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.

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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?"

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.

You know the whole problem with 40k is that its TOO wide right? Don't act like 40k is incomparable to other games just because it has enough SKUs to make Asmodee blush.

But is it really wide? Some armies have 60 or more datasheets in their book, and maybe 10 are ever being taken.

Well there is the ilussion of choice... But as Mr World said at the end of the day you are just buying bottled sauce.

 Blackie wrote:
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?

the difference between the X-Wing factions is bigger than the difference between the 40k factions yet it is very different as there are less factions in X-Wing but with nearly endless variation in army lists and you can have a tournament with everyone playing the same faction but no one is playing similar lists
while in 40k, most armies have 1 list with minor differences and if you want to play a different list you chose a different sub-faction because those are doing that list better

comparing 40k to other games, all of the factions in 40k are the same play style with different "gotcha" effects

Each to their own. I like the variety and in some places it doesn't go far enough for me.

Examples:
- The wargear list for Inquisitors should be a few pages long.
- No model no rules is gak. Give me back my options. I'll kitbash it myself.

Some things should and could be consolidated, like all the Marine Captains.

It really is amazing how many different things 40k has that all feel exactly the same.

There really just isn't the depth of core rules to differentiate stuff properly.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Each to their own. I like the variety and in some places it doesn't go far enough for me.

Examples:
- The wargear list for Inquisitors should be a few pages long.
- No model no rules is gak. Give me back my options. I'll kitbash it myself.

Some things should and could be consolidated, like all the Marine Captains.

there is a difference between variety for flair and options for gameplay
a 2 page wargear list for a single hero adds a lot of flair to the game, without adding the same amount of different playstyles to the army

40k offers not enough options to add flair, not enough to change gameplay, but manage at the same time having too many option to keep rules balanced and tight

Sgt. Cortez wrote: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.

There are probably over a hundred million potential combinations of ships and upgrades possible in X-Wing but that's irrelevant since all I care about is what I'm playing against at this moment. I know exactly what that is because all the rules are presented in front of me on the cards themselves. There are no hidden abilities to consider. A very large number of the cards are available to all factions so players will likely be very familiar with them already but even if they aren't I can still just read what's in front of me and know what everything does. The same cannot be said of 40k. I'm not even sure I'd be 100% confident explaining to my opponent all the possible rules and abilities that could apply to even a single squad in my army. With all the strats, character buffs and so on I'd almost certainly miss something.

Blackie wrote:
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.

The width (let's just call it bloat, since that's what it is) is one of the problems with 40k. The number of different units or factions is irrelevant next to giving each of those a distinct playstyle and restraint to add only what is required is the mark of a good game designer, as is putting in place the core framework in your core rules and sticking to it. We're about to get the 4th iteration of loyalist stabby Marines. I really don't think that's necessary and the niches GW are trying to squeeze their sub-factions into are becoming increasingly small. It seems to be a unique feature of 40k players that they require special rules to differentiate factions and sub-factions rather than more structural changes. Blood Angels, for example, used to just get two unique units (Death Company and Honour Guard) in 2nd edition, then got an army-wide special rule - the Furious Charge USR, which was well-known to all players - and a buff to the speed of their vehicles in 3rd edition, along with Assault Marines as Troops. They played very differntly to Ultramarines or Dark Angels but they didn't need 10 pages of special rules, strats and relics to do so. The designers used pre-existing rules, and very minor tweaks to some units to push BA players towards a characterful army. That's elegant game design.

To take X-Wing as an example again, the next release is 3 new ships, one for the Resistance and 2 for First Order. Every single one of the ships and upgrades use previously templated rules to create their effects. There are no brand new concepts but each ship, unique pilot and upgrade is distinct even within that framework. That's good game design. It allows players to quickly parse the rules even on unfamiliar and new cards because everything refers back to the core rules. They didn't invent a whole new system to represent the First Order bombers yet they look like they'll play very differently to their Empire counterparts even with the same upgrades.

If GW had designed X-Wing I'm pretty sure they'd have added a dozen entirely new upgrade types and rules systems and created rules to differentiate the Rebel forces from a New Hope from those on Hoth.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It really is amazing how many different things 40k has that all feel exactly the same.

There really just isn't the depth of core rules to differentiate stuff properly.

Considering that a lot the special rules, like stratagems for example, are copy pasted with a name change it is not a suprising thing. Plus from the looks of the armies, GW really tries to avoid the situation where the core of the army is the basic trooper run multiple times. It works for some armies like DEs or Ad mecha or GK. But for a lot of others like marines,DG,1ksons or orks the whole list building part is based around high cost kits run in multiples. The marine army nowadays feels as if the basic trooper in it was a blade guard or a vengaurd veteran. The basic orkish model, for the moment, is a buggy. For DG , and I think for 1ksons, the basic trooper is a termintor of some sort. With only two ways to build armies, even if some rules are different the game play is going to feel very much the same. If tomorrow a CWE codex came out , and suddenly the eldar army was all about running 9 vypers and 6+ horents, and a bunch of specialists. It would be a different army from orks, and it would have differences in game play and unit stats. But it would at the same time feel as if someone was playing with orks that can fly.

Karol wrote:
But is it really wide? Some armies have 60 or more datasheets in their book, and maybe 10 are ever being taken.

I rarely, if ever, agree with Karol, but he is absolutely right on this. The vast majority of armies are following one of the archetypes drawn from a codex, and while a few support 3-4, most just have one way to build a functional army.

Add that many datasheets are just variants of each other or permutations of wargear and defensive profiles shared with other models, the game perceived complexity completely collapses.

Slipspace wrote:


If GW had designed X-Wing I'm pretty sure they'd have added a dozen entirely new upgrade types and rules systems and created rules to differentiate the Rebel forces from a New Hope from those on Hoth.

And is this supposed to a bad thing? I can't stand 30k because all armies to me look too similar to each other just to make another example. I don't think I'd like a game with just two factions that even don't differentiate much from each other, I'd play chess then.

Having lots of different factions, with different units/wargear profiles is an extremely good thing. Variety adds longevity. So is the chance to differentiate the same faction by using a different subfaction, aka chapters and their equivalents.

Rules bloat is a different thing. Multiple units/wargear that do the same job and rules scattered among different pages if not different books, that's rules bloat. Having a different profile for a marine bolter and an ork shoota is not rules bloat. Rules bloat has also nothing to do with gotcha moments, if anything makes listbuilding more problematic. Which is irrelevant once players meet each other and start playing.

And again, how many real examples of gotcha moments do 40k actually have in 9th edition? Super crazy gamebreaking combos are long gone with 8th edition codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
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?

the difference between the X-Wing factions is bigger than the difference between the 40k factions yet it is very different as there are less factions in X-Wing but with nearly endless variation in army lists and you can have a tournament with everyone playing the same faction but no one is playing similar lists
while in 40k, most armies have 1 list with minor differences and if you want to play a different list you chose a different sub-faction because those are doing that list better

comparing 40k to other games, all of the factions in 40k are the same play style with different "gotcha" effects

You're talking about competitive gaming. Which is just a single specific way of playing games. I think the attitude towards gaming has a huge impact, most people who complain about gotcha moments are those who want to prove something while playing, they want to become or be considered good players. They're all competitive players that would like to win games exclusively because they're more skilled than the opponents, which is a way of seeing the game that I dislike. What I like about 40k is the huge variety of models and the randomness of the dice rolling, I couldn't care less about anything that doesn't share a strong "beer and pretzels" vibe. Maybe X-Wing has a good design for those kind of players, to me it's super boring.

Blackie this whole thread only have full sense in a competitive setting... were 40K is just a great piece of hot garbaje.

In narrative play it dosent really matter, since for starters time is probably not an issue and you can use most of your game time checking books at a calm pace.

40K has always been a narrative game that somehow is played in a pseudo competitive mode by certain people.

 Blackie wrote:

You're talking about competitive gaming.

sorry I did not know that this discussion was about not matched-play 40k

with open play missions and narrative scenarios things are quite different


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
40K has always been a narrative game that somehow is played in a pseudo competitive mode by certain people.

40k had competitive rules only until 8th with the open and narrative play officially added to the game

you did not need the official rules to play non-competitive, but saying it has always been non-competitive is wrong with those being the only official rules

It dosent matter what it said on the paper work... 40K has never been and was never ment to be played as a competitive game as a matter of fact... its as efficient as the US industrial military complex in fighthing insurgency... it is done constantly but in the most clunky and costly manner and with subpar results.

Anybody that believes otherwise is simply inside a sunk cost fallacy.

Almost everyone plays matched play, I've met very few people that play fully narrative armies.
Even those that play Crusade generally play it like an extension of matched play.
The idea that matched play is "wrong" is a ridiculous notion.

well if 40k was never meant to be competitive, the writer did a very bad job by writing competitive rules in the first place

why is matched play there in the first place if it was never meant to be used?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Almost everyone plays matched play, I've met very few people that play fully narrative armies.
Even those that play Crusade generally play it like an extension of matched play.
The idea that matched play is "wrong" is a ridiculous notion.

Same here. In the context of this discussion it's also pointless to discuss anything other than Matched Play. In Narrative or Open you can freely modify any rules you don't like and make up entirely new ones. I think one of the reasons 40k isn't commonly used for those types of games is because they require a solid foundation, which 8th and 9th's core rules sorely lack.

Matched play isn't the same as competitive play.

if the game ends up with either of the players being able to say who the winner and who the loser is, based on the in game rule set, then it automaticly becomes competitive. throwing bonets, running with wife on your back and spiting is competitive where I live. As is speed eating of dumplings.

The material, the quality or type of rule set etc don't matter if one checks for something is or isn't competitive. The only thing to check is if you can find out at the end of the game who wins and who loses. Playing house, is a non competitive thing. Because while it has rules, there is no way to know if you won or lost at playing it.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
But is it really wide? Some armies have 60 or more datasheets in their book, and maybe 10 are ever being taken.

I rarely, if ever, agree with Karol, but he is absolutely right on this. The vast majority of armies are following one of the archetypes drawn from a codex, and while a few support 3-4, most just have one way to build a functional army.

Add that many datasheets are just variants of each other or permutations of wargear and defensive profiles shared with other models, the game perceived complexity completely collapses.

You really need to get over this idea that we're still talking about complexity when it was established in the first page of the thread that that isn't the correct word to use.

40K is only competitive in the very broad sense Karol described.

But its a very ill suited game for tournament play.

Which is the main focus of this poll... Because if you are just doing friendly games you can basically ignore most of the bespoke rules and clumpsiness.

I very much disagree that casual play allows you to ignore stuff.

We briefly had a Crusade campaign running here.
I hated it, it was like coming home from a fun day out and realising you had a bunch of homework to do. Because that's exactly what it was.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, in regular 40k. See the advice given up thread of needing to look up tactica for the army you were about to face so you didn't run into any gotchas.

Gotchas exist and can definitely spoil a game if they get you good.
As a casual player I don't want to be investing the sort of time and mental energy it takes to create and understand an army in 40k. This volume of stuff is, imo, anathema to casual play.

Good casual game are simple and easy to understand and still result in fan and varied gameplay. 40k is absolutely not simple and easy to understand.

True, but if GW put out a rule book and that's all you needed people would pronounce the game 'dead' because of the lack of ongoing 'support.'

 Blackie wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


If GW had designed X-Wing I'm pretty sure they'd have added a dozen entirely new upgrade types and rules systems and created rules to differentiate the Rebel forces from a New Hope from those on Hoth.

And is this supposed to a bad thing? I can't stand 30k because all armies to me look too similar to each other just to make another example. I don't think I'd like a game with just two factions that even don't differentiate much from each other, I'd play chess then.

X-Wing has 7 factions, all distinct. There's a wide spectrum between every little sub-faction getting their own rules and only having 2 factions and nobody's argued for reducing 40k down to 2 factions or even spoken about one so let's just dispense with that strawman right now.

Your attitude is one I see a lot nowadays and it truly saddens me as it's the culmination of the GW marketing campaign to turn "The Hobby" into only what they say it is. You don't need specific rules to differentiate armies from one another. Do we really need separate rules for Flesh Tearers as well as Blood Angels? Or three different weapons that are all bolters except two have a single extra rule, necessitating yet another bolt weapon entry in the SM weapon list? What you need is flexibility in army building with core rules and core army rules allowing for expressions of various different styles of army.

Back before the madness of 8th and its endless sub-factions I'd see much more creativity from people who were concerned with theme and individuality. You didn't need special rules, just a willingness to use the tools at your disposal. So while all IG armies used the same Codex, for example, I saw people using Steel Legion armies without any sub-faction bonuses using just the units every other IG player had access to (crazy, right?) They just made sure all their infantry squads were mounted in Chimeras and took close support tanks instead of artillery. Or the Flesh Tearers player who took minimum-sized Tactical and Devastator squads to account for their relative lack of numbers and always maxed out on Assault and Death Company marines. In WHFB I ran a Dark Elf Witch Cult army purely using the basic rules presented in the Army Book and restricting myself to only Witch units, Assassins and Executioners. I'd argue all of those are much more creative and much more interesting to face than what GW currently produces.

To take another problem with the current GW approach, imagine you're a Word Bearers player. Playing CSM is bad enough, but the one sub-faction you're really hyped about has had crap rules ever since GW gave them sub-faction rules. That sucks. GW are really bad at balance and adding in even more combinations to worry about just make the problem worse. At least if CSM were at least somewhat balanced you could probably put together a Word Bearers army roughly following the background but now you're just making life infinteily harder for yourself and I'd argue the WB rules don't even really push you that far down a thematically accurate path to building the army anyway.

It all comes down to meaningful differences. You can create as many bespoke sub-faction rules as you want but what you should be striving for is distinctiveness on the tabletop. GW mostly fails at that. One Necron dynasty plays very similarly to the next, just as all Tau armies, except possibly Farsight, play almost exactly the same way. Quite often the only thing that distinguishes a sub-faction in 40k is how broken their unique WLT, strat or Relic is. That's hardly immersive.

Well I ment casual by ignoring most of the bloat and reduce the game to something manageble by agreement with your friends.

If you pretend to play "full" 40K its just dull homework as you described it... No matter the type of game mode you are own.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nurglitch wrote:
True, but if GW put out a rule book and that's all you needed people would pronounce the game 'dead' because of the lack of ongoing 'support.'

Not true... Just look at any other tabletop wargame in the market.

Certainly 40k is prisioner of having to deal with the dead weight of almost 30 years of history...

Vatsetis wrote:
Not true... Just look at any other tabletop wargame in the market.

You mean the ones that are created, last a couple of years, and end up in remainder bins while people move onto the next game?

 Nurglitch wrote:
True, but if GW put out a rule book and that's all you needed people would pronounce the game 'dead' because of the lack of ongoing 'support.'

Why are the only options to have the game be as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle or Babby's First Wargame?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
True, but if GW put out a rule book and that's all you needed people would pronounce the game 'dead' because of the lack of ongoing 'support.'

Why are the only options to have the game be as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle or Babby's First Wargame?

It's weird isn't it? I think it has something to do with the economics of games, and related to the fact that 40k fans love buying things.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
True, but if GW put out a rule book and that's all you needed people would pronounce the game 'dead' because of the lack of ongoing 'support.'

Why are the only options to have the game be as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle or Babby's First Wargame?

It's weird isn't it? I think it has something to do with the economics of games, and related to the fact that 40k fans love buying things.

No, that was me asking why you only present us with the option of what we have or something so simple the game is dead. Why do you not give us the option of a well written, decently balanced game? Something GW could absolutely make but choose not to.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Not true... Just look at any other tabletop wargame in the market.

You mean the ones that are created, last a couple of years, and end up in remainder bins while people move onto the next game?

Yes men, thats it... 40k is the only fish in the ocean.