:
1) Do backflips, which makes him lose his armor bonus but gain +3" of vertical movement.
2) Suppress the enemy with his gun, which makes the enemy 3rd Edition Space Marines a little upset but has no impact.
3) Set himself on fire to protest the current suffering by xenos everywhere, which gives his own 3rd Edition Space Marines -1 morale but makes Xenos 3rd Edition Space Marines reroll successful hits against his squad out of sympathy
etc.
None of it makes any sense. If you add imperial guardsmen to this, make his gun strength 3 and armor 5+, it still doesn't make any sense. The core rules have to be sufficiently immersive and realistic BEFORE we worry about adding in differentiation, otherwise you get... well, what we have now. A whole bunch of well-represented factions that are unable to do basic gak like suppress the enemy, interfere with the enemy's command-and-control infrastructure, or react when the enemy moves out right before their eyes.
a_typical_hero wrote: Crunch enables you to feel the fluff manifesting on the tabletop. That's it.
Let's condense the model and rules range of 40k back to a single model: A tactical Space Marine (from 3rd edition).
That is the model and the rule everybody has to use, even though in the fluff some people play Guard, some play Orks, some Tyranids and so on.
Pretty gakky for immersion, innit?
So we add a new model, the imperial Guardsman.
Now at least we can already have Marines, Renegades, Imperial Guard and Traitor Guard visually distinct on the battlefield, even if they all play the same.
What's worse, it doesn't feel right that the much smaller looking Guard model got the same save like the Marine, the same weapon, even though the fluff makes a big fuss about how much better a Bolter is to a Lasgun and all across the same stats.
The logical next step is to give the Guard model different stats from the Marine, to make it feel right.
If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.
The reason we need rules distinction for (sub)factions in a nutshell.
Nobody said they need to be competitive, though.
Right, but all this is secondary.
Lets take your example and start with the 3rd edition Space Marine. Everyone has to play him, no matter what army identity they choose. During the turn, they can:
1) Do backflips, which makes him lose his armor bonus but gain +3" of vertical movement.
2) Suppress the enemy with his gun, which makes the enemy 3rd Edition Space Marines a little upset but has no impact.
3) Set himself on fire to protest the current suffering by xenos everywhere, which gives his own 3rd Edition Space Marines -1 morale but makes Xenos 3rd Edition Space Marines reroll successful hits against his squad out of sympathy
etc.
None of it makes any sense. If you add imperial guardsmen to this, make his gun strength 3 and armor 5+, it still doesn't make any sense. The core rules have to be sufficiently immersive and realistic BEFORE we worry about adding in differentiation, otherwise you get... well, what we have now. A whole bunch of well-represented factions that are unable to do basic gak like suppress the enemy, interfere with the enemy's command-and-control infrastructure, or react when the enemy moves out right before their eyes.
I guess it's a question of what you want out of the game.
I'm also playing Oathmark, which is probably what you would like for 40K. It's a miniature agnostic system that features humans, orks, elves, Goblins, dwarfs and undead, each with their own statlines but very similar profiles. It doesn't matter though if your humans are vikings, gondorians, empire troops, romans, Samurai, whatever, they're just humans, either militia or elite. It also doesn't matter if you use Lotr Orks or Warhammer Orks, or these huge Conquest guys, they're all just Orks. This is basically fine but we realized after some games you just want to personalize your kingdom in some way, so that your ranked Phalanx spearmen are somehow different to the barbarians they're facing. Guess what, the game gives you the option to add formations to your roster, so the barbarian guy adds the option to add javelins, and the spearmen guy adds a better Phalanx rule to his troops et voilà, already you have some narrative difference between the two kingdoms of the same faction.
What I'm getting at, a strong base rule is always fine but 40K never had that, so in my opinion it's okay that 40K at least gives you the option now to really dive into the subfaction rules to personalize your army (granted, it would be even better if GW hadn't introduced their stupid no model no rules Dogma but it's what it is). Unfortunately on dakka many seem to see these rules as bloat. I have to say though, just yesterday I had a look at the onepage 40KCSM rules and realized, they didn't even feature marks of Chaos, let alone legions, which I think is a huge miss.
a_typical_hero wrote: If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.
The fluff suggests that your Marine should have an easier time hitting a Titan standing right in front of him than a Grot two miles away, yet in the crunch they are both exactly a 67% chance. If that doesn't bother you, but a lack of special rules to differentiate sneaky-Marine from fighty-Marine does, then clearly there is more to this than how well the rules mechanically represent the fluff.
Particularly when the scale of the game is such that differences in doctrine and force composition between the two subfactions probably matter a lot more than their individual stats. As Daedalus keeps pointing out, this isn't a historical wargame- in a setting with alien bug monsters, space elves, and animated fungus hooligans, is being a fighty-but-also-sneaky Marine really so different from being a sneaky-but-also-fighty Marine that it needs special rules? Or should it maybe matter more that the fighty Marines are all armed with melee weapons and riding APCs, while the sneaky Marines are carrying sniper rifles and deploying from ambush?
40k is a bloated game to the point that is barely functional... Yesterday I played a 1K tournament... No game went beyond turn 3 because lack of time... Many rules were forgotten... 80% of rolls were pointless... I felt a complete lack of agency... Even when I won.
GW can go along with this inertia of a bloated mess because how huge it is... But mechanically the current 40k is one of the worst miniature wargames in the market.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 19:10:38
If the reason 40k has to be so bloated is because of the whacky-impossible-unreality (WIU) gubbins, then if there are complicated mechanics, they should be to differentiate said WIU stuff from the "normal guys" stuff.
Instead, most of the bloat comes from "disease marines are muchly different from magic marines who are muchly different from sneak marines who are muchly different from stab marines who are muchly different from the other stab marines who are muchly different from the OTHER stab marines who are muchly different from the OTHER psychic marines" (i.e. a bunch of different iterations of guys with guns and tanks) while Slaanesh Daemons and Tyranids are distinguishable only because one faction has more units with invulnerable saves.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/16 19:15:42
I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
Though I have to admit a Grot and a Marine hitting equally well would bother me more than not having modifiers for long range and big/small targets. I remember them from 7.edition WHFB, sure why not.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 19:20:28
Vatsetis wrote: 40k is a bloated game to the point that is barely functional... Yesterday I played a 1K tournament... No game went beyond turn 3 because lack of time... Many rules were forgotten... 80% of rolls were pointless... I felt a complete lack of agency... Even when I won.
GW can go along with this inertia of a bloated mess because how huge it is... But mechanically the current 40k is one of the worst miniature wargames in the market.
I observe the same among my folks who don't play regularly or started recently.
Honest question: How often do you get to play and and how experienced with 9th would you describe yourself?
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
The rules are largely the same since 3rd edition though. They did immerse me enough back then, they still do now.
Some stratagems should be regular wargear, but that's largely it. I know that you may counter now with a plethora of small details were the game is different from 3rd like armour facing. But if you know how to play 3rd, you know - in general - how to play 9th. You call out that you are a narrative player. Do you have the impression I'm not?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 19:28:30
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
I guess perhaps for the same reason you might find that ( warning : horrible generalizations ahead ) the Japanese are really bad at tanks and guns, but really good at ships, air, and morale where as Russians are a meat grinder and efficient medium tanks. People come to the table with some base level expectation that fits the popularized representation of how armies fought in WW2.
I think you're highlighting the issue for me ( as I read it ). You are hard pressed to find an immediate thematic difference, but the rules play much differently and that can be crucial to how a player connects to the army. If you were to look at GW promo images for those units you'd be able to distinctly differentiate the two even though you could sense they're somewhat related.
Vatsetis wrote: 40k is a bloated game to the point that is barely functional... Yesterday I played a 1K tournament... No game went beyond turn 3 because lack of time... Many rules were forgotten... 80% of rolls were pointless... I felt a complete lack of agency... Even when I won.
GW can go along with this inertia of a bloated mess because how huge it is... But mechanically the current 40k is one of the worst miniature wargames in the market.
I observe the same among my folks who don't play regularly or started recently.
Honest question: How often do you get to play and and how experienced with 9th would you describe yourself?
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
The rules are largely the same since 3rd edition though. They did immerse me enough back then, they still do now.
Some stratagems should be regular wargear, but that's largely it. I know that you may counter now with a plethora of small details were the game is different from 3rd like armour facing. But if you know how to play 3rd, you know - in general - how to play 9th. You call out that you are a narrative player. Do you have the impression I'm not?
I played quite a lot of 8th...not that much of 9th... To the point Im back to being turned into a noob... Which in itself is a testament to the sad state of the game :(
Point is, there wasnt much positives to make me like to play the game again in a competitive setting.
It wasnt functional and it wasnt fun either... Is clunky.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 20:12:13
a_typical_hero wrote: If we introduce the fluff that one kind of Marine is super sneaky and one is super fighty, it wouldn't feel right to have it represented by the exact same statline, would it? At least for me it would not.
The fluff suggests that your Marine should have an easier time hitting a Titan standing right in front of him than a Grot two miles away, yet in the crunch they are both exactly a 67% chance. If that doesn't bother you, but a lack of special rules to differentiate sneaky-Marine from fighty-Marine does, then clearly there is more to this than how well the rules mechanically represent the fluff.
Particularly when the scale of the game is such that differences in doctrine and force composition between the two subfactions probably matter a lot more than their individual stats. As Daedalus keeps pointing out, this isn't a historical wargame- in a setting with alien bug monsters, space elves, and animated fungus hooligans, is being a fighty-but-also-sneaky Marine really so different from being a sneaky-but-also-fighty Marine that it needs special rules? Or should it maybe matter more that the fighty Marines are all armed with melee weapons and riding APCs, while the sneaky Marines are carrying sniper rifles and deploying from ambush?
This feels like complexity for the sake of it. Why does it need to be that you can more easily hit the titan? Wouldn't it track that hitting the titan in a vulnerable spot is much harder to do when it's imminently going to crush the life out of you than shooting at a grot? The thematics of a titan or other such large model are it's blistering weapons. Obviously titans are not well represented in that regard in 40K, but they shouldn't really be part of the game ( knights are okay-ish ).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: while Slaanesh Daemons and Tyranids are distinguishable only because one faction has more units with invulnerable saves.
That argument is getting ahead of us a little since they've not had the 9th edition treatment. Slaanesh could see a lot of ways to get the enemy units to act against their own interests. Tyranids could find themselves with a greater sense of a instinctual hive minded army. Time will tell.
I've adored Rubric Marines since the day I laid eyes on them and I connected with the fluff. GW now firmly represents them as I felt they should be. Last edition was decent. This one is pretty great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vatsetis wrote: I played quite a lot of 8th...not that much of 9th... To the point Im back to being turned into a noob. :(
Point is, there wasnt much positives to make me like to play the game again in a competitive setting.
It wasnt functional.
People had a very uneven experience with 8th. For those of us living under the ITC umbrella things got smoothed out. For everyone else it was kind of a huge hit or miss endeavor. Now that everything is unified people can mostly experience the game in a similar capacity ( as long as they use good terrain ).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/16 20:05:07
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
Yeah, well, 30K rules aren't solid, though, they're the bloated mess of 7th Edition. Forgeworld made them work a bit, but it's still a barely functional, overcomplicated game in my eyes. The only thing 30K handles better than 9th edition is morale, really. Strange that you mention 30K as it has even more rules to differentiate Marine legions from one another.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
A grot is already harder to hit than a Titan, Knight, Baneblade, or [INSERT TITANIC UNIT HERE], because it can benefit from cover and HIDE if it wants to. You're not hiding any TITANIC unit, unless you have some very big terrain, and none of them can benefit from cover.
Vatsetis wrote: 40k is a bloated game to the point that is barely functional... Yesterday I played a 1K tournament... No game went beyond turn 3 because lack of time... Many rules were forgotten... 80% of rolls were pointless... I felt a complete lack of agency... Even when I won.
GW can go along with this inertia of a bloated mess because how huge it is... But mechanically the current 40k is one of the worst miniature wargames in the market.
I observe the same among my folks who don't play regularly or started recently.
Honest question: How often do you get to play and and how experienced with 9th would you describe yourself?
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
The rules are largely the same since 3rd edition though. They did immerse me enough back then, they still do now.
Some stratagems should be regular wargear, but that's largely it. I know that you may counter now with a plethora of small details were the game is different from 3rd like armour facing. But if you know how to play 3rd, you know - in general - how to play 9th. You call out that you are a narrative player. Do you have the impression I'm not?
I played quite a lot of 8th...not that much of 9th... To the point Im back to being turned into a noob... Which in itself is a testament to the sad state of the game :(
Point is, there wasnt much positives to make me like to play the game again in a competitive setting.
It wasnt functional and it wasnt fun either... Is clunky.
How? If you played "quite a lot" of 8th, you must have found it "functional". 9th is just 8th edition with a few rules changes here and there. Which of those changes makes 9th feel more "clunky" than 8th?
I played quite a lot of 8th...not that much of 9th... To the point Im back to being turned into a noob. :(
Point is, there wasnt much positives to make me like to play the game again in a competitive setting.
It wasnt functional.
I'm sorry to hear that, man.
The game can be great under the right circumstances and just as easily be horrible under the wrong one's.
You should give a laid back Crusade campaign a try if you can and that's your thing.
It feels different from the standard matched play. Using a 9th edition codex is a big factor, too imho.
Certainly Crusade looks as the best way to play 40k nowadays.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: A grot is already harder to hit than a Titan, Knight, Baneblade, or [INSERT TITANIC UNIT HERE], because it can benefit from cover and HIDE if it wants to. You're not hiding any TITANIC unit, unless you have some very big terrain, and none of them can benefit from cover.
Vatsetis wrote: 40k is a bloated game to the point that is barely functional... Yesterday I played a 1K tournament... No game went beyond turn 3 because lack of time... Many rules were forgotten... 80% of rolls were pointless... I felt a complete lack of agency... Even when I won.
GW can go along with this inertia of a bloated mess because how huge it is... But mechanically the current 40k is one of the worst miniature wargames in the market.
I observe the same among my folks who don't play regularly or started recently.
Honest question: How often do you get to play and and how experienced with 9th would you describe yourself?
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
No, but you did make it clear that you are fine with it being all janked up and screwy so long as stab marines get differentiated from stealth marines.
For me, as a narrative player, it's the other way around - make the rules make sense/immerse me in the world, and THEN (once that is done) put in a touch of faction differentiation to encourage certain playstyles in alignment with what that faction is known for.
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
The rules are largely the same since 3rd edition though. They did immerse me enough back then, they still do now.
Some stratagems should be regular wargear, but that's largely it. I know that you may counter now with a plethora of small details were the game is different from 3rd like armour facing. But if you know how to play 3rd, you know - in general - how to play 9th. You call out that you are a narrative player. Do you have the impression I'm not?
I played quite a lot of 8th...not that much of 9th... To the point Im back to being turned into a noob... Which in itself is a testament to the sad state of the game :(
Point is, there wasnt much positives to make me like to play the game again in a competitive setting.
It wasnt functional and it wasnt fun either... Is clunky.
How? If you played "quite a lot" of 8th, you must have found it "functional". 9th is just 8th edition with a few rules changes here and there. Which of those changes makes 9th feel more "clunky" than 8th?
Those "few" rules changes mean misions are completelly new (including microscopic table sizes), and armies have new bespoke rules... So its a lot of extra noise... It really felt as a completelly different game that you have to learn all over again.
Surely not complex or deep in any sense... But clunky, slow and heavy as hell.
And I think that 9th core rules are better than 8th... But 40k is bloated beyond salvation regarding game mechanics is like a great unclean one rotting in legacy, inertia and the need to add "new things" every week to justify new minis purchases.
It dosent help that the rules are dispersed over a significant amount of faqued documents.
Bloat for the Bloat God.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 20:57:20
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yeah, well, 30K rules aren't solid, though, they're the bloated mess of 7th Edition. Forgeworld made them work a bit, but it's still a barely functional, overcomplicated game in my eyes. The only thing 30K handles better than 9th edition is morale, really. Strange that you mention 30K as it has even more rules to differentiate Marine legions from one another.
7th was bloated because of everything EXTERNAL to the core rules, just like 9th. The core rules were flawed in a few significant ways, and the 30k rulebook (which is actually different than 7th) fixes many of those. Could you give an example of the overcomplication you're talking about?
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.
I am seeing it out in the wild. Gamers that were big into 8th edition are now feeling like 9th edition isn't very appealing to them. Now, that's for more reasons than just complexity, and I know my situation is anecdotal, but when a whole gaming group does a 180 and shifts to Age of Sigmar, I think that hints at something.
But, I didn't really make this poll to argue about anecdotal evidence. I made it because I saw what I saw above and wondered if other people felt the same way. I think I've got a pretty good answer at this point. It seems that people that like the competitive aspect are happy and people that don't aren't so happy.
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.
Id rather they didn't cater to your desire to make pew pew noises and made solid rules instead. Go buy some Legos if that's all you want.
Death guard don't feel anything like death guard should. DG should shrug off small arms fire (oops, lost that) and shoot people with guns. Not strive to run into melee and knife them because they're magically less resilient because a DG model is standing nearby.
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.
I am seeing it out in the wild. Gamers that were big into 8th edition are now feeling like 9th edition isn't very appealing to them. Now, that's for more reasons than just complexity, and I know my situation is anecdotal, but when a whole gaming group does a 180 and shifts to Age of Sigmar, I think that hints at something.
But, I didn't really make this poll to argue about anecdotal evidence. I made it because I saw what I saw above and wondered if other people felt the same way. I think I've got a pretty good answer at this point. It seems that people that like the competitive aspect are happy and people that don't aren't so happy.
Your poll is hardly a scientific poll from which definite conclusions can be made - the thread is a collection of anecdotes. You found some people on Dakka who are not happy with 40K. Congratulations?
It is unfortunate that your group is not feeling 9th Ed. This certainly contrasts with my area. What about 9th Ed is more complicated than 8th Ed? Sure, there are terrain rules now, but those make the game better. Do you really think that 9th is so much more complicated than 8th that people would walk away for that reason?
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
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.
Id rather they didn't cater to your desire to make pew pew noises and made solid rules instead. Go buy some Legos if that's all you want.
Death guard don't feel anything like death guard should. DG should shrug off small arms fire (oops, lost that) and shoot people with guns. Not strive to run into melee and knife them because they're magically less resilient because a DG model is standing nearby.
* shrug * if you say so. DG weren't really known for weapons beyond melta/flamer/bolter/phospor and the HH legion carried scythes and kukras. I don't quite see a problem with S3 weapons being "as good" as S4 when they have W2, so, they only got magically less resilient if you completely ignore that.
And...the rules are pretty solid, but to each their own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/16 22:43:50
The fluff suggests that your Marine should have an easier time hitting a Titan standing right in front of him than a Grot two miles away, yet in the crunch they are both exactly a 67% chance.
Sort of?
A model's silhouette has value because it determines how likely it is to benefit from cover; no matter where on the battlefield the Titan is, provided it's in range, it will likely be targetable; the same is not true of the grot. You don't need a target size mechanic because the interactions between silhouettes and cover represent the difference between models of different sizes on their own.
If that doesn't bother you, but a lack of special rules to differentiate sneaky-Marine from fighty-Marine does, then clearly there is more to this than how well the rules mechanically represent the fluff.
When we use Marines as an example, sure those differences sound absurd- why wouldn't they? Marines have 100+ datacards and have had snowflake dexes or supplements in every edition from second on.
But if we look at, say, sisters... Who have never had and are never getting an Argent Shroud codex, suddenly it doesn't sound so absurd because that bespoke Order Trait, WL Trait, Relic and Strat really go a long way toward defining something for us when no one ever considered our army worthy of such attention before.
People have wanted and received sub-faction differentiation since 2nd. At first, it was a Marines only club. in various other editions, some factions received a degree while others did not, and from edition to edition, some lost it after having it for a time while others picked it up. And through it all, Marines always had the greatest degree.
The only difference with 8th and 9th is that they finally started paying attention to everyone's sub-factions, instead of just those that belong to a handful of lucky factions.
Particularly when the scale of the game is such that differences in doctrine and force composition between the two subfactions probably matter a lot more than their individual stats.
I think you just meant factions here, not subfactions; doctrine and army compostition between subfactions ARE somewhat similar.
As Daedalus keeps pointing out, this isn't a historical wargame- in a setting with alien bug monsters, space elves, and animated fungus hooligans, is being a fighty-but-also-sneaky Marine really so different from being a sneaky-but-also-fighty Marine that it needs special rules?
If you are creating subfactions in the fiction and the background that are distinct enough to be spoken of as separate from other subfactions, then yes, it does make sense for them to behave in different ways on the table. And again, it matters more to the factions who have never had the degree of support that marines have had since second edition.
Or should it maybe matter more that the fighty Marines are all armed with melee weapons and riding APCs, while the sneaky Marines are carrying sniper rifles and deploying from ambush?
It would if dexes represented an army and not a faction.
But because dexes represent factions- large, broad organizations which often have to function without support from outside their own faction- they all need tools for every job, even if they are known for doing some jobs better than others. This is why datasheet exclusions are not an ideal solution to faction and subfaction diversity. Some limitations are okay, but the more limits you put on unit access, the harder it's going to get for people to play the models they want to play.
As a Sisters player, I'd love an aircraft with rules that were different from other aircraft rather than be told that not having an aircraft at all is one of the distinguishing features of my faction.
a_typical_hero wrote: I never argued that the BS and WS system is perfect as is, did I?
If your core rules are relatively solid, faction rules don't have to do much to change the way they play. Look at 30k - most factions have 2-5 pages of rules including their title page, and yet you have a diverse game with a large variety of different tactics and strategies between the various Legions.
A HUGE false equivalency. Almost all factions in 30k are some flavour of marine, and even the few that aren't are some flavour of human. Not to mention that this level of focus on IOM reduces or entirely eliminates subfaction differentiation.
30k with sisters would be like OoOML VS Bloody Rose, and yeah, each of those could get by with two pages of rules because there aren't subfactions of OoOML or subfactions of Bloody Rose.
Death guard don't feel anything like death guard should. DG should shrug off small arms fire (oops, lost that) and shoot people with guns. Not strive to run into melee and knife them because they're magically less resilient because a DG model is standing nearby.
Well I would say the defining characteristic of Deathguard is NEITHER shrugging off small arms fire NOR shooting with guns. I'd say it's disease.
And here's the thing about being dedicated to a god of disease; he probably wants you to... You know, spread disease. Last time I checked, it's easier to do that when you're inside engagement range (ie. not social distancing) than when you're at max bolter range (ie. socially distanced).
Funny thing too: when disease makes you look and smell so bad that those nearby can't concentrate on defending against you because they're struggling to hold down their breakfast, it does tend to mean they take and fall to more hits... So it's not really a magical presence of a nearby model, it is a rule that represents the impact of disease.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/16 23:51:32
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yeah, well, 30K rules aren't solid, though, they're the bloated mess of 7th Edition. Forgeworld made them work a bit, but it's still a barely functional, overcomplicated game in my eyes. The only thing 30K handles better than 9th edition is morale, really. Strange that you mention 30K as it has even more rules to differentiate Marine legions from one another.
7th was bloated because of everything EXTERNAL to the core rules, just like 9th. The core rules were flawed in a few significant ways, and the 30k rulebook (which is actually different than 7th) fixes many of those. Could you give an example of the overcomplication you're talking about?
Nearly all vehicle rules for example. They are made useless by the fact that hull points exist, turning tanks into very squishy units. 30K reacts to that by giving every tank options like armoured ceramite that let's them ignore antitank rules. 30K also uses lots of superheavies that outright ignore most vehicle rules. The walkers of the Mechanicum aren't actually walkers, but most of them are monstrous creatures because again, the vehicle rules just don't work. And that’s not only because of tank shock.
Unit types. 7th Edition has a load of unit types that most of the time are a complicated way to say: this unit moves more than 6inches.
Ap-system. In a game where most armies are Marines having a 3+, every weapon with an AP of 4 or less is practically useless if it doesn't also have lots of shots or high strength.
psychic phase. I won't say much here because it could be it got totally reworked in 30K, not sure. But 7th psychic rules were terrible, denying was impossible and most psykers were reduced to being batteries.
CC and challenges. CC is complicated and as a player there's nothing you can do once it started, you roll dice until one side is dead. Challenges are cool as a concept, but they turned most small characters into a liability.
Wound allocation. Yes, it's not 5th edition shenanigans anymore, but taking Casualties from the front was a bad idea in a game where CC is very prevalent. Once you add blast rules it also creates very strange situations, killing models that aren't under the template.
WS system. A whole table to tell you that any unit hits either on a 3 or a 4. If it falls to fear it hits on 5s.
Note I'm not saying 9th couldn't do with some more unit types than fly and not fly, and having no USRs left because of 7th was a bad idea, too. I also like that 7th/30K is not as deadly and hope in the end of 9th we'll be there again due to many things having more wounds or higher T then. But overall 7th/30K just had a lot of unnecessarily complicated rules that served no purpose but slowing the game down. After years of playing I still had to look up the unit types or movement rules of tanks in every single game.
I guess perhaps for the same reason you might find that ( warning : horrible generalizations ahead ) the Japanese are really bad at tanks and guns, but really good at ships, air, and morale where as Russians are a meat grinder and efficient medium tanks. People come to the table with some base level expectation that fits the popularized representation of how armies fought in WW2.
and this is a problem, people want to armies to play like in Hollywood movies and not how they really fought their battles
but you don't need any fancy special rules to make Germans different from Russians, the doctrine of mobile combat with combined forces was the same for both
the main difference was the available weapons and resources
Morale is a thing, but does not exist in a game like 40k, so no need for it
I know there are people around who think a Civil War unit needs different rules because they the units wore different colored uniforms (because otherwise they are just regular units with different uniforms), or that Stalins ideas of overwhelming mass need to represented on a platoon level game (were the only thing it mattered was army level)
in a game like 40k were every kind of simulation is removed from the core rules, Marines should be just like that, different colored uniforms were all Marines can do the same but difference comes from available weapons and resources
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
that Stalins ideas of overwhelming mass need to represented on a platoon level game (were the only thing it mattered was army level)
It was used on a brigade and lower level too. Most often to kill off troops and officers Stalin wanted to get rid off. Stalin let Poles get slaughtered at Lenio, just because the rank and file came straight out of Gulagas, and were not politically correct. Then durning the Warsaw uprising they let parts of the 3ed infantry divisions cross Vistuals, only to abandon them the same, claiming it was impossible to cross the river or deliver supplies. Oddly enough all the troops and officers for that operation were hand picked and were told that the rest of the Berling Army is going to be deploying straight after them.
Durning the fights near Studzianki the 1st Polish Armoured Brigade was suppose to be reinforce the 8th Guard Division in its defense of a river crossing. The defence was suppose to perfmored by wave attacks. Somehow the 8th Guard forgot to mention that the tactics is being changed, which left the polish brigade cut off after they went in the 2ed wave, and the soviet forces pulled back letting the poles be encircled by 3 german divisions, the 1st Hermann Göring ,the 19th armoured divsions and the 45th Volksgrendarier Division . And there is a ton more example of similar operations being done in Polish territory up to 1950s. Ending with operation Vistula, where soviet NKWD officers made polish army forces attack ukrainian nationalists in waves. Just so both could be bleed dry. As a bonus they managed to get the soviet appointed general killed, at the very start of the operation.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
A lot of subfaction rules just go too far. On this scale/breadth of game there's just no room for this stuff.
It's non-sensical that two of the same model painted differently are mechanically more different than completely different units in other factions.
It's also problematic if GW's vision and rules don't quite match your own vision of that subfaction.
If you saw your army as a highly mobile combined arms faction, but GW decided to give you -1 to hit at long range, now there's a strong disconnect between the rules and your vision.
Well it is better to have a subfaction rules be too good. Specially for the long live perspective of playing something. When a faction is overloaded with good options, even the initial nerfs will bring it down much. While on the other hand if you got a balances codex, those don't age that well. Just look at necron.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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?"
My rule of thumb is to clarify what chapters (or their equivalents) bonuses the army gets, brief description of psychic powers (if present) and what warlord traits and relics do. It really takes 30-60 sec. Anything else doesn't really matter.
I'm currently playing with the new ork codex, which will be released in september/october and lots of players don't know anything about it except maybe that infantries got +1T; all I need to explain is that my first detachment is Goffs and their models get double hits on 6 to hit, that the second detachment is Bad Moons which increased weapons range and adds -1AP on 6 to wound, that my first WT and relic just make the warboss killier in combat and that my second WT and relic just make the big mek tankier and give him an heavy bolters with many shots. Anything else is not important, and honestly I think that even those quick pre-game explanations aren't really necessary.
I don't need to know all the combos from the other army, I should know that a melee specialist unit would likely have tools to increase damage and/or to charge more reliably than usual, I should know that unit A is dedicated ranged anti tank or anti infantry, or an army like GK or TS would likely have powerful psykers etc... Example: even if I don't know that Eradicators can double tap and don't suffer the penalty if they move I should know that they're scary melta guys, so I want them to stay away from my bigger models and kill them as soon as possible if ranged anti tank is what could really cripple my army in early turns. Another example: drukhari melee heavy hitters. I don't need to know the details about succubus, drazhar, wyches or incubi and the possible buffs they get; I should know that they are very capable fighters and react as a consequence. If I underestimate those Eradicators or those charging drukhari fighters and they wipe out my valuable units it would be my fault, not a gotcha moment.
Most of the so called gotcha moments are really a consequence of inexperience.
I also don't get the analogy with other games like X-Wing or Warmachine, are those games as wide as 40k? Is there the same amount of varietry between the different factions? In 30k most common armies are power armour guys, terminator guys, and the same tanks profiles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/17 08:46:39
that Stalins ideas of overwhelming mass need to represented on a platoon level game (were the only thing it mattered was army level)
It was used on a brigade and lower level too. Most often to kill off troops and officers Stalin wanted to get rid off.
on the smaller level the Germans did that too, having a Soviet unit of "mass soldiers" to sacrifice is not different from a German Bewährungsbataillon at a platoon level game
having special rules to represent iconic themes of an army were the basic rules of the game are already missing the parts that made those possible is what causes the bloat in 40k and it is in each Edition the same, core rules remove options that made units different and Codex rules must bring them back to keep the flavour
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
