goonhammer article on 40k - that it's overwhelming now

[phandaal]

Definitely agree to everything they mention.

 

However, I don't think not keeping up with it for months makes you totally lost if you're not playing competitive 40k. From my perspective, we still have a marked improvement from 8E.

 

 

 

That is how I play these days. Open War deck, matched points, matched play list building rules. Maybe use a mission from a Crusade pack for something even more narrative.

 

It is also interesting how much things are streamlined when you take away secondary objectives.

 

That's how I play as well, although sometimes just picking a mission out of a book vs the deck, and everything has been smooth sailing since the 9E launch. I personally think everything is pretty good for that kind of play right now, which is why I'd rather see them address problem areas elsewhere at least for a while vs starting a new edition.

Yeah 9th feels like a good game at its core. If some of the more egregious layers of complexity can be toned down it will be even better.

[Panzer]

It's not the game, it's the time we're willing to invest in it.  But that's true of anything, golfing, dancing, woodworking, programming, running, weight lifting, sewing, healthy eating, etc.  You get out of it what you put into it.

 

USRs have their own issues, print them in 1 place, and people have to look in 2 books vs. print them everywhere, then every codex needs an update whenever a USR gets updated, and people will complain about both. 

 

There's also trade offs between layers of rules and getting unique factions and subfactions.  I don't want my space wolves to be identical or Khorne Berzerkers, or Blood Angels to be SWs with jump packs.  I also want my Cadians to be different enough than Catachans (which I get today).  Ya, they all have lasguns, but they feel and play differently.

 

Personally, I love secondaries.  When I started in 2nd editions (only played 1 game of RT), it was just 1 - build your army (5 minutes), 2 - slam together, last man standing wins.  With overwatch, everybody stayed hidden all game because anything that moved got shot off the board.  Now, you have to come out and engage.  You have to plan ahead multiple turns, plan your movement, plan your shooting, etc.  You even have to plan ahead during list construction now.  The game rewards the more time you spend in it. 

 

So everything is a trade off.  Custom look and feel vs. Generic.  Interactive vs. Non-interactive. 

 

But the singular largest problem is players wanting to change the game *for everybody* to meet their particular (peculiar?) wants/wishes/desires.  You hear this in video games all the time.  90% of the players think they should be in the top 5%.   But they want to be in the top 5% without putting in the time and practice to be in the top 5%. 

 

Rather than trying to force GW to drop strats for everybody, find a group/game that doesn't want to use strats and drop them.  Don't want secondaries?  Find a group/game that doesn't want to use them and then don't.  Honestly, for learning games, I only recommend using 1 secondary each.  Then bump up as you get comfortable.

 

I had a learning game with a new army yesterday.  It was my opponent's 2nd game with his army.  We hardly got anything right.  Next game, I'm going to do better now that I've realized a lot of what I did wrong.  Next game, I'll use better strats, better unit usage, etc.  We both had a lot of fun, and spent about a half an hour talking over what went right and what went wrong. 

 

It's not the game, it's the time I'm willing to invest in it. 

 

That's a very black&white way to view things. There's lots of legit criticism that shouldn't just get waved away. Just because something exists it doesn't mean it's good or can't get improved. More isn't always better. Likewise, just because people criticize the current state it doesn't mean they want to get rid of everything and return to 2nd edition or whatever.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Panzer

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Brainpsyk - I think the problem with your argument is summed by your last point "It's not the game, it's the time I'm willing to invest in it." Your 100 percent entitled to like the current direction of the game, and your opinion is just as valid as mine and you should share it because your happy with it. That said why should someone invest time into a system where they don't like the end point? Why shouldn't they complain about the things that aren't worth it to them? They're entitled to that opinion as well and should be vocal about it.

 

40k isn't a game for people who aren't willing to invest time, just the modelling aspects alone are a large commitment. Players having strong opinions should just be accepted, because we all have a lot of time spent with this hobby. 

 

I like playing 2d fighting games, and large trend in the industry has been accessibility. There are a lot of diehards who don't like this trend, but the industry does it for a simple reason they're selling more copies of games. That said if you follow the FCG the same names are still winning even though the systems are simpler, you just have more players that feel like they're getting their monies worth.

 

 

[Halandaar]

It's not the game, it's the time we're willing to invest in it.  But that's true of anything, golfing, dancing, woodworking, programming, running, weight lifting, sewing, healthy eating, etc.  You get out of it what you put into it.

 

USRs have their own issues, print them in 1 place, and people have to look in 2 books vs. print them everywhere, then every codex needs an update whenever a USR gets updated, and people will complain about both. 

 

There's also trade offs between layers of rules and getting unique factions and subfactions.  I don't want my space wolves to be identical or Khorne Berzerkers, or Blood Angels to be SWs with jump packs.  I also want my Cadians to be different enough than Catachans (which I get today).  Ya, they all have lasguns, but they feel and play differently.

 

Personally, I love secondaries.  When I started in 2nd editions (only played 1 game of RT), it was just 1 - build your army (5 minutes), 2 - slam together, last man standing wins.  With overwatch, everybody stayed hidden all game because anything that moved got shot off the board.  Now, you have to come out and engage.  You have to plan ahead multiple turns, plan your movement, plan your shooting, etc.  You even have to plan ahead during list construction now.  The game rewards the more time you spend in it. 

 

So everything is a trade off.  Custom look and feel vs. Generic.  Interactive vs. Non-interactive. 

 

But the singular largest problem is players wanting to change the game *for everybody* to meet their particular (peculiar?) wants/wishes/desires.  You hear this in video games all the time.  90% of the players think they should be in the top 5%.   But they want to be in the top 5% without putting in the time and practice to be in the top 5%. 

 

Rather than trying to force GW to drop strats for everybody, find a group/game that doesn't want to use strats and drop them.  Don't want secondaries?  Find a group/game that doesn't want to use them and then don't.  Honestly, for learning games, I only recommend using 1 secondary each.  Then bump up as you get comfortable.

 

I had a learning game with a new army yesterday.  It was my opponent's 2nd game with his army.  We hardly got anything right.  Next game, I'm going to do better now that I've realized a lot of what I did wrong.  Next game, I'll use better strats, better unit usage, etc.  We both had a lot of fun, and spent about a half an hour talking over what went right and what went wrong. 

 

It's not the game, it's the time I'm willing to invest in it.

 

You can't boil down every criticism of the game in this thread to "people can't be bothered to make the effort"; I absolutely agree that with any game you will get more out of it with more time and effort invested, but equally the game should respect that time and effort, and not needlessly add work/effort/memory/bookkeeping where it isn't required, or where it adds little or nothing to the experience.

 

One of the things being cited here as an issue is needless duplication, and there is a clear example in Codex Space Marines, p125. You have two rules, Death From Above and Teleport Strike. They are the same rule. Why does it need printing twice under two names? If the two functioned differently (let's say Teleports allow you to deploy inside buildings, but DfA only on surfaces that are visible from the sky) then there would be a justification for them being different. But there is absolutely no difference in the way the two work, all it does it require me to read twice as much text and keep space in my brain for the definitions of 2 rules rather than one. 

 

You could quite easily say "oh it's just one thing what's the big deal", but this same rule has a different name in multiple different Codexes, from Dimensional Translocation and Sky Strike to Thermal Riders and Winged Strike. So every time I read a new datasheet or play a faction I haven't faced before, I am forced to look up the definition of yet another phrase which means the same thing. I don't gain anything from that extra effort, the game isn't improved by the extra effort, it's not even really a lore hook, it's just a pointless waste of everybody's time and limited memory capacity. This is just one example. Every ability that lets you ignore an unsaved wound doesn't need to have a different name, every ability that reduces damage by 1 doesn't need a different name, none of that adds any enjoyment or nuance or skill to the game, it simply adds work for it's own sake.

 

Stratagems is a whole different topic but it has similar issues whereby work has been created for players (memory/referencing/bookkeeping) that was not necessary, especially where unit abilities have been removed from the units they belonged to and then turned into stratagems which do the same thing, and still only apply to that single unit. Why does an ability that only applies to Whirlwinds belong anywhere except on the Whirlwind's datasheet? Instead of referencing one page of rules, we're now referencing two. Instead of managing one currency (points), we're now managing two (points and CP). It's twice the work for the same in-game benefit. 

 

This is the sort of thing people object to; not that effort is required, but that the amount of effort expended to achieve the same thing could be less with no downside at all.

[WrathOfTheLion]

There are strategems scoped to Teleport Strike and possibly to Death From Above as well, so it doesn't devolve that simply, but yes, they could do something with that.

 

They could easily add a keyword or something if they really need that distinction still, so they could still merge the rules in some way.

Edited January 16, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Ha ha, I like the graphic for that article; it DOES feel like a Sisyphean task trying to keep up with 40k, especially since the compressed the turnaround between editions for the last decade or so. 

 

Of course, it does feel like everyone is looking for something slightly different out of this game, but GW's firehose approach to rules that they have adopted actually ultimately ended up solving how to actually play 40k for me, which is, I just play the parts I want, depending on what I'm doing, and I never, EVER play competitively. 

 

Sometimes that means 3rd edition, sometimes that means a modified Kill Team 2.0 ruleset, sometimes that means basic 9th with maybe a cool battle narrative I cribbed from 5th and a custom victory scenario. 

 

Basically, I just Frankenstein together a few of the MANY rules resources I've collected and make my own thing happen. 

 

Books/rules go out of date so fast now that I'm not going to worry about trying to keep up at all and just do my own thing. 

[spessmarine]

I feel like the return of USRs to some degree would help a lot. Not 7th edition levels of five billion very similarly-named and slightly redundant USRs, but enough to reduce the number of special rules to keep track of in codices. There is a balance to strike between everything being a USR (7th) and every single model having its own deluge of special rules (8th/9th). I maintain special rules are something that makes 40K interesting and fluffy, and I wouldn't want to throw them out altogether, as I feel it would oversimplify the game and make it kinda dull, but there is a middle ground to be struck.

Some of the nonsense is fixed by better datasheets, which really is a big point. Like there wasn't even a Move characteristic before, you'd consult rules for it. Adding a number to the statblock simplified unneeded complexity without reducing differences in how much something could move. It made it easier for even more variety.

 

 

I heavily disagree on the notion of USRs.

It's just tedious to look at a datasheet, see some fancy named ability and then to have to look it up elsewhere to actually know what it does. I've played in those editions and was one of the people who knew by heart where those things are written if I needed to look it up but it always slowed down the game and for others who had to actually search for it in the rulebook it meant even bigger breaks in the gameflow. Keep the rules on the Datasheets. Who cares whether they all say the same. You can look at it and know what it does. That's good.

 

However I definitely do agree that there are WAY too many things that influence a unit.

Layers upon layers of special rules from outside of the datasheet plus multiple Stratagems that you may or may not want to use. Buffs from psychic powers is fine. An army-wide rule or subfaction rule is fine too. Multiple army-wide rules plus a faction rule that's actually two rules in one is not (Space Marines have frigging 4(!) army-wide effects in Angels of Death).

As for the Stratagem issue, there are way too many things that get outsourced into Stratagems instead of being a fix part of the Datasheet in the first place and I've been saying that ever since they got introduced. It's not a bad design in general, just how GW uses it is bad. There are definitely effects that I appreciate in Stratagem form and would like them to remain like that.

None of these things alone are the culprit, it's the combination of it all that makes it super annoying. Luckily there's a specific website that I won't be mentioning here where you can look up Datasheets and it lists all the Stratagems you can use on it right below plus a section where you have Stratagems sorted by phase. Makes life much much easier these days but it's a shame something like that is needed in the first place (and not provided by GW already).

 

And then there are secondary mission objectives. In general a nice idea but these days I'm not exactly playing regularly so I just don't know which secondaries I should take or even exist without having to look it up for several minutes. It's just not very casual friendly at all. We kinda returned to doing simple missions like in 8th for our every once in a while casual games just because it requires way less preparation.

 

Yeah, datasheets should be the meat of the unit's capability.

Yep, strategems are neat but you can have too many. Especially egregious are the ones just yanked off the datasheet and apply only to that unit.

Hehe, yeah, that unnamed site sure helps for a quick query.

 

[phandaal]

 

Hehe, yeah, that unnamed site sure helps for a quick query.

 

 

 

That unnamed site of unknown providence also collates strategems into a handy list by phase. Wish they were organized that way in the actual rulebook honestly.

[Kythnos]

I feel that I would like a PN, which included the name of that unnamed site ;-)

[Noserenda]

You can name the unameable site by inserting a space or the wrong punctuation like "waha pedia" or just google a specific datasheet and it might well come up (My google is not your google ofc) and its a real asset to army planning, its exactly what GW should be providing tbh, wish they would just bring it aboard. But no, they are moving away from that kind of useful content :( 


Yeah a lot of the worst problems with 7th revolve around them desperately trying to avoid the Move and Damage stats returning, armour mods too but i dont hate the AP system aaaaass much :D I think its always a good exercise to see if you can boil down a rule, like sorting out fractions to make them more useful.

[ThePenitentOne]

It saddens me to see the goons say these things. I see it on the forums all the time, but I feel like that isn't such a big deal- GW isn't going to decide to blow up the edition prematurely based on general forum discontent. But when the influencers come out with this, it's going to be noticed.

 

I need every faction to get a dex for this edition so I can follow through with my plan to retire from edition churn when 10th drops. I love this edition, and one of the reasons why is that it IS complex enough that you could play it for years and still be discovering new things. I am a studious and hermetic person by nature. I've always tended to favour incredibly complex collections of rules from different sources in all my games.

 

I had DOZENS of AD&D- I played in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Darksun. I had all the books for every class. I loved it- there was enough information there that I could actually play a character type that I had never played before 40 YEARS after buying the original books.

 

The simple game that most people adocate for is something whose every possibility will be exhausted in less than a decade. For me, there's just no point. Why ask for something that's small enough to keep me engaged for 5-10 when I could instead get something where 20 years on, I'm still discovering AoR's and combinations that I didn't have time to get around to in the first two decades?

 

It's like I've been saying since 9th set its hooks in me with the DE Crusade rules: different people want different things from there games. In previous versions of 40k, it was always too simple for me and I had to invent all the extras that made it play like I wanted it too. This is the first time in 30 years that GW has ever given me enough to work with. The GSC Crusade rules slot so easily and effortlessly into what I was trying to build in Saint Katherine's Aegis that I've only had to add a single set of my own Brood Cycle rules. I'm going to be able to align my civilian rules and my territory rules with the Institution Infiltrated rules- it's like the game designers were reading my mind.

 

I can't imagine anyone else not liking that- not wanting to play it. I have no idea how anyone can draw as much satisfaction from a series of unrelated 2k Matched games. I have no idea how anyone could look at a list of 20 USR's that armies get to choose from an think "Yep, that's enough for me. That will continue to provide enough new material for me to continue telling unique stories for decades to come. It's immersive enough- it's all the fuel my imagination needs."

 

Seriously. I just. can't. relate.

 

And seeing the Goons say it makes me wonder if GW will allow this edition to truly finish. The zeitgeist has turned against this edition of the game, and once that happens, the end is truly inevitable. I just hope I get enough closure out of this edition before the next reset, because I can't do it again.

 

People on B&C are super cool of course- you guys really do for the most part keep comments constructive, and of course, it's pretty selfish of me to want an echo chamber of content as much as I do- these are the genuine thoughts and feelings of real people, and all of these points of view are at least as valid as my own.  Cheers gang, and thanks for being civil even through discontent.

[WrathOfTheLion]

It saddens me to see the goons say these things. I see it on the forums all the time, but I feel like that isn't such a big deal- GW isn't going to decide to blow up the edition prematurely based on general forum discontent. But when the influencers come out with this, it's going to be noticed.

The article itself doesn't propose a new edition, as it says that they have no solution for what they're describing. The main crux in the article, which I think is a good observation, is that it's difficult to figure out what is good/not via its stats, due to the complexity of the game.

 

I don't think most people are against 9E. Personally, I've enjoyed it way more than 8E. The end of 8E was absolutely nuts compared to anything coming from general play in 9E right now.

Edited January 17, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[Noserenda]

Crusade is not the complexity people are upset with though, at least ive not heard anyone credibly moaning about it. Its an opt in system that at a basic level adds new things to the game and the experience of playing the game with persistent units, consequences and downtime objectives. Its scratching an additional itch and adding a different kind of fun, people chose that (or or did it because all their mates did anyhow) so its not really a problem.

Stuff like Martial Katah? Or the marine doctrines? Thats just rules for rules sake, they arent really adding much verisimilitude, (they often hurt it even) and they are adding more complexity that does not feel needed, not is it particularly opt in, you paid points for those things, your army is balanced around them and not using them is playing with a definite handicap, not to mention if your opponent is still sticking with their flanges its still influencing and confusing your game, which folks dont like, which causes the bad feels.

[Prot]

I didn’t read the article. I love 40K and always will, but I really don’t like this edition even though I play it every week still to this day. 
 

I hated GW wrestling their competitive meta back from ITC. It’s all we play now and it’s so unimaginative and repetitive.  
 

The idea of dataslates being a place holder for strats is also true. But to be honest there are far too many rules period and I said this in the GW poll; the barrier to entry for new players (IMO) is the density of rules. I can’t imagine being a new player. And I told them this. 
 

further to that , I don’t think there’s ever been another edition that continually broke its own core rule set. In a nutshell, this is the “gotcha 40K” edition. What I mean by that is I e never played another edition where a non forthcoming player can sandbag an unaware opponent in these core rule breakers. And I remember when Tau shooting at rear armour was a “gotcha” moment. This edition is so flooded with these, I feel like I’m continually warning my opponent of these core rule breaking moments.

 

I lIke a lot of this edition otherwise though. The models are better than ever and many of the Codexes do convey the background of an army on the table. 

[MegaVolt87]

Stratagems could be switched to a more passive role while not being gotcha moments. eg-

 

Transhuman Physiology- If a Apothecary is your warlord, units of SPACE MARINES or PRIMARIS, may use this stratagem for the duration of the game. If the unit is five or fewer models it will cost 3 command points. If the unit is six models or greater, the cost is four command points. 

 

Honour the Chapter- If a Captain or Chaplin is your warlord, units of SPACE MARINES or PRIMARIS may use this stratagem for the duration of the game. If the unit is five or fewer models it will cost 3 command points. If the unit is six models or greater, the cost is four command points. 

 

This way, you only have a limited pool of extra's that can be thrown at an opponent, its on a separate sheet so you know how things work and each is bought just once. As a result, command point pools can be adjusted via detachments exclusively and we can eliminate al CP related WLT's and generators, cutting out on bookkeeping and thumbing through a stratagem deck/ codex for what to use. Easier to balance too, say the transhuman is too good, we can bump the cost up on both ends by one CP. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I didn’t read the article. I love 40K and always will, but I really don’t like this edition even though I play it every week still to this day. 

 

I hated GW wrestling their competitive meta back from ITC. It’s all we play now and it’s so unimaginative and repetitive.  

So I'm going to be that guy and say that y'all've made a personal choice there and can just not do that. Regardless off edition rules, state of the game, etc., this is a personal limitation y'all've set upon yourselves. If it bores you, don't do that.

[Prot]

 

I didn’t read the article. I love 40K and always will, but I really don’t like this edition even though I play it every week still to this day. 

 

I hated GW wrestling their competitive meta back from ITC. It’s all we play now and it’s so unimaginative and repetitive.  

So I'm going to be that guy and say that y'all've made a personal choice there and can just not do that. Regardless off edition rules, state of the game, etc., this is a personal limitation y'all've set upon yourselves. If it bores you, don't do that.

 

I just said I love 40K. If what you mean by “y’all just don’t do that “ is to not play the game as written, then you’re not playing 40K. I’m  patient.  I’ve been through more bad editions and codexes than most. I believe we will see the diminishing returns on this design mechanic cause an edition change sooner rather than later.  There’s a lot more to it but I don’t want to derail the thread, but let’s just say I also have to keep the desires of multiple play groups in mind.  It’s too easy to over simplify, but there are a lot of reasons we play this game. 

 

I am Very aware of my options here. I don’t think in my case being bored of the competitive rules would have me leave or change what I’m doing at the moment. 

 

+Edit+ 

I actually read the article, and stand by my original post. I think I certainly agree with the fundamental message of the goon article. 

 

I can’t imagine starting 40K in the middle of this edition. It brought me back to a moment about 2 editions ago when I was cruising along with a great win rate in a tournament. Then I ran into a Harlequin player. He was quite nice but I’ll never forget how silly that game was. I remember at one point he shot at a big squad of mine and told me that by breaking morale, I had to run off the game board in a very non logical direction. I asked him why this was as it turned what should have been a very minor moment into a game breaker. He said, ‘ it’s because the shot was fired by this guy, and I can dictate which direction your squad runs as a result. “ 

 

it was such a silly moment, and a core rule breaking moment. In all fairness 40K has always had this element in a limited degree in the game. But right now it feels like every army is loaded with these base rule breaking “ gotcha” moments. I definitely think the article is very truthful and does hint at the high rules overhead, and the number one barrier to new player entry. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Prot

[spessmarine]

Bloat may be the driving issue.

I also personally dislike when you need lots of books or refer to a whole bunch of different material. Having your army book and it being basically all you need appeals to me. The expansion WD articles for side subfactions without rules is fine, it's annoying when chunks of one subfaction are split over multiple pieces.

 

Going off the Tau leaks, the leaker mentioned the book being light on FSE stuff. The concern that popped up to me is that GW could've included FSE stuff in-depth, but they didn't and it has been popped off to be in a different supplement. Making it so the FSE army will be split over a codex and some supplement.

 

Stuff like Martial Katah? Or the marine doctrines? Thats just rules for rules sake, they arent really adding much verisimilitude, (they often hurt it even) and they are adding more complexity that does not feel needed, not is it particularly opt in, you paid points for those things, your army is balanced around them and not using them is playing with a definite handicap, not to mention if your opponent is still sticking with their flanges its still influencing and confusing your game, which folks dont like, which causes the bad feels.

First article about the ka'tas had me going "huh" and based off comments at the time I wasn't the only one. Sorta felt like an awkward attempt to add another layer to the Custodes,

[ThePenitentOne]

I think what he means is that if you dislike ITC based Matched 2k 40k, you COULD choose to play 1K Open or start a 25 PL Crusade, which are every bit as much "playing the current version as written" as the thing you regularly choose to do, despite claiming to dislike doing it.

 

If you played 1k Open as written, you might like it more.

If you started a 25PL Crusade, you might like it more.

 

Maybe you HAVE tried these things and not liked them any better, but since you didn't say that in your post, you can't blame him for making that assumption. Personally, I'm going on the assumption that your friends probably won't play those completely valid versions of the game, so you can't find match ups. This is a frequent reason that people give for not solving their own problems when they don't like 2k Matched, and it is legit. I'm not going to deny that 2k matched is the most common format for pick-up games. But again, this is STILL a form of player choice.

[Prot]

I think I answered this above and it really doesn’t have anything to do with the article, so let’s leave it at that. Thank you. ( I personally play competitive a ton… no narrative here. Though I am always open to trying it one day!)

Edited January 17, 2022 by Prot

[OldWherewolf]

I don't throw them all away, just ones where people just say "40k would be better if GW did X". You can tell when someone is just griping because there is nothing constructive in their argument or reasoning. "it's too much to learn" is an excuse, not a reason.

LPT: there are 4 generic criticisms: too much, too little, too fast, too slow. Anybody and anything can be criticized for those 4 thing at any time, and at the same time, and they mean absolutely nothing. Once you learn to recognize those, you'll realize 90% of people's arguments are just bunk, and nothing but griping. Then they start to distract from what is important and fun, and start to take the fun out of the game for everyone.

Here's the key points - the game is a large time investment. In modeling, painting, army list, strategy, game time, etc. There's a lot to learn. The 2nd thing is that is phases to learning, I'll call them 'euphoria', 'frustration', then 'normalcy'. People start to play the game, and are really enjoying it. Then they realize there's a mountain of stuff to learn, and they can't quickly master it, so fall into 'frustration'. Now, they can take 1 of 2 directions: turn into it and learn the painful lessons so 'normalcy' is where they know the game enough to face any army (where the serious player are), or start to b**ch and gripe, and ruin the fun for others (misery loves company). I love the B&C because there is a lot less #2 around here (:thumbsup to all the mods here!).

So when you when you say "every opinion is valid", if they're just griping, then it's not valid in my mind.

@Brainpsyk - I think the problem with your argument is summed by your last point "It's not the game, it's the time I'm willing to invest in it." Your 100 percent entitled to like the current direction of the game, and your opinion is just as valid as mine and you should share it because your happy with it. That said why should someone invest time into a system where they don't like the end point? Why shouldn't they complain about the things that aren't worth it to them? They're entitled to that opinion as well and should be vocal about it.

40k isn't a game for people who aren't willing to invest time, just the modelling aspects alone are a large commitment. Players having strong opinions should just be accepted, because we all have a lot of time spent with this hobby.

I like playing 2d fighting games, and large trend in the industry has been accessibility. There are a lot of diehards who don't like this trend, but the industry does it for a simple reason they're selling more copies of games. That said if you follow the FCG the same names are still winning even though the systems are simpler, you just have more players that feel like they're getting their monies worth.

I love this, and agree 100%. You love playing 2D games, and there's a market for them. Perfect harmony. To the diehards, who's opinion is there shouldn't be 2D game, they can go themselves They should go play the game they like, and leave the game we like alone.

Is there room for improvement in 40k, hell yes. But don't argue with griping and opinion, make it constructive and with data. Like this:

[MARK0SIAN]

I don't throw them all away, just ones where people just say "40k would be better if GW did X". You can tell when someone is just griping because there is nothing constructive in their argument or reasoning. "it's too much to learn" is an excuse, not a reason.

LPT: there are 4 generic criticisms: too much, too little, too fast, too slow. Anybody and anything can be criticized for those 4 thing at any time, and at the same time, and they mean absolutely nothing. Once you learn to recognize those, you'll realize 90% of people's arguments are just bunk, and nothing but griping. Then they start to distract from what is important and fun, and start to take the fun out of the game for everyone.

Here's the key points - the game is a large time investment. In modeling, painting, army list, strategy, game time, etc. There's a lot to learn. The 2nd thing is that is phases to learning, I'll call them 'euphoria', 'frustration', then 'normalcy'. People start to play the game, and are really enjoying it. Then they realize there's a mountain of stuff to learn, and they can't quickly master it, so fall into 'frustration'. Now, they can take 1 of 2 directions: turn into it and learn the painful lessons so 'normalcy' is where they know the game enough to face any army (where the serious player are), or start to b**ch and gripe, and ruin the fun for others (misery loves company). I love the B&C because there is a lot less #2 around here (:thumbsup to all the mods here!).

So when you when you say "every opinion is valid", if they're just griping, then it's not valid in my mind.

@Brainpsyk - I think the problem with your argument is summed by your last point "It's not the game, it's the time I'm willing to invest in it." Your 100 percent entitled to like the current direction of the game, and your opinion is just as valid as mine and you should share it because your happy with it. That said why should someone invest time into a system where they don't like the end point? Why shouldn't they complain about the things that aren't worth it to them? They're entitled to that opinion as well and should be vocal about it.

40k isn't a game for people who aren't willing to invest time, just the modelling aspects alone are a large commitment. Players having strong opinions should just be accepted, because we all have a lot of time spent with this hobby.

I like playing 2d fighting games, and large trend in the industry has been accessibility. There are a lot of diehards who don't like this trend, but the industry does it for a simple reason they're selling more copies of games. That said if you follow the FCG the same names are still winning even though the systems are simpler, you just have more players that feel like they're getting their monies worth.

I love this, and agree 100%. You love playing 2D games, and there's a market for them. Perfect harmony. To the diehards, who's opinion is there shouldn't be 2D game, they can go themselves They should go play the game they like, and leave the game we like alone.

Is there room for improvement in 40k, hell yes. But don't argue with griping and opinion, make it constructive and with data. Like this:

“I think the game would be better if X/Y/Z” is always going to be based on opinions. How you think any constructive criticisms (constructive as in not just identifying problems but suggesting solutions) is going to be anything other than opinion based is baffling. No one is going to have hard data on how their proposed solutions will work.

Your argument reads more like “I like the current state so I don’t want to hear anything to the contrary.” You’ve defined griping as anyone who doesn’t want to fully embrace the full complexity of the rules and therefore anyone who doesn’t or thinks they’re too complex is just griping and their opinion is therefore invalid. You love it as it is, some people don’t. Both and any opinions are completely valid.

[Scribe]

The simple game that most people adocate for is something whose every possibility will be exhausted in less than a decade.

I think there are several things being misunderstood here.

 

1. No, it wouldn't be exhausted, because actually playing the game, there was a thing called variance. This is why Magic was so successful. Removal of variance needs to be managed carefully.

 

2. The combos and depth are almost certainly an illusion of choice. We live in the internet age. Discovery and iteration can happen too quickly.

 

3. What some of us want, is simply a more accessible system to be codified. I don't care if Crusade is supported till 10th, go nuts. I don't care is Stratagems are printed until 10th and are the 'tournament' choice.

 

An official format that is 1500 to 1750 points, limited missions, limited deployments, no stratagems, core rules + codex, and a unified set of USRs should be an absolute given, it's mind blowing that that isn't a thing.

 

The pendulum swings, and it's time to go back.

[Halandaar]

There are strategems scoped to Teleport Strike and possibly to Death From Above as well, so it doesn't devolve that simply, but yes, they could do something with that.

 

They could easily add a keyword or something if they really need that distinction still, so they could still merge the rules in some way.

 

Sure, but typically those stratagems already have other keyword qualifiers in them; for example Deathwing Assault specifies that the unit needs the Deathwing keyword, so it's not like that particular stratagem can be used for jump pack units or things arriving via drop pod anyway. Then its wording ("if it was set up on the battlefield this turn as a result of a teleport homer or teleport strike") just needs a one word change from "teleport strike" to "Deep Strike", problem solved.

 

Some of the nonsense is fixed by better datasheets, which really is a big point. Like there wasn't even a Move characteristic before, you'd consult rules for it. Adding a number to the statblock simplified unneeded complexity without reducing differences in how much something could move. It made it easier for even more variety.

 

I think this is one of the examples where the tradeoff is not that straightforward. Sure, in previous editions you couldn't find the move stat on the datasheet and had to know it from the core rules, but that's because every model of a given type (infantry, bike etc) had the same movement stat, regardless of what it was or which faction it came from, so you only had to know a handful of numbers for every model in the game. The reintroduction of movement allows GW to help differentiate fast races from slow ones, so it's an increase in complexity, but because it's just there on the unit's statline rather than something you have to go looking for, it still feels easy to use and understand. 

 

This is kind of hitting on the main point of the discussion I think; that it isn't necessarily complexity that is the problem, but the sheer amount of work required to reference and track that complexity across different sections of a book, or even across multiple books, when it simply isn't necessary.

 

Lets use movement as an example again; in prior editions all the infantry had a 6" move. Easy to understand. Now let's say GW kept this fixed movement system in place for 8th & 9th Edition, but wants Howling Banshees (for example) to run faster like they do under the current rules. GW can't change their movement stat because there isn't one, so they instead get a special rule; Banshee's Speed, the definition of which is "+2" to the model's movement stat". They want Terminators to move more slowly, so they get a special rule too called Slow Ass Suit, the definition of which is "-1" to the model's movement stat". Hundreds of datasheets across the game get their own special rules dictating changes to the movement stat.

 

Seems ridiculous right? But this is basically what stratagems are doing in the game right now. They are often abilities that are specific to single units, taken away from those unit's rules and parked in a different section of the book for no obvious reason, and for no gain to the player.

 

Another rules vs stats thing; we've got all these "always fights first" type rules or "fight first if you charge", things that move around the combat order and interfere with the core rules' structure of the fight phase, further complicated by issues where two units with the same "always fight first" rule come up against each other. You know what used to work for this? Initiative stat. Fast units fight before slower units, but after even faster units. Simple, easy to understand, easy to reference. Not behind an opaque wall of different special rules that often still doesn't give a clear conclusion without an FAQ.

 

I don't throw them all away, just ones where people just say "40k would be better if GW did X".  You can tell when someone is just griping because there is nothing constructive in their argument or reasoning.  

 

It feels like a comment where an alternative to the current way is being proposed ("40k would be better if GW did X") is pretty much the definition of constructive criticism.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Halandaar

[Xenith]

I agree 100% with the article. 40k is now way too complex, and AoS ha followed it. 40k is so deep on in-game tactics that others frequently get left behind. 

 

But also it's funny to see hardcore gamers whine:

 

HG's: "Rules are too simple, we want more complex interactions etc, lets houserule a bunch of our own stuff to make it that way"

GW: *Makes rule more complex, emulates their tourney scoring systems, brings HG's in to help write and check rules*

HG's: "No. Not like that." 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Xenith