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.

40k has changed to be more appealing to masses.

That also means it's changed to be less appealing to the grognards inhabiting Dakka.

Because most people don't have an option to play other table top games? That is like asking why there isn't a company beating out amazon or apple, when they both create bad and over priced products.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Well, here's the thing. How is it that 40k sucks if it's so popular? Which is to assume, contrary to the usual assumption, that something being more popular means it is actually better. Me, I don't like 40k. I stopped playing in 8th. But I am absolutely fascinated by how it seems to get worse (from my perspective) as a game, and better as a commercial product (from the perspective of sales). It's something of a paradox how the game is virtually unplayable for so many, including myself, and the best version yet for so many others. Heck, even for myself getting back into the game after taking a hiatus in 3rd and back in the end of 4th, and each edition seeming to get better and better until near the end of 8th when I couldn't face playing another game. So when there's questions raised like 'Is Warhammer 40k too complex?' I distrust my own personal feelings about it, and I'm very curious about the apparent dichotomy.

And, if I can figure out the secret sauce, maybe I can apply it to my own game.

I think it is tapping into a wider market, and that market is different to the older style players? A fair few comment on how its more like Magic and co (and remember its not been like a historical wargame for a long time) and they are bigger markets. I think the attraction of a complicated game that rewards immersion and detailed decision making when assembling and purchasing models is clearly very high, its just not something the older guard perhaps care as much about, or they already did that and expect more?

I still buy and collect the models with various wild game and conversion schemes in my head, even if I am only playing small crusade games now, and if that is a common experience that would soften any fall in popularity. But it appears they are far better off with the type of customer who likes their current incarnations of the core games than the old ones - who they now incidentally are often retaining with a better catalogue of alternative games.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Why if not would you mention the popularity of 40k in a debate about the quality of the ruleset...

being the first one, marketing and having your own stores were people cannot play something else helps with popularity a lot

that the worse product is more popular is nothing special, but arguing that popularity must have something to do with quality is

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it is tapping into a wider market, and that market is different to the older style players? A fair few comment on how its more like Magic and co (and remember its not been like a historical wargame for a long time) and they are bigger markets. I think the attraction of a complicated game that rewards immersion and detailed decision making when assembling and purchasing models is clearly very high, its just not something the older guard perhaps care as much about, or they already did that and expect more?

I still buy and collect the models with various wild game and conversion schemes in my head, even if I am only playing small crusade games now, and if that is a common experience that would soften any fall in popularity. But it appears they are far better off with the type of customer who likes their current incarnations of the core games than the old ones - who they now incidentally are often retaining with a better catalogue of alternative games.

There's an interesting point, with all the alternate game products offered by GW they're replicating something of the board game market where people have a variety of games to play depending on the company and everyone's mood.

 kodos wrote:
being the first one, marketing and having your own stores were people cannot play something else helps with popularity a lot

that the worse product is more popular is nothing special, but arguing that popularity must have something to do with quality is

Having your own stores doesn't help if the demand isn't there. I think it's well known that GW tested demand with independent retailers before going to the effort of setting up their own shops in areas, and relocating those shops when the demand didn't justify the cost of rent. As for marketing, GW is likewise notorious for not using mainsteam marketing channels; although maybe that's actually a marketing success story.

As for the argument that more popular products are worse is one of those weird arguments that I think needs unpacking, although it might take us way too far off-topic. I think if we run with it, that popular products are naturally inferior, then who is buying it all, and why? I mean, I bought some Genestealers and some Bloodletters recently, for my Pulp Alley games. Maybe it goes back to The_Real_Chris's point that we don't have to play Warhammer with Warhammer models?

 Nurglitch wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
It certainly look like you where doing so.

Why if not would you mention the popularity of 40k in a debate about the quality of the ruleset... Or to be more specific, how clumpsy the ruleset actually is???

Well, here's the thing. How is it that 40k sucks if it's so popular? Which is to assume, contrary to the usual assumption, that something being more popular means it is actually better. Me, I don't like 40k. I stopped playing in 8th. But I am absolutely fascinated by how it seems to get worse (from my perspective) as a game, and better as a commercial product (from the perspective of sales). It's something of a paradox how the game is virtually unplayable for so many, including myself, and the best version yet for so many others. Heck, even for myself getting back into the game after taking a hiatus in 3rd and back in the end of 4th, and each edition seeming to get better and better until near the end of 8th when I couldn't face playing another game. So when there's questions raised like 'Is Warhammer 40k too complex?' I distrust my own personal feelings about it, and I'm very curious about the apparent dichotomy.

And, if I can figure out the secret sauce, maybe I can apply it to my own game.

I don't see why it's confusing. Why do soap operas run for dozens of season (or in the case of British soap operas, literally constantly)? Why do they make new FIFA/NFL/NBA games EVERY year? Why is chart music so awful and generic? Lowest common denominator.

40k appeals to a LOT because 40k hits almost everything you could want from a game in some way, how well aimed that hit is is arguable but it has something that will appeal to just about anyone and it's INCREDIBLY easy to find information on and is incredibly accessable at a basic level. A lot of people now have also come back to The Hobby after leaving during earlier editions and in mean time the hobby and the games have flourished, however those don't know those games. They know GW and 40k and it's their comfort zone, so they stay in that zone because they don't have the time or money to branch out. A lot of people I know say they don't want to play other games because if they get an evening to themselves to play a game they want to play something where they get to use their expensive minis (someone in my group chat said exactly that recently).

Personally I recognized that GW and 40k no longer meets what I want from a game, so I booted it and play board games mainly now. Which, incidentally I thought were a waste of time when I was a big Warhammer player (this was around 5th/6th) compared to something like 40k or WHFB until I actually played some. I didn't think a board game could match the variety or engagement of Warhammer so I never bothered to try any until recently (about 3 years ago?) and I found I was so incredibly wrong.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
It certainly look like you where doing so.

Why if not would you mention the popularity of 40k in a debate about the quality of the ruleset... Or to be more specific, how clumpsy the ruleset actually is???

Well, here's the thing. How is it that 40k sucks if it's so popular? Which is to assume, contrary to the usual assumption, that something being more popular means it is actually better. Me, I don't like 40k. I stopped playing in 8th. But I am absolutely fascinated by how it seems to get worse (from my perspective) as a game, and better as a commercial product (from the perspective of sales). It's something of a paradox how the game is virtually unplayable for so many, including myself, and the best version yet for so many others. Heck, even for myself getting back into the game after taking a hiatus in 3rd and back in the end of 4th, and each edition seeming to get better and better until near the end of 8th when I couldn't face playing another game. So when there's questions raised like 'Is Warhammer 40k too complex?' I distrust my own personal feelings about it, and I'm very curious about the apparent dichotomy.

And, if I can figure out the secret sauce, maybe I can apply it to my own game.

Well by that metric "Big Brother" oath to be one of the greatest quality TV show ever... But quality and popularity dont always match.

40k is popular in spite of its cumbersome gameplay mechanics (lore, art, marketing, miniatures, loyal fan base...) .

And regarding the magic sauce... Just like with cocacola or any other popular brand you cannot just replicate the success ussing a blueprint...Time and Oportunity are everything.

Good to see we have similar views on the game play mechanics of 40k

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I fail to understand how core rules would change what you'd outlined here. If tanks have facings then how does that differentiate tanks?

I think you may have misread my post because I never once said (or even implied) that core rules would change that.


What I said was that, in addition to the problem of core rules being shallow, there is also an issue that most of the rules added to the game to differentiate units or subfactions make no difference to how a unit or army actually plays.

I think you guys just miss what the game wants to do or lets you do.
My guess is that more than half of 40K players are actually garagehammer types of people that do more collecting than playing. For these people 8th and 9th edition is okay. The base rules are straightforward so you can easily remember them even when playing only once per month and the Codizes really go into depth to put every nonsense from the fluff on the table through faction rules and stratagems. Just like prior editions it's not a deep game but even more than prior editions it plays into 40K just being a Michael Bay movie on the tabletop. If you want 40K as a historical Simulation you probably look at Onepage 40K or anything else with alternating activations.
40K is about Goblins in Space fighting Knights in Space fighting giant robots fighting Aliens fighting aircraft hitting things with your Sword and firing cruise missiles at point blank range.
40K thrives through its huge amount of factions and models, there's some Sci-Fi trope in there for everyone to fight any other Sci-Fi trope and that’s awesome. Does this work as a highly tactical, even competitive game? Well it does for some apparently but I don't think it's the point of the game.
Joseph McCollough said about 50% of the hobby are just inside your head, you plan your army, or campaigns, or make lists, or invent scenarios or whatever. And for that 9th's "complexity" is great. You have internally balanced Codizes giving you loads of playstyles (If you have a new Codex, that is, I'm not denying GW also messed up a lot of things organizing 9th), you have crusade to develop your dudes, you get mission Pack DLCs, you can read BL books to inspire you, and again, you just have more factions than any other game.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
It certainly look like you where doing so.

Why if not would you mention the popularity of 40k in a debate about the quality of the ruleset... Or to be more specific, how clumpsy the ruleset actually is???

Well, here's the thing. How is it that 40k sucks if it's so popular? Which is to assume, contrary to the usual assumption, that something being more popular means it is actually better. Me, I don't like 40k. I stopped playing in 8th. But I am absolutely fascinated by how it seems to get worse (from my perspective) as a game, and better as a commercial product (from the perspective of sales). It's something of a paradox how the game is virtually unplayable for so many, including myself, and the best version yet for so many others. Heck, even for myself getting back into the game after taking a hiatus in 3rd and back in the end of 4th, and each edition seeming to get better and better until near the end of 8th when I couldn't face playing another game. So when there's questions raised like 'Is Warhammer 40k too complex?' I distrust my own personal feelings about it, and I'm very curious about the apparent dichotomy.

And, if I can figure out the secret sauce, maybe I can apply it to my own game.

So, what exactly is it that turned you off from 8th? Sorry if you've mentioned it before - it takes me a while to associate stuff to posters I don't see often.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
It certainly look like you where doing so.

Why if not would you mention the popularity of 40k in a debate about the quality of the ruleset... Or to be more specific, how clumpsy the ruleset actually is???

Well, here's the thing. How is it that 40k sucks if it's so popular? Which is to assume, contrary to the usual assumption, that something being more popular means it is actually better. Me, I don't like 40k. I stopped playing in 8th. But I am absolutely fascinated by how it seems to get worse (from my perspective) as a game, and better as a commercial product (from the perspective of sales). It's something of a paradox how the game is virtually unplayable for so many, including myself, and the best version yet for so many others. Heck, even for myself getting back into the game after taking a hiatus in 3rd and back in the end of 4th, and each edition seeming to get better and better until near the end of 8th when I couldn't face playing another game. So when there's questions raised like 'Is Warhammer 40k too complex?' I distrust my own personal feelings about it, and I'm very curious about the apparent dichotomy.

And, if I can figure out the secret sauce, maybe I can apply it to my own game.

So, what exactly is it that turned you off from 8th? Sorry if you've mentioned it before - it takes me a while to associate stuff to posters I don't see often.

I've been trying to figure that out for years. The best I can come up with is (a) Knights and other big models, (b) designing and developing a kind of Warhammer methadone (which is just an amusing way of saying 'my own game').

 Nurglitch wrote:
I've been trying to figure that out for years. The best I can come up with is (a) Knights and other big models, (b) designing and developing a kind of Warhammer methadone (which is just an amusing way of saying 'my own game').

Ah. Knights are really muted right now. They're a big question mark for 9th. Good luck with making a game though!

It's less that the Knights are buffed or nerfed, it's that they're boring. But thank you, the game is made. I don't think you have to make a game though, as The_Real_Chris points out, you just need to find something that gives you that Warhammer fix but better. There's lots of other great board games out there.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think you guys just miss what the game wants to do or lets you do.

What the game wants is at odd with what we want. We are the customers, the game is supposed to cater to us, not us to it.

My guess is that more than half of 40K players are actually garagehammer types of people that do more collecting than playing. For these people 8th and 9th edition is okay.

Probably more like 75-80% of players. And thats a big generalisation there. I know of two garagehammer groups that dropped 40k entirely after 8th

The base rules are straightforward so you can easily remember them even when playing only once per month and the Codizes really go into depth to put every nonsense from the fluff on the table through faction rules and stratagems.

The first part is correct. The second is just an total fabrication. 40k armies do not feel fluffy at all. They all feel homogenised because they all use the same few reroll/modifier effects over and over again. Most faction traits are copy/pasted.

Just like prior editions it's not a deep game but even more than prior editions it plays into 40K just being a Michael Bay movie on the tabletop.

Michael Bay is not the bar you should be aiming for. Just because previous editions were not that deep doesn't make it okay for 9th to not be deep.

If you want 40K as a historical Simulation

No one said this.

you probably look at Onepage 40K or anything else with alternating activations.

Thats nice. How do you get the Matched Play 2000pts Only drones to go along with it?

40K is about Goblins in Space fighting Knights in Space fighting giant robots fighting Aliens fighting aircraft hitting things with your Sword and firing cruise missiles at point blank range.
40K thrives through its huge amount of factions and models, there's some Sci-Fi trope in there for everyone to fight any other Sci-Fi trope and that’s awesome. Does this work as a highly tactical, even competitive game? Well it does for some apparently but I don't think it's the point of the game.
Joseph McCollough said about 50% of the hobby are just inside your head, you plan your army, or campaigns, or make lists, or invent scenarios or whatever. And for that 9th's "complexity" is great. ,

No it isn't. Every unit feels the same because the rules that differentiate them are lackluster and bland. How does a space marine with +1 to hit in melee because he's spent a lifetime training in melee combat any different from on ork with +1 to hit in melee because he pokes squigs in his spare time? How does the -1 from a camo cloak feel different to a -1 to hit because a harlequin is flipping out like a ninja? It doesn't. They're the same rules used to represent vastly different things and it makes everything feel the same.

You have internally balanced Codizes

Do we now?

giving you loads of playstyles

Do we now?

(If you have a new Codex, that is, I'm not denying GW also messed up a lot of things organizing 9th),

Thats two things we agree on now.

you have crusade to develop your dude

If by that you mean extra book keeping, more of the samd crap to keep track of that killed the base game for me/us and extra homework for a hobby

you get mission Pack DLCs,

Thats not a point in GWs favor. Paying for basic stuff like scenarios is some EA microtransaction gak.

you can read BL books to inspire you,

This has nothing to do with the 40k game or its issues.

and again, you just have more factions than any other game.

Not necceserily a good thing.

I really don't want to respond to this because I'm posting on a phone mostly but I have to cause I'm dumb and can't help myself.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I fail to understand how core rules would change what you'd outlined here. If tanks have facings then how does that differentiate tanks?

I think you may have misread my post because I never once said (or even implied) that core rules would change that.


What I said was that, in addition to the problem of core rules being shallow, there is also an issue that most of the rules added to the game to differentiate units or subfactions make no difference to how a unit or army actually plays.

Right - I didn't mean to misattribute. That was part of Kiro's point that you supported and I just lumped it all together.

Back on the subject of complexity though, recently I made an update to my game and the result was that players found it much easier to use a particular part. What part? Doesn't matter. What matters is that instead of having players divide one number by another, following a sorting procedure, instead I had players add one number to another using the same sorting procedure. Complexity-wise, nothing changed, but generally speaking people find addition to be less 'complex' than division.

Which is a long-winded way to say that maybe the people saying the game is no more complicated than it used to be are right, and maybe it's just a case of the complexity being shifted around to suit some people more than others.

Which might explain the popularity as that complexity is now shaped like the much more popular hobby of MTG and less like the less popular hobby of historical wargaming. I think other people have said this in the thread, but having related it back to something I'm more familiar with I think they're onto something.

@sim-life I'm also on the phone, but I'm too stupid to do these split up quotes. I thought we just have to agree to disagree, for me it doesn't matter if something gives you the same effect as something in another codex. I mean, 8th and 9th took the unnecessary approach to name every single kind of former "deep strike" differently, despite them all being the same and always having been the same. And I don't feel that's a problem. Same with your examples, though I'd also like a USR for that -1 to hit. To me the factions actually do feel much more differently than earlier. I mean, from 4the to 7th edition there was no difference between any of the Chaos legions and the CSM themselves also were, aside from their marks and Daemon engines, also pretty close to SM. Now every Legion has its subfaction rules, DG and TS even have subsubfaction rules that also allow for different playstyles (like an army with a psyker focus, a Zombie horde, a mechanized list, a Terminator list, or flamers for DG, all supported by their own subfactions). You say you don't see that difference but I don't know why you don't. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more? I'd get the complaint if we were talking about Lotr, which, despite having superior and more tactical core rules, has very similar factions. A Gondorian is basically the same as an Easterling and a Haradhrim is the same as a Rohan guy. You just have different Heroes to lead them, maybe one or two special rules but that’s it. You don't have a huge roster to change your list and you have very few and restricted faction rules. 40K since 8th really tries to give you loads of ways to differentiate the factions (too bad they took away equipment options at the same time).

 Nurglitch wrote:
Back on the subject of complexity though, recently I made an update to my game and the result was that players found it much easier to use a particular part. What part? Doesn't matter. What matters is that instead of having players divide one number by another, following a sorting procedure, instead I had players add one number to another using the same sorting procedure. Complexity-wise, nothing changed, but generally speaking people find addition to be less 'complex' than division.

Which is a long-winded way to say that maybe the people saying the game is no more complicated than it used to be are right, and maybe it's just a case of the complexity being shifted around to suit some people more than others.

Which might explain the popularity as that complexity is now shaped like the much more popular hobby of MTG and less like the less popular hobby of historical wargaming. I think other people have said this in the thread, but having related it back to something I'm more familiar with I think they're onto something.

I don't think that's true. The Dice Tower did a recent Top 10 list of good games with one annoying rule and one of Tom's (I think) was Mandala Stone, which had a rule where you pick up tokens in a clockwise order around a point then reverse the order of the stack, when they could have just said "pick up the token counter-clockwise", it's not complex, it's just poor rules writing. GWs rules are incredibly simple, though they do often explain themselves in incredibly convoluted ways to try and take a stab at legalise (also see stuff like AdMech and DG equipment lists which honestly melt my brain a bit). And again, it's not the complexity of the rules, it's the amount of them and how they're resented thats more of an issue.

I haven't read this thread, but oh boy, do I agree with the premise. I quit 40K after 5th edition because it's just too difficult to follow the rules, errata, updates, codexes, FAQs, and so on. I still build and paint the models and love the lore, love the few good video games, and so on - but the actual tabletop game is easily the worst part of 40K in my opinion.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
@sim-life I'm also on the phone, but I'm too stupid to do these split up quotes. I thought we just have to agree to disagree, for me it doesn't matter if something gives you the same effect as something in another codex. I mean, 8th and 9th took the unnecessary approach to name every single kind of former "deep strike" differently, despite them all being the same and always having been the same. And I don't feel that's a problem. Same with your examples, though I'd also like a USR for that -1 to hit. To me the factions actually do feel much more differently than earlier. I mean, from 4the to 7th edition there was no difference between any of the Chaos legions and the CSM themselves also were, aside from their marks and Daemon engines, also pretty close to SM. Now every Legion has its subfaction rules, DG and TS even have subsubfaction rules that also allow for different playstyles (like an army with a psyker focus, a Zombie horde, a mechanized list, a Terminator list, or flamers for DG, all supported by their own subfactions). You say you don't see that difference but I don't know why you don't. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more? I'd get the complaint if we were talking about Lotr, which, despite having superior and more tactical core rules, has very similar factions. A Gondorian is basically the same as an Easterling and a Haradhrim is the same as a Rohan guy. You just have different Heroes to lead them, maybe one or two special rules but that’s it. You don't have a huge roster to change your list and you have very few and restricted faction rules. 40K since 8th really tries to give you loads of ways to differentiate the factions (too bad they took away equipment options at the same time).

This is the tabletop wargaming equivalent of Kids demanding to have a meal at Burger King (with huge amounts of combos and fancy named options) rather than eating at a proper restaurant (with much less "optipns" in the menu but actual variety in flavours).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more?.

GW have the system in place to make the factions feel more different, they just can't be arsed using it. Probably because it would actually take effort to balance.

Why give GSC a specific rule for deep strike which is the exact same as everyone else, why not give them a special deep strike that allows them to be closer than usual?

Why are Imperial Guard snipers with a bit of training and a few battles under their belt exactly as sneaky as Eldar snipers, who've had likely hundreds of years of experience and several lifetimes of training and have more advanced equipment equally as sneaky? Why can't pathfinders break the -1 modifier limit rule to reflect this difference?

Why do lychguard shields, which are thousands of years more advanced than normal storm shields act exactly like one? Why don't the reflect shots back at attackers like they used to?

Why have pyrovores NEVER had good rules? Why are GW so tied to them being a really expensive flamer? Why not just give them some kind of anti-infantry spore mine? Speaking of which, why did tyranids forget how to make different kinds of spore mines? We used to get three different kinds, which the hive mind just forgot about?

Why did obliterators become ork lootas with random guns stats (probably because GW thinks people play the game to roll dice, more dice rolling means more strategy right?) rather than just being allowed to choose a gun to manifest from the basic autocannon/lascannon/plasma cannon etc profiles?

If you want to make factions feel different why not just have them remove the Core rules from certain units and grant them to others and change how detachments work in regards to them. You want to make a melee focussed space marine army? Give Assault Marines and Termies Core, have them count as Troops for the purpose of filling out your detachment. This is ignoring the fact that just about every unit in the space marine army already has core, which was a really stupid move.

I mean I could go on, but there's so many ways they could make units feel unique and fluffy which they don't bother with. In a lot of cases they DID have unique, thematic rules but they took them away in an ill-begotten attempt to appeal to the competitive crowd.

I dunno, for Obliterators/Lootas the random nature seems a little more "fluffy" than the other.

Obliterators definitely gives a much better vibe of random weapons forming/deforming within the mass of tainted warpflesh and ceramite/metal.

Orks having temperamental weapons also just makes sense.

Are either of those good? No, probably not really. They're annoying to use, but I guess that's true of most "fluffy" rules, sady.

I mean, in 40k units sort of feel different from each other but they do so I ways that are not very relevant, dont add that much to tactical depth and is presented in the very cumbersome manner of bespoke rules and stratagems.

I mean those it really matter if Kroots, Strike teams, breacher teams and Tau pathfinders are all distinct from each other if at the end of the day they are all chaff/red shirts that basically exist to protect your valuable units, made paperwork (IE- Actions) and luckily as a speed dumb???

There are duplicate rules from dex to dex, true enough. Many aura abilities are similar, for example.
But to say factions feel the same is kinda missing the forest for the trees.

Sisters are the only faction with Miracle Dice.

Only flavours of marines get combat squads and bolter discipline.

Only Admech detachments can include a knight.

Only Drukhari can take multiple patrols without losing CP.

If each of those factions also has a way to confer +1 to hit and melee and a way to reroll hits, that doesn't make the armies play the same because the HUGE differences between them that I listed above still exist.

Vatsetis wrote:
I mean, in 40k units sort of feel different from each other but they do so I ways that are not very relevant, dont add that much to tactical depth and is presented in the very cumbersome manner of bespoke rules and stratagems.

I mean those it really matter if Kroots, Strike teams, breacher teams and Tau pathfinders are all distinct from each other if at the end of the day they are all chaff/red shirts that basically exist to protect your valuable units, made paperwork (IE- Actions) and luckily as a speed dumb???

T'au is a book in need of love, but Breachers and Pathfinders both have distinct value over the others than can't be dismissed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
This is the tabletop wargaming equivalent of Kids demanding to have a meal at Burger King (with huge amounts of combos and fancy named options) rather than eating at a proper restaurant (with much less "optipns" in the menu but actual variety in flavours).

So you won't acknowledge the differences and just decide to dismiss it with elitism? Neat.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
. Could you give examples of what you'd have in mind to differentiate the factions more?.

GW have the system in place to make the factions feel more different, they just can't be arsed using it. Probably because it would actually take effort to balance.

Why give GSC a specific rule for deep strike which is the exact same as everyone else, why not give them a special deep strike that allows them to be closer than usual?

Why are Imperial Guard snipers with a bit of training and a few battles under their belt exactly as sneaky as Eldar snipers, who've had likely hundreds of years of experience and several lifetimes of training and have more advanced equipment equally as sneaky? Why can't pathfinders break the -1 modifier limit rule to reflect this difference?

Why do lychguard shields, which are thousands of years more advanced than normal storm shields act exactly like one? Why don't the reflect shots back at attackers like they used to?

Why have pyrovores NEVER had good rules? Why are GW so tied to them being a really expensive flamer? Why not just give them some kind of anti-infantry spore mine? Speaking of which, why did tyranids forget how to make different kinds of spore mines? We used to get three different kinds, which the hive mind just forgot about?

Why did obliterators become ork lootas with random guns stats (probably because GW thinks people play the game to roll dice, more dice rolling means more strategy right?) rather than just being allowed to choose a gun to manifest from the basic autocannon/lascannon/plasma cannon etc profiles?

If you want to make factions feel different why not just have them remove the Core rules from certain units and grant them to others and change how detachments work in regards to them. You want to make a melee focussed space marine army? Give Assault Marines and Termies Core, have them count as Troops for the purpose of filling out your detachment. This is ignoring the fact that just about every unit in the space marine army already has core, which was a really stupid move.

I mean I could go on, but there's so many ways they could make units feel unique and fluffy which they don't bother with. In a lot of cases they DID have unique, thematic rules but they took them away in an ill-begotten attempt to appeal to the competitive crowd.

I think I get what you're saying and I'm even with you on criticizing the very careful approach GW took with 9th in that some base rules aren't broken with the next best codex. There always was someone in prior editions who broke the Deep strike restrictions and more often than not the factions left out but which would have been fitting, too, felt bad. usually SM, especially Blood Angels had some way around the restrictions or Drop pods while CSM are left with their Rhinos since 3rd Edition
However, I don't think more interesting unit rules and the more interesting faction rules we have now aren't mutually exklusive. Many of these special rules have been moved to strats(Lychguard shields I think) - you don't like that, I'm okay with it. I also think the whole aspect of moving core around... Well, this was interesting in 5th when there was a fixed foc, now just build the army you consider to be interesting, there are very little restrictions how you organize your army, still, Ravenwing pretty much has what you want, no? So it's not out of question we see more of that.
Also you don't have three Spore mines anymore, instead you got 3 carnifexes or 3 battlewagon types, looks like a sidestep to me.

You also hint at the lack of fluff representation between Xenos especially Eldar and Imperium rules and on that I agree, too. i mean, none of those stupid assassins should be better than a Death jester... But that's not a new problem unfortunately, I'd say Primaris just made it even more apparent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I mean, in 40k units sort of feel different from each other but they do so I ways that are not very relevant, dont add that much to tactical depth and is presented in the very cumbersome manner of bespoke rules and stratagems.

I mean those it really matter if Kroots, Strike teams, breacher teams and Tau pathfinders are all distinct from each other if at the end of the day they are all chaff/red shirts that basically exist to protect your valuable units, made paperwork (IE- Actions) and luckily as a speed dumb???

T'au is a book in need of love, but Breachers and Pathfinders both have distinct value over the others than can't be dismissed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
This is the tabletop wargaming equivalent of Kids demanding to have a meal at Burger King (with huge amounts of combos and fancy named options) rather than eating at a proper restaurant (with much less "optipns" in the menu but actual variety in flavours).

So you won't acknowledge the differences and just decide to dismiss it with elitism? Neat.

Its not elitism to say that the difference between an UM Heavy Intercessor and an IF Intercessor are of a similar nature to eating your Mc Nuggets with BBQ sauce rather than chicken wings with honey mustard souce... Thats the nature of corporate branding.

At least Mc Donalds dosent imposse a premium price on their mass produced products.

Anyway, whats elitist in eating at a cheap non franchise restaurant were you eat actual home made food rather than mass produced product?

Vatsetis wrote:


Its not elitism to say that the difference between an UM Heavy Intercessor and an IF Intercessor are of a similar nature to eating your Mc Nuggets with BBQ sauce rather than chicken wings with honey mustard souce...

You're right, it's not elitism to say that. It's actually just plain wrong.

UM Chapter Tactic:

- +1 LD
- can fall back and shoot at - 1

IF Chapter Tactic:

- defenders can't use light cover against them
- score an extra hit with bolt weapons on 6's to hit

Stats:

HI's have more toughness and wounds than intercessors

Load out:

Not a single weapon in common between the two. Intercessor weapons cluster around rapid fire and assault. Heavy Intercessor weapons cluster around heavy.

So their Chapter tactics are different, their stats are different, their loadouts are different. The bespoke WL traits for those armies are quite different too, but neither of these models can take one, so it's a bit moot. You picked two chapters without supplements too; had you compared two chapters with supplements, you'd also be looking at collections of different bespoke strats and relics ON TOP OF all the differences cited above.

I'm not really sure how much more different two units need to be in order to classify as "actual restaurant food," but there are three types of differences between the two units you chose as an example of sameness- not just three differences, mind you, three TYPES of differences.

I'm all for letting people have their opinions: "This game doesn't appeal to me based on my preferences" - that's an opinion. I can let that go.

"A UM Intercessor and an IF Heay Intercessor are so similar that the only difference is the sauce?"

That's not an opinion. It is observably, categorically untrue.

Vatsetis wrote:
Its not elitism to say that the difference between an UM Heavy Intercessor and an IF Intercessor are of a similar nature to eating your Mc Nuggets with BBQ sauce rather than chicken wings with honey mustard souce... Thats the nature of corporate branding.

At least Mc Donalds dosent imposse a premium price on their mass produced products.

Anyway, whats elitist in eating at a cheap non franchise restaurant were you eat actual home made food rather than mass produced product?

Yea you missed the point of UM and IF and you got the unit selection wrong, which isn't surprising.

IF is actually a melee / ranged hybrid that is quite good at cover and durability and at taking on vehicles. They were often used as all shooting, because that worked well in 8th with an overstated super doctrine.

UM are good at manipulating the doctrine, generating CP, being flexible, and working in tandem through HI and overwatch.

Thanks pals, you have brilliantly demostrated my point (even doe both of you have misquoted and misunderstood my analogy).

Actually I would argue that the las two posters have got so stuck in the sunk cost fallacy of GW "Hobby" (IE Branding) that they cannot see beyond the corporate framing.

BTW, I sometimes eat at McDonalds and watch reality shows... Nothing wrong with neither, but I dont fool myself when I do so.