Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

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.

**yukishiro1**

As a general rule of thumb, people love their army having a bunch of interlocking buffs that hugely increase the effectiveness of their units, and they dislike when the opponent's army has the same thing.

Do I personally think layered special rules have gone way too far in 40k at this point? Yes. Do I personally think it's silly that you can buff a unit up to be 3x as effective as it is on its base datasheet through layering buffs the right way? Yes. Do I personally think it mostly just presents a lot of opportunities for trap choices and gotcha moments? Yes. But it seems to be what's wanted. As this thread mostly shows.

**AnomanderRake**

Voss wrote:
...Its a problem with any beer and pretzels game with additional rules content. Each new layer of rules adds more opportunities for force multipliers, and they're available for people looking for extreme cheese or people just doing what they think sounds cool.
Unfortunately, some armies have many layers of unfortunate combinations, and some are stuck in beer and pretzels land...

Which, to me, is the core of the problem. 40k is too expensive, too complicated, and takes too long to play casually, but if you do decide to play more seriously once you dig through all the bloat you find there are very few optimal choices at every stage of list-building or gameplay. By trying to be all things to all people 40k is busy compromising all the things it did well and destroying its own niche. As minis games go it's not fast, simple, inexpensive, straightforward, deep, or difficult. It has a breadth of factions, but there are often factions that don't work or sub-factions that are just strictly worse than taking a different faction, so it doesn't actually have breadth of factions. There are a lot of units, but most of them are terrible. Lots of the minis look cool, but it's a toss-up whether the ones you like are going to be playable or not. The only thing about 40k as a game that's in any way better than any other minis game is the quantity of people that play, because we as a community (yes, this is a gross oversimplification) are apparently willing to forgive the fact that the game's handicapped by trying to be something we like and something we don't like at the same time because some of the models are cool, or because we used to like it and hope it'll get better, or because we've never played anything else and assume that every other game is just as scatterbrained and awkward to play as 40k.

**catbarf**

Rihgu wrote:
People ragged on the Gav Thorpe quote earlier in the thread but it really does ring true.

If you give Blood Angels +1 to Assault Marines, "everybody" who wants to play Assault Marines is going to play Blood Angels, and "everybody" who wants to play Blood Angels is going to play Assault Marines. Unless, of course, Raven Guard get +2 to Assault Marines. Then the Blood Angels players will play Assault Marines but wonder why Raven Guard are better at their thing than they are...
Armies auto-Flanderize themselves.

100% this. As a Tyranid player it feels very wrong for a race that is supposed to be like the Borg, continuously adapting to each new thread, getting railroaded into basically a single force archetype for each hive fleet. If you want to have both fast melee critters and slow gunline critters in the same list you're usually going to have to pick one or the other to optimize for, which heavily constrains listbuilding and then railroads the tactics on the tabletop.

Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my experience with Warmachine, where building an effective force meant throwing the fluff and any notion of buy-what-you-like out the window, because if you didn't pick useful combos and synergies then you didn't have a functional army.

**AnomanderRake**

catbarf wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
People ragged on the Gav Thorpe quote earlier in the thread but it really does ring true.

If you give Blood Angels +1 to Assault Marines, "everybody" who wants to play Assault Marines is going to play Blood Angels, and "everybody" who wants to play Blood Angels is going to play Assault Marines. Unless, of course, Raven Guard get +2 to Assault Marines. Then the Blood Angels players will play Assault Marines but wonder why Raven Guard are better at their thing than they are...
Armies auto-Flanderize themselves.

100% this. As a Tyranid player it feels very wrong for a race that is supposed to be like the Borg, continuously adapting to each new thread, getting railroaded into basically a single force archetype for each hive fleet. And if you want to have both fast melee critters and slow gunline critters in the same list you're usually going to have to pick one or the other to optimize for.

Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my experience with Warmachine, where building an effective force meant throwing the fluff and any notion of buy-what-you-like out the window, because if you didn't pick useful combos and synergies then you didn't have a functional army.

In an ideal universe you wouldn't write your faction buffs in the form of "+1 to (unit)". 30k has eighteen Legions using the same core list. Each Legion's Legion Tactics rule is composed of 2-4 elements, in addition to the "regroup at normal LD regardless of casualties" common to everyone. Zero of those 50-ish special rules refer to a specific datasheet, and about six of those even refer to a unit type. There are people who will argue that you should only take (unit X) in (Legion Y) for some buff-stacking reason, sure, but from a purely mechanical standpoint every Legion's rules do something for every unit in their army (except vehicles, which don't have Legion Tactics and thus get almost no Legion-specific buffs at all, they have to stand on their own merits), and there is no unit that is only buffed by one Legion.

**vict0988**

Rihgu wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
As it currently stands, the only reason you *wouldn't* use many of the stratagems is because you don't have the CP to do so.

Or because you plan on using the CP you do have later, for other purposes, but people that hate Stratagems always forget that part.

Is that not "not having enough CP to do so"? If I have 3 CP, and want to spend 5... do I "have enough"?

Yes, you do. You are making a choice about where you think the CP are best spent, that choice is not being made for you and by pretending that someone else is making that choice you are being unfair to the Stratagem mechanic.

It's like saying "The only reason you *wouldn't* use every unit in your codex is because you don't have the pts to do so". Okay, but you still have a choice of which units to include in your army, maybe you netlist, maybe you include the units you like thematically or aesthetically or you formulate a tactical approach to winning missions and build a list around that. It'd be silly to say that you don't have any options in list building because you'd rather use your points on Raptors than Havocs, you are using the choice you do have to take Raptors instead of Havocs.

Gert wrote:
...there are built in limitations to curtail these wombo-combos.

The problem with wombo-combos is the cost increases linearly while the effect increases multiplicatively. If multiplying 4 mortal wounds worth of damage by 1,25 is worth 1CP, then multiplying 4 mortal wounds by 1,25*1,25*1,25*1,25 is worth more than 4CP assuming no other complications.

**yukishiro1**

Yeah, 40k has really gone down a rabbithole here, and it's not a good one to go down. But at this point undoing it would be undoing basically two editions worth of changes, so I don't see how it can possibly happen short of a hard reset with an edition change.

Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.

In general I'd like to see 90% of stratagems go away too. All these useless "give something +1 to hit" crap could just go away, and all the "give this one unit an ability it used to have on its datasheet" can just, well, go back to its datasheet. Instead, each faction should get say, 4 really interesting, game-changing stratagems that can be used on almost everything in their army, with subfactions giving you an additional 1. Maybe even change the way you use stratagems away from CP and just make them all once-per battle things, one per turn. Non-codex compliant chapters could instead lose 1 of the 4 normal strats and have one additional chapter-specific one, so it becomes 3 and 2.

Transhuman could be one of the Space Marine ones, for example, and activating it would give the entire army (except vehicles) the ability to never be wounded except on a 4+, and a 5+++ vs mortals for the battle round. So for that battle round, your army just isn't going anywhere. But it only works once, and you have to choose it at the beginning of the battle round. Suddenly, this becomes an interesting choice for both you and your opponent to play around, not just a "slap it on whatever if you have the CP." You could even let the player going second choose their stratagem for the round after the player going first chooses theirs, and you suddenly have a very compelling reason for going second that doesn't rely on asymmetric scoring rules. It also naturally "punishes" soup in that your faction is determined by your warlord, and units outside that faction don't benefit from your stratagems. So you can still take allies, and they still work fine, and they don't stop your main faction units from benefitting from stratagems...but the allies themselves lose out on a big part of the game, so you'll only take them if you really want to. Now you don't need purity bonuses any more either, it's all worked into the fundamental system.

I really think you could reduce the number of rules in 40k by 80% or more while actually adding tactical and strategic depth. They're that bloated right now.

**Nurglitch**

There's the old saw "Don't make me think," for whatever the local value of 'think' may be.

**the_scotsman**

...Are we really, REALLY still definining 40k 9th edition as a "Beer and Pretzels" game system?

Isnt the point of "Beer and Pretzels" to be able to play the game casually, as in, not every single week keeping up with every single rule and tracking every single release up to the minute?

for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.

I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional.

If you want to play 40k and you start out by buying a codex, you get the bloat flung at you full force right at the start.Two new players who try to play 40k are going to end up in a situation of having to deal with

-a terrain system with 15 odd keywords, a few of which are GAME CHANGINGLY IMPORTANT and like 12 of which almost never matter

-a bewildering system of bonkers packed datasheets even for some basic troop units with upwards of a dozen different options available (death guard plague marines anyone?)

-subfactions, custom subfactions, the convoluted detahcment based army-building system, stratagems relics warlord traits doctrines army rules purchaseable traits....

Open Play is a dismal failure as a "Casual" or "Entry Mode" of the game. The datasheets you get from the instructional kits literally do not give you the information you need to know to make the units function in a game. The simplified core rules just...do not tell you how basic systems like 'terrain' or 'army list building' function, and the core level of lethality present in the system makes trying to play using only power level HILARIOUSLY imbalanced if you dont know what youre doing. If one newbie starts out with Deathwatch and one newbie starts out with Sisters of Battle and they try to play a game with power level just like throwing the kits together in some way that looks cool to them, the Deathwatch vets built with combi-plasmas and frag cannons and thunder hammers are going to absolutely obliterate the sisters of battle built with 1 flamer and 1 heavy bolter and a power sword superior.

You simply cannot play a 'casual' or 'quick start' version of 40k like you can if you pick up a starter box of Infinity or even a more sprawling complicated game like Necromunda. it needs its own dedicated wholly separate game (Kill Team) to hook people in.

**catbarf**

AnomanderRake wrote:
In an ideal universe you wouldn't write your faction buffs in the form of "+1 to (unit)". 30k has eighteen Legions using the same core list. Each Legion's Legion Tactics rule is composed of 2-4 elements, in addition to the "regroup at normal LD regardless of casualties" common to everyone. Zero of those 50-ish special rules refer to a specific datasheet, and about six of those even refer to a unit type. There are people who will argue that you should only take (unit X) in (Legion Y) for some buff-stacking reason, sure, but from a purely mechanical standpoint every Legion's rules do something for every unit in their army (except vehicles, which don't have Legion Tactics and thus get almost no Legion-specific buffs at all, they have to stand on their own merits), and there is no unit that is only buffed by one Legion.

I play HH too, and the way the Legion traits are written there don't seem too different from how it works for many factions in 40K. It's the other things that make the difference.

Like, take Kraken. I get to fall back and charge, and roll 3D6-pick-highest for Advancing. In theory, that applies to my whole army. In practice, it's worthless on Exocrines or Hive Guard, and if I want to play those models as a significant part of my army I'll opt for Kronos instead.

Yeah, technically the World Eaters getting re-rolls of 1 to wound in melee affects all their infantry, but in practice your heavy weapons squads aren't going to be using it and that buff pushes you more towards taking Assault Marines and the like.

The things that feel different for me about HH's buffs are that they're mostly for infantry and not vehicles, like you noted, but there also aren't the additional layers of subfaction-specific stratagems, WLTs, and relics to further cookie-cutter the armies into well-trod archetypes. You've got your Legion, and you can optionally lean into a specific playstyle through Rites of War (which come with advantages but, importantly, also disadvantages), but that's it. For the most part it's that shallowness that avoids the kind of buff-stacking that leads to oppressive wombo-combos in 9th. Scotsman's example in the OP wouldn't be a problem if it was just 'Black Templars can re-roll 1s to hit and that's it'.

For what it's worth, I really like how HH handles the Legions. A couple mild army-wide rules plus a few unique units and then optional Rites does a fantastic job at making the Legions feel distinct without needing to turn each one into a unique army list or outright forcing you to play a certain way.

**Galas**

I have to say I agree with the_scotsman here

One of the reasons I don't like unmodded total war warhammer that much is beacuse everything dies so fast, I have no time to reposition troops, attack from the rear with my cavalry, etc..

The same happens in 40k. I always like when my units struggle, fight back, things become tense, you have time to reposition, attack, retreat, attack from other flank, etc....

That back and forth is totally lacking in 40k or aos. In MESBG or BloodBowl tought, the gameplay is much more engaging.

Lethality should go down, and the basic rules expanded to allow for more interactivity between units outside shooting eachother.

I have to say that MESBG also does factions and subfactions great. One army wide rule for your army and legendary legions for more specialized forces.

And thats it. You can play a Gondor force half a dozen ways, and your basic gondorian soldier is basically the same unit than some others like easterlings.

I believe subfactions can "incentive" you into a play style but never to compensate for lack of power.
If my meele marines are usefull by themselves, I can slot them in any balanced army. If they suck and are only good with blood angels, that a problem.
That means the BA buffs they receive to meele cannot be extremely powerfull. Just flavorfoul, enough to feel "rewarded" and take across the fluff sentiment of the army you are playing.

Thats why I play DA. For me they are the perfect marines gameplaywise alongside ultramarines but better. You can literally play them in all styles, meele, gunline, movile, horde, elite, and all are flavorfull and have rule support. And I would still play them if all their special rules were the special character (that I don't use) and a "DA units can reroll leadership tests to rally and avoid being pinned" or something like that. Maybe alternative lists for heavy ravenwinng/deathwing.

**Las**

Agree with the scotsman here.

I took a break at the beginning of 8th, so my last recollection of playing 40k was the index era, when there was only a couple stratagems. That actually was a streamlined beer and pretzels game.

Played my first game of ninth the other day and holy. fething. cow. It was a lot to take in. I played solid from 5th-7th and found almost none of my previous experience translated. It took a ton of concentration and memorization just to stay on track (all to do with strategems and interacting buffs).

For the record, I was also literally drinking beer and eating pretzels. The beer did not help.

I have played beer and pretzel games and this, while still an enjoyable experience I must say, was certainly not that.

**PenitentJake**

the_scotsman wrote:

for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.

Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.

the_scotsman wrote:

Open Play is a dismal failure as a "Casual" or "Entry Mode" of the game. The datasheets you get from the instructional kits literally do not give you the information you need to know to make the units function in a game.

Agree that the rules in the box SUUUCCCKK. Using those, however, is not a defining characteristic of open play.

the_scotsman wrote:

The simplified core rules just...do not tell you how basic systems like 'terrain' or 'army list building' function

Totally agree here too- terrain rules SHOULD be part of the streamlined core rules. Maybe even just a simplified version that includes Obscuring, Light, and Heavy and leaves out all those nit-picky options that are seldom used.

the_scotsman wrote:

the core level of lethality present in the system makes trying to play using only power level HILARIOUSLY imbalanced if you dont know what youre doing.

Possibly true- I don't know, I've never played an army that wasn't battleforged. In theory, it feels like it would drastically reduce lethality because it would severely curtail the use of strats. You'd be limited to one per turn and you'd have to pick from the BRB. It IS certainly true that many weapon profiles provide enough lethality on their own, but I'm not sure how deadly they actually would be without bespoke strats buffing the units. Might be worth a try if you can talk anyone into playing that way.

the_scotsman wrote:

If one newbie starts out with Deathwatch and one newbie starts out with Sisters of Battle and they try to play a game with power level just like throwing the kits together in some way that looks cool to them, the Deathwatch vets built with combi-plasmas and frag cannons and thunder hammers are going to absolutely obliterate the sisters of battle built with 1 flamer and 1 heavy bolter and a power sword superior.

Maybe- again, never tried it. But DW vets are 9PL for 5 and Battle Sisters are 7PL for 10, so the sisters player is getting more 2x the bodies (albeit, 1W bodies).

the_scotsman wrote:

You simply cannot play a 'casual' or 'quick start' version of 40k like you can if you pick up a starter box of Infinity or even a more sprawling complicated game like Necromunda. it needs its own dedicated wholly separate game (Kill Team) to hook people in.

Non-battle forged 25PL games are pretty quick start. Not sure if you've played one of those- I haven't cuz I ALWAYS Battleforge, but even when you do, a 25PL game is pretty simple.

**Voss**

the_scotsman wrote:
...Are we really, REALLY still definining 40k 9th edition as a "Beer and Pretzels" game system?

Nope. We're defining 40k as a beer and pretzels game. 9th is a mess because its still hugging that concept while trying to pretend it isn't also demanding ultra-mega-system mastery at the same time.
And to make it worse, I honestly can't tell if the designers are doing the latter intentionally, or its happening due to their lax approach to building rules like a Jenga tower.

I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional

If you want to play 40k and you start out by buying a codex, you get the bloat flung at you full force right at the start.Two new players who try to play 40k are going to end up in a situation of having to deal with

-a terrain system with 15 odd keywords, a few of which are GAME CHANGINGLY IMPORTANT and like 12 of which almost never matter

-a bewildering system of bonkers packed datasheets even for some basic troop units with upwards of a dozen different options available (death guard plague marines anyone?)

-subfactions, custom subfactions, the convoluted detahcment based army-building system, stratagems relics warlord traits doctrines army rules purchaseable traits....

Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine. A Ravening Hordes or Index book would have been fine.
The codex churn, as always, is the part that's not fine.

**the_scotsman**

Galas wrote:
I have to say I agree with the_scotsman here

One of the reasons I don't like unmodded total war warhammer that much is beacuse everything dies so fast, I have no time to reposition troops, attack from the rear with my cavalry, etc..

The same happens in 40k. I always like when my units struggle, fight back, things become tense, you have time to reposition, attack, retreat, attack from other flank, etc....

That back and forth is totally lacking in 40k or aos. In MESBG or BloodBowl tought, the gameplay is much more engaging.

Lethality should go down, and the basic rules expanded to allow for more interactivity between units outside shooting eachother.

I have to say that MESBG also does factions and subfactions great. One army wide rule for your army and legendary legions for more specialized forces.

And thats it. You can play a Gondor force half a dozen ways, and your basic gondorian soldier is basically the same unit than some others like easterlings.

I believe subfactions can "incentive" you into a play style but never to compensate for lack of power.
If my meele marines are usefull by themselves, I can slot them in any balanced army. If they suck and are only good with blood angels, that a problem.
That means the BA buffs they receive to meele cannot be extremely powerfull. Just flavorfoul, enough to feel "rewarded" and take across the fluff sentiment of the army you are playing.

Thats why I play DA. For me they are the perfect marines gameplaywise alongside ultramarines but better. You can literally play them in all styles, meele, gunline, movile, horde, elite, and all are flavorfull and have rule support. And I would still play them if all their special rules were the special character (that I don't use) and a "DA units can reroll leadership tests to rally and avoid being pinned" or something like that. Maybe alternative lists for heavy ravenwinng/deathwing.

i've only played a half-dozen odd games of AOS 3.0, and I can't lump it and 40k together tbh - the lethality in sigmar appears to be way, way less. Every game i've played has had decent amounts of stuff still on the table at the end of BR5.

Just compare a unit people sometimes complain about being OP in AOS to...anything in 40k, the new, super-long-range high elf archer unit.

145pts for a 10-man unit that shoots 1 shot at 30", 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, mortal wound instead of normal wound on 6s to wound.

That's a microscopic amount of damage compared to even a mediocre 40k 9th unit - say, primaris space marines. Because in sigmar you at least pay a teeny tiny bit for range - a lot of artillery pieces pop off one single shot.

**Galas**

I'll have to disagree there. I don't want to bash AoS, but I played it extensively in 1.0 and 2.0 and lets say that the game has always been much more wildly imbalanced than 40k.

Facing the true broken combos and units in AoS feels as opresive as facing the worst days of iron hands inmortal dreadnoughts spams.

Most armies outright cannot win agaisnt most armies because the tactical depth of AoS is even less than 40k. You don't have nearly any interaction with terrain, is facing the combo of your opponent with your combo, and if your combo is khorne minotaurs watch as they run from 5 in 5 because the sad lumineth lady looked at them the wrong way.

Or just be obliterated by Teclis. Or a shooting phase of a optimized tzeentch or kharadron army. At least in 40k I have scenery to take cover.

In 40k you can "play to draw" or from the losing end. In AoS you cannot.

(Sorry I'm a little burned out of AoS right now

)

**Eldarain**

Elf Archer scenario is lacking some important context. Ignores LoS can easily bump the mortals to 5+ ( to hit, much stronger than wound) and all shooting in the game essentially has "Sniper"

**Togusa**

the_scotsman wrote:
A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.

Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.

Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.

That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.

Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.

If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.

the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:

-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP
-They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp

As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.

...Does this enhance your gaming experience?

If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?

I've been able to get back to playing a few new games from 9th over the summer and into the fall and I have to say, the game is a lot better if you just flat out do not play with CP or strats. Me and a few buddies have been doing just that and we really enjoy it. Mind you that's only part of what you are mentioning, but it does seem absolutely insane the amount of things you have to remember/keep track of, even though these last two editions have technically been so watered down and dull. Most things are just +x/-x. I almost miss the old rules system with stuff like Zealot, Crack shot, evergreen keyword abilities.

**Blackie**

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.

Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.

I really like the current subfactions concept, it adds variety and I'm a fan of changing my list every few games. But I play orks, not Goffs, Freebooterz or Deathskulls, my army isn't painted with the exact colour scheme of an existing klan and I feel free to switch klans if I like to. I wouldn't want to change that.

**Sim-Life**

Blackie wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.

Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.

That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.

**ccs**

PenitentJake wrote:

Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.

My preferred D&D is 1e. Always has been, always will be. 5e & PF? I like both equally & they're tied for 2nd place.
Meanwhile, 40k-wise.... I like both 3e/4e & 8th/9th about equally.
My D&D preferences have nothing to do with my 40k preferences.

**a_typical_hero**

PenitentJake wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.
Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.

This is absolutely true for me. 5th is alright, but bland. Pathfinder / 3.5 are peak D&D imho.

the_scotsman wrote:
I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional.

My experience with several different P&P groups over the years is, that even after playing the game for several sessions, some folks are still ALWAYS asking how to calculate their attack and damage. Every.Single.Round. Or look through their spells, which haven't changed for the past 4 sessions. Or ask if they can use an Athletics check when Acrobatics is called and vice versa.

Your comparison isn't fair, as you teach a D&D player how to roll dice (or how to add proficiency to whatever they want to do in 5th..) while the 40k player is supposed to go through character creation first.
If you just put a squad of Marines on the field against a squad of whatever and have them move, shoot, charge&fight, you will explain like 80% of the core mechanics and people should be able to grasp that within 90 minutes as well.

On the other side, you can overwhelm a new player just as easily with "here are 30 races and sub-races, 14 + multiple sub-classes each, a feth-ton of feats and hundreds of spells, this is how cover & concealment works, here are combat maneuvers".

D&D used to have (dunno if it is still existing) a superb beginner adventure with toned down rules and pre-created characters. I found that very useful to get people hooked and somewhat familiar with the core systems.
40k got that in theory with the small missions in the starter boxes, but I haven't seen, read or played one of them, so can't comment.

**Blackie**

Sim-Life wrote:
Blackie wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.

Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.

That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.

Having different units to make distinctions between subfactions = massive new wave of releases for everyone or splitting already existing rosters; these are the only ways to have different units for different subfactions (intended as chapter equivalents). The former is never gonna happen, the latter would make lots of collections illegal or extremely hard to play.

**Sim-Life**

Blackie wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Blackie wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.

Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.

That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.

Having different units to make distinctions between subfactions = massive new wave of releases for everyone or splitting already existing rosters; these are the only ways to have different units for different subfactions (intended as chapter equivalents). The former is never gonna happen, the latter would make lots of collections illegal or extremely hard to play.

He didn't say anything about having completely new units or banning factions from taking existing ones. He said factions have different units, which I interpret to mean Blood Angels get more access and use of Assault Marines, Space Wolves get more melee termies, Dark Angels get more bikes etc. Incentives to build sub-factions in a thematic way such as in the case of Blood Angels moving units with jump packs to Troops or jump pack units get ObSec or they don't use detachment slots or something.

**Not Online!!!**

A.T. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Triple triplets AT. 9
Classic 3.5 Iron warriors. 9x T5 obliterators as elites, a basilisk, and still three heavy support slots unused.
4e oblits were moved to heavy support.

**Tyel**

a_typical_hero wrote:
My experience with several different P&P groups over the years is, that even after playing the game for several sessions, some folks are still ALWAYS asking how to calculate their attack and damage. Every.Single.Round. Or look through their spells, which haven't changed for the past 4 sessions. Or ask if they can use an Athletics check when Acrobatics is called and vice versa.

This has been my experience of D&D. "This is the intro scenario, it should take maybe one or two sessions". 20ish hours later...

Equally though - I think its true of 40k.
Some people struggle with the basic mechanic of "I'm a BS3+ guy with a bolter shooting a T3 5+ save guy".

The fact there may then be 10+ "special rules" to impact that interaction (covering those effecting both models and say terrain) is arguably far too much minutiae. Its unclear its adding depth or scope for the people who do understand the game as opposed to needless processing - and its an obvious barrier to those who don't.

**The_Real_Chris**

the_scotsman wrote:

...Does this enhance your gaming experience?

If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?

There are many threads on this if you have a scroll through the forums. Design wise it is to introduce a bigger tactical layer into the game. You either like it, or you don't. In my experience people who play a range of wargames don't like it and expect those types of mechanics in other styles of games. However the majority do like it and enjoy the challenge of figuring it all out.

**Sim-Life**

The_Real_Chris wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

...Does this enhance your gaming experience?

If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?

Design wise it is to introduce a bigger tactical layer into the game.

However the majority do like it and enjoy the challenge of figuring it all out.

[Citation Needed]

**vipoid**

PenitentJake wrote:

Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.

I think that there are definitely aspects of 5th that older editions could learn from (e.g. being able to split your move in between attacks just makes things feel a lot smoother) but otherwise I agree with you.

Though, I do think some of 5e's flaws come uncomfortably close to 9th's flaws - namely that a lot of classes, bosses and such that should feel different end up feeling pretty similar because of a lack of meaningful variety. Not unlike 9th, a lot of mechanics in 5th are constantly reused or rehashed.

That said (and rather amusingly) monsters in 5e seem to have almost the opposite problem to units in 9th edition 40k - they have too few rules. A lot of 'boss' type monsters in particular seem to suffer from this. In Pathfinder/3.5 a lot of monsters have a plethora of combat abilities to utilise, yet in 5e those same monsters tend to be little more than sacks of hp with all those abilities boiled down to just attacking each turn.

(Not that any of this refutes Scotsman's point, just saying I can very much empathise with your position regarding D&D 5e.)

Voss wrote:

Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.

I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.

If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.

**Grimtuff**

Not Online!!! wrote:
A.T. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Triple triplets AT. 9
Classic 3.5 Iron warriors. 9x T5 obliterators as elites, a basilisk, and still three heavy support slots unused.
4e oblits were moved to heavy support.

i know, they still were overall better though due to more weapons, and having support in the form of double slannesh wing lash princes.

**Aenar**

vipoid wrote:
Voss wrote:
Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.
I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.

If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.

This. We need USRs back.