WARCOM: basic 40k SURVEY! - discussion

[phandaal]

No, I understand that. I'm simply pointing out how the community is happy to complain about any number of things, but unwilling to take ownership of their own gaming experience.

 

Remember that the game of 40k involves an un-written social contract between players to have a good time. There is nothing preventing people from saying no to the use of stratagems, or imposing limits on mortal wounds, etc etc

 

The core rules of 40k are very, very simple. The basic rules of each faction are also pretty straight-forward. We chose how many layers we apply the game, and it seems that people are applying every layer available by choice, and then complaining about it. I'm talking about casual gaming outside of a tournament, to be clear.

 

 

You're right. Even if they created a 4th tier of the game, a step up from matched-play, as you call it: "tournament play" I imagine people will simply move on to that.

 

The community doesn't have the restraint or will to take ownership of their own enjoyment, unfortunately. I think we can be pretty certain of that by observing the last x amount of years.

 

It is not about restraint, willpower, or ownership. We all know that anyone can decide to play 40k with any combination of rules they desire.

 

People are going to use the ruleset they think will give them the best chance of finding someone to play the game with.

 

That means using a ruleset that most other people will have on their bookshelf, in the game mode that most people expect to play.

 

That is why people buy rulebooks in the first place. That is also why Games Workshop seems to have received the feedback they did in this survey - because people want that common ruleset to be better.

Edited November 10, 2021 by phandaal

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

Key part of the survey I ensured I ticked several times at different sections was how it wasn't an easy game to play, is too complicated and generally not user friendly. Casual gamers just can't easily pick it up and play a game quickly and easily without loads of prep.

OK for gamers like me who do things non-stop but my gaming group is dwindling because of the difficulties in learning and retaining the rules on a casual basis.

Though that's more due to the faction rules bloat, no?

 

 

I don't think you can just separate out the fraction bloat though. I mean the survey never really asked about what we thought of the base rules. It was asking about our experiences which for the vast majority of us will include the "fraction bloat". The closest they came was the army construction rules. Even with those I think you can make an argument that they aren't core rules because they weren't reprinted in the GT mission packs. If you downloaded the rules I'm not sure if you would even have them.

 

No, I understand that. I'm simply pointing out how the community is happy to complain about any number of things, but unwilling to take ownership of their own gaming experience.

 

Remember that the game of 40k involves an un-written social contract between players to have a good time. There is nothing preventing people from saying no to the use of stratagems, or imposing limits on mortal wounds, etc etc

 

The core rules of 40k are very, very simple. The basic rules of each faction are also pretty straight-forward. We chose how many layers we apply the game, and it seems that people are applying every layer available by choice, and then complaining about it. I'm talking about casual gaming outside of a tournament, to be clear.

 

I think most of do take ownership in our casual games though. When I play brothers black legion we use the new rules for forge fiends, and mauler fiends in the TS book, and I've offered to give him an extra wound at 4pts a model (which seems to be the going rate for a wound).  That said the stratagems feel baked in enough that taking them out would hurt the matchup more than leaving them in. I don't have to like something I see as a necessary evil, at the same time we don't want to change the game to much and play wrong in an event or against someone else who likes different things about the game than we do.

[Captain Idaho]

Though that's more due to the faction rules bloat, no?

*Warning! Monologue incoming*

 

In part yes but also the mess that is the lack of universal rules. Sure, having all the rules on the datasheet is something I want, it makes it easier to find, but I mean why does every single unit have completely new and different wargear or weapons or rules that add little to the game but are something new to remember?

 

As an example, why do we need 6 types of bolters in the Primaris line? Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers all have their own bolters.

 

Why do we need Las-talons when they can just be Lascannons?

 

All the extra special rules too, it's just painful. And Strategums. And Secondaries. And Missions.

 

It's a little too messy right now. I like 40K and can keep up with my armies, but gone are the days I can keep up with other factions. My friends struggle with their own factions.

 

And ultimately, when a game becomes hard work it ceases to be worth playing to many.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Orange Knight]

There are positives and negatives. Units with individual rules and wargear can be adjusted independently without affecting others.

 

When Aggressors were nerfed in the last codex it had no impact on other units.

 

I see no issue regarding the Las Talon. It has a significantly different profile from a Las Cannon with twice the shots at half the range.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah but when has the positive to adjustments the rules and wargear on an individual basis per datasheet been done? What real changes do we get that they don't just do on ab FAQ anyway?

 

Besides, regardless of that it's outweighed by the weight of knowledge burden on the player. Sure a single Lastalon isn't an issue. Or a single different bolter. Or a secondary or 2. It's when you list ALL of those things together and expect us to get a new player to play without being overwhelmed.

[Noserenda]

I mean, we had that at the start of 3rd and it was dreadfully boring, even psychic powers were just lascannons...

Different weapons are fine, they look different, they act different, they do different jobs. Just like different statlines. (One of the big positives this edition is them doing things with statlines)

In theory yes its more load, but its a little tiny bit of load compared to the swathes coming in from special rules and the like, especially when that then goes and modifies all the rules again.

Plus, you still have the option of sticking with the old Hobbit marines if you want just one type of small arm.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

All the extra special rules too, it's just painful. And Strategums. And Secondaries. And Missions.

 

It's a little too messy right now. I like 40K and can keep up with my armies, but gone are the days I can keep up with other factions. My friends struggle with their own factions.

 

And ultimately, when a game becomes hard work it ceases to be worth playing to many.

 

 

So this is it right here: you aren't SUPPOSED to keep up with every army. You're supposed to go deep, deep, deep into the uniqueness and character of the army that YOU play, while your opponent does the same with the army that THEY play.

 

Now let me walk that back a bit and expand:

 

I understand the appeal of playing competitively enough that you want to know exactly how your opponent's army works and plan EXACTLY the right move based on that information. I get it. It's valid. What's more, a great many wargames are based on this paradigm. I've heard great things from people who share your point of view and play style about Dust, or Chain of Command. Wargamers LOVE this style of play- it's fun, it's valid and it is the default wargame archetype.

 

But that would bore ME to tears. Because I am a RPG/ CCG fan who has wanted this much detail out of 40k since I fell in love with the lore in 1989.

 

I like to know the name and history of every model in my army, and to me, which of the six bolter variants they use is a part of their identity. I LOVE this version of the game- it's the first where Order of Our Martyred Lady hasn't played exactly like Argent Shroud.

 

You see, for me, the first seven editions of the game ALWAYS felt like the game feels for you now, because I always had to put up with ENDLESS VARIETY from Space Marines, while all the parts of the game that I liked got stuck with sameness. Look at all of those Space Wolves, who are totally different from all those Blood Angels who are totally different from all those Dark Angels- so different in fact that they needed separate books for six editions of the game, while my armies MIGHT be lucky enough to get some special rules for an edition only to lose them in the next while the Marine Machine rolled on.

 

I'm so glad that the diversity Marines have enjoyed since 2nd ed has finally come to everybody. And while balance and the ability to know ALL the rules have some value that I can appreciate, they've never been my priorities.

 

You and I just want different things from the game. I recognize the validity of your point of view, and your preferred play style. I even recognize that there are likely more people who want what you want- certainly those tend to be the folks who post on forums. I don't expect anyone to suddenly start wanting different things from the game- the heart wants what it wants. I do, however, wish the internet could recognise the validity of the things I and many other players want from the game.

 

Someone else had suggested elsewhere that increasing the divide between Matched and Crusade might be the way to keep everyone happy- kinda like old KT had an Arena version optimized for balance; I wouldn't object to that. Us Ubernerds who have always been waiting for the RPG elements of 40k to come to the light could keep what we've got, and those who want a balanced and competitive platform more in line with conventional wargames could go back to what they loved about whichever of the previous seven versions of the game they preferred- in my world view, all of our preferences are valid despite their incompatibility, and everyone deserves to be happy.

 

And I've resigned myself to to the fact that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that GW will ever adopt a persistent edition. When the next big shift comes, I'm sure GW will go back to 40k's archetypal wargame roots and the thing that I love will die. I'm stockpiling 9th ed material so that I can just play this version of the game for the rest of my life, because for me, this IS peak 40k, and the only way it can go from here is down.

 

I just hope that GW doesn't choose this edition to return the most egregious practice of editions past- that of flipping the edition before EVERY faction gets a book. I've still not forgiven the company for never publishing Alien Hunters to complete the trifecta of the most perfect implementation of the Inquisition that 40k has ever seen. This fear is why threads like this tend to make me uncomfortable- I see the groundswell of dissatisfaction growing, and I can't shake the feeling that the pendulum is about to swing back the other way before I get to the end of the source material for my forever game. 

[Panzer]

 

No, I understand that. I'm simply pointing out how the community is happy to complain about any number of things, but unwilling to take ownership of their own gaming experience.

 

Remember that the game of 40k involves an un-written social contract between players to have a good time. There is nothing preventing people from saying no to the use of stratagems, or imposing limits on mortal wounds, etc etc

 

The core rules of 40k are very, very simple. The basic rules of each faction are also pretty straight-forward. We chose how many layers we apply the game, and it seems that people are applying every layer available by choice, and then complaining about it. I'm talking about casual gaming outside of a tournament, to be clear.

 

 

You're right. Even if they created a 4th tier of the game, a step up from matched-play, as you call it: "tournament play" I imagine people will simply move on to that.

 

The community doesn't have the restraint or will to take ownership of their own enjoyment, unfortunately. I think we can be pretty certain of that by observing the last x amount of years.

 

It is not about restraint, willpower, or ownership. We all know that anyone can decide to play 40k with any combination of rules they desire.

 

People are going to use the ruleset they think will give them the best chance of finding someone to play the game with.

 

That means using a ruleset that most other people will have on their bookshelf, in the game mode that most people expect to play.

 

That is why people buy rulebooks in the first place. That is also why Games Workshop seems to have received the feedback they did in this survey - because people want that common ruleset to be better.

 

 

Not just the best chance of finding someone to play with but also one that is as fair as possible and also requirering as little pre-game communication as possible.

Can you talk about every rule and mechanic before the game begins and thus creating a better game experience than GW did? Sure. Nobody really wants to go through that process all the time though. The game already takes enough time just playing it as it is and lots of people play against strangers in shops that may not understand why you're in favour of some of the changes so you'd need even more time explaining those (usually that's the point where strangers just nope out of it and play with someone else instead).

It happens to some degree, it's called houserules, but it's really limited in how much you can do it without it devolving into some kind of rules argument for a few hours instead of playing the game and every houserule you implement makes it harder for new players to join the club.

[Panzer]

 

 

All the extra special rules too, it's just painful. And Strategums. And Secondaries. And Missions.

 

It's a little too messy right now. I like 40K and can keep up with my armies, but gone are the days I can keep up with other factions. My friends struggle with their own factions.

 

And ultimately, when a game becomes hard work it ceases to be worth playing to many.

 

 

So this is it right here: you aren't SUPPOSED to keep up with every army. You're supposed to go deep, deep, deep into the uniqueness and character of the army that YOU play, while your opponent does the same with the army that THEY play.

 

 

The problem with that though is that it creates lots of "gotcha!" moments which just aren't very fun even in casual play. Even if it's as simple as expected damage returned to your unit. I can't tell you how often I got caught on the wrong foot against AdMech because one of the units suddenly started hitting on 2+ with re-rolls, additional hits and whatnot.

[phandaal]

Not just the best chance of finding someone to play with but also one that is as fair as possible and also requirering as little pre-game communication as possible.

Can you talk about every rule and mechanic before the game begins and thus creating a better game experience than GW did? Sure. Nobody really wants to go through that process all the time though. The game already takes enough time just playing it as it is and lots of people play against strangers in shops that may not understand why you're in favour of some of the changes so you'd need even more time explaining those (usually that's the point where strangers just nope out of it and play with someone else instead).

It happens to some degree, it's called houserules, but it's really limited in how much you can do it without it devolving into some kind of rules argument for a few hours instead of playing the game and every houserule you implement makes it harder for new players to join the club.

Exactly.

[Orange Knight]

I do agree but we should keep in mind that a game of 40k can take hours. Players sacrifice a lot of their time and often travel at a cost just to play.

 

Are we saying that we're happy to spend hours playing an unsatisfying game because we don't want to spend minutes discussing the terms of the experience?

 

I do feel that this is a shortcoming in the wider community, and again, it does come down to lack of player agency for one personal reason or another. Maybe people aren't confident to express what they want or can't defend their point of view eloquently.

 

There are players who are thrilled with a constantly shifting meta, fast updates and changes to factions whilst others struggle to follow this. It's why GW will likely never create a system that everyone is perfectly happy with, and why I maintain that the community needs to learn to cater the game to what the individuals partaking in it are looking for. The rules and systems are all there, from the most basic to the most complex.

[phandaal]

I do agree but we should keep in mind that a game of 40k can take hours. Players sacrifice a lot of their time and often travel at a cost just to play.

 

Are we saying that we're happy to spend hours playing an unsatisfying game because we don't want to spend minutes discussing the terms of the experience?

No, no one is saying that, because it is a kind of silly misrepresentation of the situation - again.

 

I do feel that this is a shortcoming in the wider community, and again, it does come down to lack of player agency for one personal reason or another. Maybe people aren't confident to express what they want or can't defend their point of view eloquently.

 

There are players who are thrilled with a constantly shifting meta, fast updates and changes to factions whilst others struggle to follow this. It's why GW will likely never create a system that everyone is perfectly happy with, and why I maintain that the community needs to learn to cater the game to what the individuals partaking in it are looking for. The rules and systems are all there, from the most basic to the most complex.

Okie Dokie. Once GW comes out with a new edition addressing some people's concerns with what has happened so far in 9th edition, we can come back and blame the customers some more. Deal?

[Orange Knight]

I'm not blaming anyone. GW can create tighter and more balanced rules, and individual players can do more to facilitate the kind of game they want to play.

 

Everyone can take ownership. Right now people just point fingers because they're unwilling to put in the effort to create the experience they want.

 

You might not like some aspects of the current game, but it doesn't benefit you to simply wait for GW to fix them when the possibility exists to cater the game to your liking.

I'm only saying this in response to people who claim they have no interest in the game right now, or have stopped playing it, or are finding little to no enjoyment. They've chosen to check out instead of simply discussing things with a like minded player.

 

Remember that it's equally likely that the people who enjoy the game currently are the ones who spend the most on it. Meta chasers shift and swap armies regularly as the game evolves. They like to do so, and they spend the money doing it.

I'm not one of these people but GW will keep their spending in mind. I'm simply realistic about the prospect of a system that makes everyone happy, and am aware of the fact that they have created different tiers of rules that the community is choosing to ignore.

 

I think the simple fact that people get defensive about the idea of even discussing the type of game they want to play is an indication that the community does add to it's own displeasure.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Orange Knight

[Captain Idaho]

 

All the extra special rules too, it's just painful. And Strategums. And Secondaries. And Missions.

It's a little too messy right now. I like 40K and can keep up with my armies, but gone are the days I can keep up with other factions. My friends struggle with their own factions.

And ultimately, when a game becomes hard work it ceases to be worth playing to many.

 

 

So this is it right here: you aren't SUPPOSED to keep up with every army. You're supposed to go deep, deep, deep into the uniqueness and character of the army that YOU play, while your opponent does the same with the army that THEY play.

 

Now let me walk that back a bit and expand:

 

I understand the appeal of playing competitively enough that you want to know exactly how your opponent's army works and plan EXACTLY the right move based on that information. I get it. It's valid. What's more, a great many wargames are based on this paradigm. I've heard great things from people who share your point of view and play style about Dust, or Chain of Command. Wargamers LOVE this style of play- it's fun, it's valid and it is the default wargame archetype.

 

But that would bore ME to tears. Because I am a RPG/ CCG fan who has wanted this much detail out of 40k since I fell in love with the lore in 1989.

 

I like to know the name and history of every model in my army, and to me, which of the six bolter variants they use is a part of their identity. I LOVE this version of the game- it's the first where Order of Our Martyred Lady hasn't played exactly like Argent Shroud.

 

You see, for me, the first seven editions of the game ALWAYS felt like the game feels for you now, because I always had to put up with ENDLESS VARIETY from Space Marines, while all the parts of the game that I liked got stuck with sameness. Look at all of those Space Wolves, who are totally different from all those Blood Angels who are totally different from all those Dark Angels- so different in fact that they needed separate books for six editions of the game, while my armies MIGHT be lucky enough to get some special rules for an edition only to lose them in the next while the Marine Machine rolled on.

 

I'm so glad that the diversity Marines have enjoyed since 2nd ed has finally come to everybody. And while balance and the ability to know ALL the rules have some value that I can appreciate, they've never been my priorities.

 

You and I just want different things from the game. I recognize the validity of your point of view, and your preferred play style. I even recognize that there are likely more people who want what you want- certainly those tend to be the folks who post on forums. I don't expect anyone to suddenly start wanting different things from the game- the heart wants what it wants. I do, however, wish the internet could recognise the validity of the things I and many other players want from the game.

 

Someone else had suggested elsewhere that increasing the divide between Matched and Crusade might be the way to keep everyone happy- kinda like old KT had an Arena version optimized for balance; I wouldn't object to that. Us Ubernerds who have always been waiting for the RPG elements of 40k to come to the light could keep what we've got, and those who want a balanced and competitive platform more in line with conventional wargames could go back to what they loved about whichever of the previous seven versions of the game they preferred- in my world view, all of our preferences are valid despite their incompatibility, and everyone deserves to be happy.

 

And I've resigned myself to to the fact that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that GW will ever adopt a persistent edition. When the next big shift comes, I'm sure GW will go back to 40k's archetypal wargame roots and the thing that I love will die. I'm stockpiling 9th ed material so that I can just play this version of the game for the rest of my life, because for me, this IS peak 40k, and the only way it can go from here is down.

 

I just hope that GW doesn't choose this edition to return the most egregious practice of editions past- that of flipping the edition before EVERY faction gets a book. I've still not forgiven the company for never publishing Alien Hunters to complete the trifecta of the most perfect implementation of the Inquisition that 40k has ever seen. This fear is why threads like this tend to make me uncomfortable- I see the groundswell of dissatisfaction growing, and I can't shake the feeling that the pendulum is about to swing back the other way before I get to the end of the source material for my forever game.

See, what you've done here is focus on one part of a broader statement and position. I didn't say the extensive rules preventing me from keeping up with every army is the problem. I said it was a result of the problem alongside a whole swathe of problems.

 

Including but not limited to:

 

• Harder to pick up due to the multitude of "exceptions" and rules and differing weapons that do mostly the same effect.

 

• Longer games because of more book keeping, which is wasted time.

 

• So much to remember folk can't remember the stats of their datasheets, requiring page flipping and more time out from playing.

 

• Many players switching off the game because it takes too much work to play or remember.

 

And on.

[phandaal]

I think the simple fact that people get defensive about the idea of even discussing the type of game they want to play is an indication that the community does add to it's own displeasure.

 

I actually do arrange the type of game I would like to play beforehand, specifically because I do not enjoy playing with every layer of rules. And I have said elsewhere that 9th edition is a solid set of core rules and most problems are due to things stuck on top of those rules. I did not mention that up front in this thread because this is not really about me.

 

It is possible for someone to play the game one way and still understand why other people want to approach the game differently. People have valid reasons for not creating their own new ruleset before they get into a pickup game - reasons which have been spelled out in detail in this thread several times now.

 

In any case, this is veering off topic now and we have both said our bit.

[Doctor Perils]

@Orange Knight: I get that you feel people can just have a quick chat to come to an understanding that will help play the game they want to play. Unfortunately, even among friends you can't always come to an understanding. Sometimes what you need changing to have a good experience requires changing half the rules of the game, or cutting out swathes of a faction's rules, etc. As you say that takes effort, probably more than just a few minutes, with no guarantee of an agreement, and no guarantee of any form of a balanced match. And remember, these rules aren't a freely downloadable PDF, they come in large expensive books which already take effort to read and learn. And there are more coming out every month, so then you have to go through the same rigmarole for the new stuff that's come out...

In the end, it all comes down to, as you said, if you're willing to put the effort in. For most people, no they probably aren't, and frankly they shouldn't need to considering how much we pay GW for the product.

 

@Penitent One: I love your way of interacting with the lore and the game. However, judging with people online you are in the minority to play this way, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to wish GW to release products that fit closer to their own needs (just like you are doing with 9th)

Further, the level of detail you are suggesting can be awesome... In a detailed skirmish game or an RPG. In a game of the scale of 40k, I don't believe my Godwyn bolter should act differently to your tigrus bolter, and my mkVI helm probably shouldn't give me more advanced sensors than your sisters' Ecclesiarchy PA helmets - those distinctions should definitely exist, they give depth and flavour to the setting, but they don't really do much for the playability of the game. An auto-bolt-rifle and a bolt-rifle both look extremely similar (I still don't know if I'd be able to tell them apart on a model), and there is essentially no lore behind them... And yet they get different weapon profiles? In a 2k point game, its detail that bogs the game down, but also makes it a more difficult game to balance from the developer's point of view; all the while offering very little thematically

[Interrogator Stobz]

It's crazy that GW have had 9 Editions and 30 years to get their main game right.

They nailed AT18 and to a large extent KT21 proving they can do it right. But they don't.

I think these surveys whilst a show of good faith are trying to design a game by committee and passing responsibility onto players instead of them using their obvious expertise to create a solid and enduring core ruleset.

 

The great thing about AT18 and KT21 is not needing codex equivalents (until they wreck that through their book selling greed too).

All the bloat that many people have commented on is there in the Dexes, that needs addressing badly.

Either simplified key words or a brutal streamlining ala 2nd-3rd Ed to encourage scaling the game up.

 

The best thing about AT18 and KT21 is they hit the sweet spot for complexity, there is tonnes of room for personality but are easy to pick up and play every couple of months without masses of study.

40k should be the same just using units instead of individual minis.

[Interrogator Stobz]

As Dr Perils rightly alludes to, the more units on the table, the less variables in rules are needed.

[Noserenda]

I mean you cant honestly think that the nine versions of 40k have all been working to the same brief, trying to perfect the same system? Even inside the various rules eras there are definitely different ideas at play, different directions being taken and not always for the better as it turned out, like the long downward spiral from 5th to a nadir in 7th. Really you are looking at four, possibly five wargames using the same branding (And its debateable whether 1st is really a wargame) but which have very different visions of how to use the framework.

AT is definitely great, but thats essentially one mans vision with some editorial input, which means its a lot more marmite than something like 40k, which is developed by teams of developers, over a longer period and with considerably more oversight. Its essentially comparing a fancy store brand sausage to something made at a quality butchers, they have similar end products but very different productions.

The Bolt rifle is also a Spectacularly bad choice of weapon variant to pick on if you actually understood how they work in the framework of the game too. They are fairly obviously different side by side and make a significant difference to how the Intercessor unit moves on the table, which can suit different playstyles and what jobs its best for. It feels like saying there is no difference between a tactical squad with a flamer, or one with a plasma gun. 

Im usually one to straight dislike extra rules for the sake of it but simply changing the weapon type of broadly the same bolter is a lot of bang for minimal buck, which is good :) 

[Interrogator Stobz]

I didn't say anything like your first paragraph.

They have proven that today they can write tight and effective rules and don't.

 

They also don't have to appeal to everyone, that is also not what I said.

Looking at the replies to this survey they have missed the mark for a large proportion of players yet again.

 

Different people are always going to like different things, that's great, but every single Edition of this game has had major faults and all those faults have been exaggerated by the codexes.

 

The common denominator is writing by committee.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Interrogator Stobz

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The new faq comes shortly after Orks win the SoCal Open while months went by with little done about admech or Drukhari. To me the faq is more of a feel good than a deep fix. It is a good start though so will have to see what comes of it. All we need now is another OP codex.

[Doctor Perils]

The Bolt rifle is also a Spectacularly bad choice of weapon variant to pick on if you actually understood how they work in the framework of the game too. They are fairly obviously different side by side and make a significant difference to how the Intercessor unit moves on the table, which can suit different playstyles and what jobs its best for. It feels like saying there is no difference between a tactical squad with a flamer, or one with a plasma gun.

 

Im usually one to straight dislike extra rules for the sake of it but simply changing the weapon type of broadly the same bolter is a lot of bang for minimal buck, which is good :)

Ok, I mean that's fair, but on the other hand, for someone getting into the game, who isn't necessarily used to seeing Primaris opposite them on the table, the visual similarity and the similarity in names make them very difficult to distinguish - again, leading to feel bad moments when this squad works completely differently from this other squad despite looking essentially identical. That's without the possibility of a new primaris player not realising the difference in models and slapping on the weapon variant they think looks cool, and being told off for not being WYSIWYG.

 

Yes I'm moving the goal posts from not great unit rules design to not great model design

[Dark Shepherd]

The new faq comes shortly after Orks win the SoCal Open while months went by with little done about admech or Drukhari. To me the faq is more of a feel good than a deep fix. It is a good start though so will have to see what comes of it. All we need now is another OP codex.

Id cut them some slack over covid. Without it we'd have had far more tournament data sooner, plus more codexes and sooner too to feed into said data

 

A more general patch/solution could be limit of one sub faction per army (or else you lose benefits)

 

Some slack, not a lot

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

?

[chapter master 454]

I believe people like the game is be simply complex but the complexity in the simplicity. So far, any idea of going simpler is often a bad idea is universally panned by many. I point to fighting games as an example with the buzzword "accessible" being a major sticking point.

 

Sometimes, this is fine. Guilty Gear going from Xrd to Strive managed to simplify the systems from what they were and made them far more manageable to learn, understand and get into the game. However that was coming from a game with a lot of niche of just simply unfun mechanics that were there for there sake. For 8th and 9th, built under the what I would consider the "great rebuild" of 40k, 8th was a simple mess with many a mess made by simple things. However it laid the foundation for the game going into 9th which now needs to handle its own problems and one of those that it inherited imo for rules bloat...is more just datasheet bloat.

 

People have said it before: Universal Special Rules in 7th was a sheer cliff of mess. I remember 4th edition USR where it was only 2 pages or so worth, by 7th it had become nearly an entire chapter of rules that really weren't Universal.

I think the shift to what we have now is the polar opposite of what we used to have. Instead of having USR, we now have all these unique special rules which the community has just by way of organising things have figured to just call them by their more common names of prior editions. Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, Sniper. These words all have meaning. Acute Senses...didn't.

I feel that would be a point to improve. Return Universal Special Rules, return that section. However only have truly universal things in there that most armies have. Deep Strike is common, Infiltrate is common, Scout is common and Sniper is common. Others? Camouflage could be argued.

These would be common rules that since present in the main rule book would inform a new player that these are common mechanics to watch for. These are good to know that they are so common that even the rulebook for all has them listed (though maybe add a note that some armies and factions may have variants of these rules so be careful and read the rules carefully, remember that Codex over Rulebook).

From there you can then have each faction have their own section for Factional Special Rules. This section would list rules that are common for this army to have and tell you what it is. However you can add a note to say that this section while Factional does not mean these rules may be 100% unique to your faction, some may have this as well (For example, you would expect Tyranids and Orks to likely share a few "universal special rules" just by nature of being hordes).

This would enable the writers to short hand the datasheets more effectively if space is at a premium and allow actual special rules to be obvious to players which units may have unique tricks. Nothing feels worse than reading a unit's wall of text to basically find out they are just a vanilla deep striking shooting unit or charging unit when you though they had something unique. It also allows the writers that when a unit DOES have a unique version of a rule that is normally Universal, it can be highlighted by the fact it has text and even a fancy name though it functions much like the parent ability.

 

I feel 40k right now is rebuilding a lot of what was good from prior editions while trying to move forward and progress. Some tools need reacquiring and figuring out.