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.

tneva82 wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If that's such a deal breaker for you stop spending money to 40k RIGHT NOW. It's the only logical step. Your money is going to get wasted in 2023 or 2024 latest(no way gw waits until 2025 for 10th ed. GW has shut down by then more likely)

GW don't come and take all your stuff away if you don't buy the new rules. The only thing not opting into a new edition means is that you may not have rules for some new models. And you may have trouble with playing strangers.
You still own the game, it's still playable. What I find truly confusing is people who decide to give up on a game when a new edition comes out and they don't want it for some reason, despite only playing with friends.

Oh sure you can play but if like 99% switch to new edition and you are left with maybe one or two player to play older edition that isn't much of help either.

but sure that's also another option for some.

But not having seen FB 5th ed or 6th ed being played around here expecting that to be common solution that works for most. So back to play current or simply forget gw games from the get-go as edition changes are quaranteed so if you don't want that your options are get out ASAP or for very minor part stick with older edition

Of course you don't *see* them being played. You would have to be wondering around random people's houses to see that. Nor do you really need "more than one two people" to play with. It depends what you're buying into. If you want a lifestyle game, you have to keep up. If you just want some cool models to paint and some rules to use them with, you can do that without having to move to a new edition. Obviously 99% of those posting here are those that treat it as a lifestyle game.

One good example is Kill Team. I like the current ruleset. I'm picking up all the boxes as they come out, I get a bunch of terrain and bunch of different teams with models and rules for each. Once this edition is over, I'm done. And what I'll have is one large, entertaining game with maybe 16 options for teams that exists as its own thing, another standalone board game, essentially, to go with the other 300-odd games I own.

I'm probably the odd one out in this community, wargaming is not my main hobby. Board games are. Own loads of them, play loads of them. I got into GW stuff through Warhammer Underworlds which I still buy, paint and play, and have dabbled with the big grown up games via the Hachette partwork things. By the time I had finished collecting the AoS, Dominion and new edition were out. Did that make it a waste of money? No, because I was still getting enjoyment out of playing with my partner using the stuff we had and the rules we had. Did I pick up a box of Dominion when it went cheap? Yes. Have I read the included rulebook? No.#

(I would agree though that the current/last edition rules aren't exactly exciting enough to be worth preserving though)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
They Problem is that GW is listening too much what the Tournament Community wants instead of real hobbists who want to enjoy the game.

The 9th Edition is a complete chaotic mess.

Come on dude. Don’t be That Guy. Nobody is playing it wrong. No one is enjoying it wrong. No one is a “real” hobbyist for enjoying certain aspects over others.

I wouldn't say that they are playing it wrong, but I think there's a non-trivial issue that GW has spent a lot of time tweaking the rules of 40k by piling on more and more rules bloat and issuing more and more corrective patches aimed primarily at balancing the game for tournament players, which ignores that they have inadvertently created a) a fairly high barrier to entry for more casual players, b) a game balanced around quite a high skill level which is not what many people have and c) doesn't actually seem to be working that well for tournament players either.

deano2099 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If that's such a deal breaker for you stop spending money to 40k RIGHT NOW. It's the only logical step. Your money is going to get wasted in 2023 or 2024 latest(no way gw waits until 2025 for 10th ed. GW has shut down by then more likely)

GW don't come and take all your stuff away if you don't buy the new rules. The only thing not opting into a new edition means is that you may not have rules for some new models. And you may have trouble with playing strangers.
You still own the game, it's still playable. What I find truly confusing is people who decide to give up on a game when a new edition comes out and they don't want it for some reason, despite only playing with friends.

Oh sure you can play but if like 99% switch to new edition and you are left with maybe one or two player to play older edition that isn't much of help either.

but sure that's also another option for some.

But not having seen FB 5th ed or 6th ed being played around here expecting that to be common solution that works for most. So back to play current or simply forget gw games from the get-go as edition changes are quaranteed so if you don't want that your options are get out ASAP or for very minor part stick with older edition

Of course you don't *see* them being played. You would have to be wondering around random people's houses to see that. Nor do you really need "more than one two people" to play with. It depends what you're buying into. If you want a lifestyle game, you have to keep up. If you just want some cool models to paint and some rules to use them with, you can do that without having to move to a new edition. Obviously 99% of those posting here are those that treat it as a lifestyle game.

One good example is Kill Team. I like the current ruleset. I'm picking up all the boxes as they come out, I get a bunch of terrain and bunch of different teams with models and rules for each. Once this edition is over, I'm done. And what I'll have is one large, entertaining game with maybe 16 options for teams that exists as its own thing, another standalone board game, essentially, to go with the other 300-odd games I own.

I'm probably the odd one out in this community, wargaming is not my main hobby. Board games are. Own loads of them, play loads of them. I got into GW stuff through Warhammer Underworlds which I still buy, paint and play, and have dabbled with the big grown up games via the Hachette partwork things. By the time I had finished collecting the AoS, Dominion and new edition were out. Did that make it a waste of money? No, because I was still getting enjoyment out of playing with my partner using the stuff we had and the rules we had. Did I pick up a box of Dominion when it went cheap? Yes. Have I read the included rulebook? No.#

(I would agree though that the current/last edition rules aren't exactly exciting enough to be worth preserving though)

If you don't see them kinda hard to play with them...

And sure if playing against 1-2 guys with maybe 3 armies forever...gets repeative. compared to what you get with current where you have more factions to face and even between factions different players and thus playstyle.

Never seen that option last longer. And if you have 1 opponent and he quits. Then what?

Sorry. Not realistic option for most. Much more practical for most is not play gw games to begin with. More games out there than 40k.

Would be a shame for a hard reset again in 10th edition, since the core 9th rules are actually about as good as I can imagine an IGOUGO system being.

The only reset worth doing now IMO is something with alternating activations.

And of course moving to digital rules should go without saying, regardless of what 10th edition brings. IDK about other folks, but I don't buy codexes or campaign books anymore at all. There's no point.

tneva82 wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If that's such a deal breaker for you stop spending money to 40k RIGHT NOW. It's the only logical step. Your money is going to get wasted in 2023 or 2024 latest(no way gw waits until 2025 for 10th ed. GW has shut down by then more likely)

GW don't come and take all your stuff away if you don't buy the new rules. The only thing not opting into a new edition means is that you may not have rules for some new models. And you may have trouble with playing strangers.
You still own the game, it's still playable. What I find truly confusing is people who decide to give up on a game when a new edition comes out and they don't want it for some reason, despite only playing with friends.

Oh sure you can play but if like 99% switch to new edition and you are left with maybe one or two player to play older edition that isn't much of help either.

but sure that's also another option for some.

But not having seen FB 5th ed or 6th ed being played around here expecting that to be common solution that works for most. So back to play current or simply forget gw games from the get-go as edition changes are quaranteed so if you don't want that your options are get out ASAP or for very minor part stick with older edition

Of course you don't *see* them being played. You would have to be wondering around random people's houses to see that. Nor do you really need "more than one two people" to play with. It depends what you're buying into. If you want a lifestyle game, you have to keep up. If you just want some cool models to paint and some rules to use them with, you can do that without having to move to a new edition. Obviously 99% of those posting here are those that treat it as a lifestyle game.

One good example is Kill Team. I like the current ruleset. I'm picking up all the boxes as they come out, I get a bunch of terrain and bunch of different teams with models and rules for each. Once this edition is over, I'm done. And what I'll have is one large, entertaining game with maybe 16 options for teams that exists as its own thing, another standalone board game, essentially, to go with the other 300-odd games I own.

I'm probably the odd one out in this community, wargaming is not my main hobby. Board games are. Own loads of them, play loads of them. I got into GW stuff through Warhammer Underworlds which I still buy, paint and play, and have dabbled with the big grown up games via the Hachette partwork things. By the time I had finished collecting the AoS, Dominion and new edition were out. Did that make it a waste of money? No, because I was still getting enjoyment out of playing with my partner using the stuff we had and the rules we had. Did I pick up a box of Dominion when it went cheap? Yes. Have I read the included rulebook? No.#

(I would agree though that the current/last edition rules aren't exactly exciting enough to be worth preserving though)

If you don't see them kinda hard to play with them...

And sure if playing against 1-2 guys with maybe 3 armies forever...gets repeative. compared to what you get with current where you have more factions to face and even between factions different players and thus playstyle.

Never seen that option last longer. And if you have 1 opponent and he quits. Then what?

Sorry. Not realistic option for most. Much more practical for most is not play gw games to begin with. More games out there than 40k.

I don't play with strangers. Just with friends/family. We don't want to play with you and nor do they. No offense!
There are plenty of other games, we have 100s of them and play them more than any of the GW stuff to be honest.
But honestly for me it's no different than my copy of Great Western Trail. It's 1st edition, there's a 2nd edition with new rules now, I don't own it and don't intend to buy it, the first edition is fine, I just teach those rules.

If all you want is a game (or minis to paint) editions really don't matter. If you want a lifestyle they don't.

And to be clear, all I'm arguing against here is the guy claiming that buying GW stuff is literally a waste of money if you don't intend to keep up, and that new editions render old stuff worthless. That's only true if you're looking for players elsewhere. The vast majority of GW gamers never game in stores or at clubs. You can figure that out by looking at the sheer volume of GW sales versus how many people you actually see playing at stores or clubs.

Quasistellar wrote:

The only reset worth doing now IMO is something with alternating activations.

This!

Mixed views really.

A total re-imagining (alternate actions, with a D10 system, while hopping on one leg) would be a leap into the dark.

A recognition however that the power creep unleashed in 9th has become fundamentally unworkable - and the only solution is to level everything and start again? I can see it. We don't need almost every unit to have about 3 rules buffing damage - only to be "countered" with a growing number of rules reducing damage.

The indexes as a halcyon time is a bit of a false memory - because there was a lot of broken stuff and as people optimised lists it became more common to run such to the exclusion of the weaker middle. But equally the general power level of the middle stuff into middle was much more healthy. We don't need a game where if both players started 12" (~) from each other in planet bowling ball, the player going second would expect to lose a huge percentage of their list (or indeed be tabled.)

12"? Atm start 24" on planet bowling ball and player going 2nd is screwed.

tneva82 wrote:
12"? Atm start 24" on planet bowling ball and player going 2nd is screwed.

Well yeah probably - but they might not be completely tabled by every list as a lot of infantry can't make a 24" charge.

 The Phazer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
They Problem is that GW is listening too much what the Tournament Community wants instead of real hobbists who want to enjoy the game.

The 9th Edition is a complete chaotic mess.

Come on dude. Don’t be That Guy. Nobody is playing it wrong. No one is enjoying it wrong. No one is a “real” hobbyist for enjoying certain aspects over others.

I wouldn't say that they are playing it wrong, but I think there's a non-trivial issue that GW has spent a lot of time tweaking the rules of 40k by piling on more and more rules bloat and issuing more and more corrective patches aimed primarily at balancing the game for tournament players, which ignores that they have inadvertently created a) a fairly high barrier to entry for more casual players, b) a game balanced around quite a high skill level which is not what many people have and c) doesn't actually seem to be working that well for tournament players either.

Then blame GW for not doing it correctly the first time.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

The only reset worth doing now IMO is something with alternating activations.

This!

People talk about alternating activations like it's this magic bullet that will instantly make 40k a far superior game but thanks to the way 40k armies are constructed currently, it either wouldn't work (if it was just a patch job) or it would require an even more radical change to the rules than we got from 7th to 8th.

It's also absolutely NOT guaranteed to be better than IGOUGO JUST because it's AA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
They Problem is that GW is listening too much what the Tournament Community wants instead of real hobbists who want to enjoy the game.

The 9th Edition is a complete chaotic mess.

Come on dude. Don’t be That Guy. Nobody is playing it wrong. No one is enjoying it wrong. No one is a “real” hobbyist for enjoying certain aspects over others.

I wouldn't say that they are playing it wrong, but I think there's a non-trivial issue that GW has spent a lot of time tweaking the rules of 40k by piling on more and more rules bloat and issuing more and more corrective patches aimed primarily at balancing the game for tournament players, which ignores that they have inadvertently created a) a fairly high barrier to entry for more casual players, b) a game balanced around quite a high skill level which is not what many people have and c) doesn't actually seem to be working that well for tournament players either.

Then blame GW for not doing it correctly the first time.

This is correct. It's not Tournament Player's fault they didn't realize 170pt model doing 40 mortal wounds per turn was a bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they moved to an app based system then I'm 100% out...

See, with some companies I'd say 'get with the times grandpa!' But GW has proven that they absolutely do NOT have the ability to successfully manage an App. The closest they've had to something function was the old Sigmar app at it's End of Life and it was still Jank, it was just Jank in a way that you could work with.

ERJAK wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

The only reset worth doing now IMO is something with alternating activations.

This!

People talk about alternating activations like it's this magic bullet that will instantly make 40k a far superior game but thanks to the way 40k armies are constructed currently, it either wouldn't work (if it was just a patch job) or it would require an even more radical change to the rules than we got from 7th to 8th.

It's also absolutely NOT guaranteed to be better than IGOUGO JUST because it's AA.

It's not a magic bullet, but it has advantages. Especially as GW tends to keep making their games increase in lethality. When you've fully alternate armies and one army can get into close combat in turn 1 and when the majority of killing can easily happen in turn 2 that produces a very swingy result where whoever gets the alpha-strike on the other tends to come out the winner. It means functionally that games can be "over" very early on and that the longer stretch of the game is more of a foregone conclusion.

At the most extreme you've got Age of Sigmar where you can even get two whole turn activations in a row; which unless you handle them badly/are a very unskilled player/bought a very poor army composition - you are generally going to win. If you lose you are generally highly miss-matched against your opponents skill and/or its late in the game and you've already lost. The only reason its not realised more is because, for some reason, AoS uses fully alternate activations in close combat resolution.


With a balance team who tends to err toward making things more powerful to deal with balance and making the game feel faster and faster; alternate activation unit by unit at least balances out the power of a single turn's impact. It removes the ability for one person to destroy another army in one swift motion. It honestly would work well with a high lethality game because it gives both sides an equal or even chance to be as lethal toward each other in one go.

@ ERJAK nailed it. AA is not a panacea (just like d8/d12 is not a panacea), and GW is allergic to modern technology. Neither of these things will save the world with 10th.

 Geifer wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I’m still firmly of the opinion that, if you want to play with Primarchs, you should go play Heresy. Bringing back one Loyalist Primarch felt like a misstep. Bringing more back just totally changes the feel of 40K to me.

It's not just Girlyman. The shift in the background is far wider and taking out only one component won't change that. 8th ed and the lead up to it is proper tabloid material.

"Reanimated rock star: I'll die for a good show, but I'd come back for hot Xenos tail!"
"Arch-enemy shatters Cadia, takes hundred year vacation!"
"Mars man pulls army of super soldiers out of shiny metal ass!"
"Imperium Nihilus cut off! Space weather out of control! Travel suspended!"
"Enterprising arms dealer on travel suspension: Hold my beer!"

GW is committed to writing the background in a certain style that isn't what it used to be. No Primarchs, one Primarch, ten Primarchs, it just doesn't matter. The whole thing might be better if it was all written in Regimental Standard style, but unfortunately GW is super serious in tone these days while writing their Saturday morning cartoons.

That's what 40k has always been, isn't it? Super serious Dark Age of Comics Edgelord-ness chronicling villainous plots that are basically what you'd get if the guy who wrote Beserk made an episode of Kim Possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

The only reset worth doing now IMO is something with alternating activations.

This!

People talk about alternating activations like it's this magic bullet that will instantly make 40k a far superior game but thanks to the way 40k armies are constructed currently, it either wouldn't work (if it was just a patch job) or it would require an even more radical change to the rules than we got from 7th to 8th.

It's also absolutely NOT guaranteed to be better than IGOUGO JUST because it's AA.

It's not a magic bullet, but it has advantages. Especially as GW tends to keep making their games increase in lethality. When you've fully alternate armies and one army can get into close combat in turn 1 and when the majority of killing can easily happen in turn 2 that produces a very swingy result where whoever gets the alpha-strike on the other tends to come out the winner. It means functionally that games can be "over" very early on and that the longer stretch of the game is more of a foregone conclusion.

At the most extreme you've got Age of Sigmar where you can even get two whole turn activations in a row; which unless you handle them badly/are a very unskilled player/bought a very poor army composition - you are generally going to win. If you lose you are generally highly miss-matched against your opponents skill and/or its late in the game and you've already lost. The only reason its not realised more is because, for some reason, AoS uses fully alternate activations in close combat resolution.


With a balance team who tends to err toward making things more powerful to deal with balance and making the game feel faster and faster; alternate activation unit by unit at least balances out the power of a single turn's impact. It removes the ability for one person to destroy another army in one swift motion. It honestly would work well with a high lethality game because it gives both sides an equal or even chance to be as lethal toward each other in one go.

Counter-Point to that last paragraph: That's only true if the ENTIRE game is built around it, and even then things can slip through the gaps.

Unit by unit AA favors 1 of 2 things depending on the way the game is built. It either favors extremely tall lists that have the fewest activations possible, or extremely wide lists that have the MOST activations possible.

Current AA games, notably Legion and MCP, have tons of mechanics meant to limit the variance created by these situations. In MCP it's rare to have more than 6 activations and impossible to have less than 2. You will also NEVER be in a position where you will be the last activation of a round and the first activation of the next round under normal rules. Legion activations range from 7-13 and the card system means you always have some opportunity to avoid a last-first. You also have Orders and the Stack which means you don't necessarily get to activate your units in the exact perfect order you want. You still end up with setups where only 1 activation really matters (palpatine) in these systems.

Now think about just slapping AA onto 40k. Going up against Knights, Custodes, or even some builds of Grey Knights is just IGOUGO but the Knight player ALWAYS goes first. Playing an extremely MSU list (25+ activations) just means that you don't really need to engage with your opponent's army. Hide for the first 10-15 activations then jump on objectives. Then for the next round you can just cycle retreats and jumping back onto objective and your opponent never has enough of your army in sight at one time to counter. Played perfectly, you can win games as they're currently designed without firing a single shot in those setups.

So depending on which one is favored you end up with Knights killing your entire army before a full quarter of yours has activated OR you end up with your opponent's 20 units of Hormagaunts dancing circles around you while you try desperately to kill at least one unit per activation just to give yourself a chance to score objectives.

AA has it's place and if the ENTIRE system is designed around it (and designed WELL) it can do a lot to make a game a more fair, more engaging experience. Just slapping AA on to current 40k and calling it a day would accomplish nothing.

New rumors appeared on Faeit212:

via solid sources here on Faeit 212

Warhammer 40k gets a hard reset at Summer next Year.

10th Edition will start with Index-like Codex Books.

GW will more streamline the ruleset and make it even easier. Unit Profiles will get simplified and the Armies will focused more on Themed Armies. Stratagems will play a bigger role in List build.

There will be no alternated unit activation but reaction from the HH ruleset comes over to 40k.

Space Marines will get split. "First Born" Marines will be not removed from 40k; thy remain as a sub faction for all Chapters. They will resupplied with HH Sets. We can await Marines in Mk5 and Mk7 Power Armour also for the M41. There will be seperate Codices for Primaris and Old Marines in the future.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2022/08/40k-rumors-reactions-and-future-of.html

lol?

I smell…….poo poo.

Nafka aka "we invent rumours to get clickbaits if nothing else".

So grain of salt needed.

Although I am drowning in salt at the Faeit thing I am wondering how they can simplify this any further. Only thing I can imagine is that they will use AoS as an inspiration and make wounding fixed like in AoS. Same goes for unit loadouts and size.

The only thing I am not a fan of in that rumor is heavier leaning on stratagems.

They could easily simplify by removing stratagems, removing sub faction rules etc(notice how in AOS they did just that. Now it's one optional rule and MAYBE some unit comes battleline but that's it), remove doctrines etc...

But if they were to keep stratagems lots of room to simplify does go away.

Yeah, simplifying the core ruleset and becoming more reliant on stratagems and themed armies feels like the exact opposite of what people generally want, and given GW are asking about stratagems in the questionnaires I don't expect them to double down on them.

And splitting up firstborn and Primaris feels very unlikely at this point. Maybe once significantly more characters have moved over and Primaris have jump packs, a quasi Land Raider and a Devastator equivalent, but not yet.

 The Phazer wrote:
Yeah, simplifying the core ruleset and becoming more reliant on stratagems and themed armies feels like the exact opposite of what people generally want, and given GW are asking about stratagems in the questionnaires I don't expect them to double down on them.

And splitting up firstborn and Primaris feels very unlikely at this point. Maybe once significantly more characters have moved over and Primaris have jump packs, a quasi Land Raider and a Devastator equivalent, but not yet.

Not that I'd put any stock in something coming from Faeit, but the convenient thing about this being a 10th ed rumor is that there's guaranteed to be a Marine update as part of the edition launch, so a lot of those things could get sorted out for Primaris with the launch box, starter set and/or miniature release accompanying the codex.

If there is a hard reset, it might even lead to another round of chapter supplements with accompanying characters.

Checking your tea leaves is probably more accurate than Faeit, but GW doubling down on stratagems does sound stupid enough to be true.

The focus on themed armies does sound like someone saw the Warmachine Mk4 reveals and thought "haha that would make for a spicy sounding 40k rumour lets steal that."

 Eldarsif wrote:
Although I am drowning in salt at the Faeit thing I am wondering how they can simplify this any further. Only thing I can imagine is that they will use AoS as an inspiration and make wounding fixed like in AoS. Same goes for unit loadouts and size.

The only thing I am not a fan of in that rumor is heavier leaning on stratagems.

Fixed wounding?!

Isn't going harder on strategems the exact opposite of what everyone wants?

Stratagems during list building are something I'd like to see more of. Less during the game itself, and more to add improvements to my units without necessarily changing the points cost.

You know, make Stratagems a Strategic resource, as their name would imply.

You mean like upgrades to models which we've had for years anyway.


I dislike the notion of shifting from upgrades to stratagems during building as I see it as another spread out of information. It's already bad enough but if you then go adding another few pages you have to keep cross referencing it just makes army buliding more a chore.

Armies are honestly no more complex to build now than they were in the past, but GW's information display is all over the place. Don't give them another layer.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Although I am drowning in salt at the Faeit thing I am wondering how they can simplify this any further. Only thing I can imagine is that they will use AoS as an inspiration and make wounding fixed like in AoS. Same goes for unit loadouts and size.

The only thing I am not a fan of in that rumor is heavier leaning on stratagems.

I can think of lots of simplifications I want.

Compress weapon profiles - no one cares if you have an axe or a sword or a maul, no one. Just take one look at the Plague Marine unit sheet and tell me we want or need half of the weapon 'options'.

Cut special unit rules - the IG Crusaders are a great example, dudes with shields and swords good! But also have a paragraph a special morale and anti psy powers that no one is going to remember.

Make infantry one wound - if you need to buff marines, make them T5, not two wounds. Now you don't have to roll for number of wounds when shooting the most common army in the game.

And that's off the top of my head for things that would make the game more fun, easier to learn, and faster. Which if course means GW won't do this. Ah well.

I'm just gonna use this as an excuse to post a rant about rules and complexity.

Codexes are built around datasheets, which are supposed to describe everything about a unit, but most of what determines whether it sucks or not isn’t even on there.

Let's work out something super basic like "how many shots do my Plague Marines have?"

1. Their guns are "Rapid Fire 2". Ok lets consult the main rulebook (I mean Wahpedia) on what that rule does.

2. Then look at my datasheet Abilites; "Malicious Volleys", lets look that up elsewhere in the book, and see that it modifies the Rapid Fire rule if I'm infantry and 'remained stationary', great.

3. Then look at my Detatchment Rules, which aren't mentioned on the datasheet and depend on my army composition: "Inexorable Advance" changes the definition of 'remains stationary' if I didn't Fall Back or Advance (but only for units with the Bubonic Astartes keyword).

40k has an insane divide between “stat block values” and “what a unit can realistically be expected to do in a game" and strategems and such only exacerbate it and make it more and more of a chore to play, the stat profiles don’t really mean anything and they barely give you a distinct purpose for the unit without the accompanying aura/ strat or faction rule. I basically have Wahapedia opened everytime I play nowadays. You shouldn't have to keep track of 5 books plus FAQs and still have to use 3rd party software to play a game.

This all makes me very nervous to buy the AM codex which is likely winter this year at the earliest. I mean I have gotten very good value out of the one by now (and surprisingly the Greater Good) but that doesn't offset lack of value the next one will provide if the big reset is true.

The big problem with the current edition from the point of view of a casual player who gets in about 1 game a month is the complexity and variety of buffs. This isn't just from stratagems but also army special abilities and unit special abilities that all interact and are easy to miss or not apply optimally. It also makes understanding your opponents army very hard if you don't play regularly, I try and skim an opponents units when we organise to play but there is no way I have the time to learn their codex. As such what I think is a dangerous unit and what actually is dangerous tends to be wildly different and leads to a lot of gotcha moments (not the fault of my opponent I would add).

If they did a smaller reset where they said the unit stat lines remained the same but they stripped out all army specific strats and moved to a rule book set available to all that would go a long way to helping. Leave units abilities purely to those that perform functions but not buffs (ie keep something like Explodes but not Rites of Battle). Only thing left would be army abilities (Regimental Orders, Miracle Dice, etc) these I would keep as the way to insert some individuality into an army but would be more important as they would be the only thing you had on top of the core rules. They would also be easier for an opponent to understand as they wouldn't have to also know all your individual strats.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
You shouldn't have to keep track of 5 books plus FAQs and still have to use 3rd party software to play a game.

We were typing at the same time but your post exactly sums up what I was trying to get at. The stats block has little to no bearing to what happens by the time you end up actually rolling dice and there are too many rules sources to be able to make one roll.

Honestly, cleaning up gun types would do a lot. They're basically legacy relics that largely don't do what they used to do when they were defined in 3rd edition.

pistols don't grant extra attacks, assault weapons don't allow shoot and charge, heavy doesn't disallow move and shoot, and rapid fire might as well be a straight value at this point (no conditions), not a marine-only thing.

Scrapping the types for something simple and obvious would be fine. Just give range and a fixed rate of fire, and maybe some special rules about shooting in combat if they're really necessary.