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

[apologist]

 

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.

 

Yes, Scribe nicely sums up something that I think would be both good for the game in general (whatever your preference in specifics), and that's a 'core game'. It's something implicit in 9th edition – that you buy the rulebook and can play the game – but since you are channelled into one of the Three Ways to Play (Open, Narrative and Matched), it's largely hidden.

 

The Three Ways of Play idea is a good one, but having them as opt-in expansions to a simpler to pick up core might be a good way for GW to square the circle. In essence, it's the same as the 'Basic Game' and 'Advanced Rules' distinction that appeared in earlier editions.

 

Core – the game using just the main rulebook and your Codex, using Power Level. Perfect for pick-up games with strangers across the world, or for quick dive-in games for beginners or time-short players. In essence, this should be the elevator pitch for any potential players: the 'default' 40k experience of two relatively 'normal' armies lining up and fighting each other for a certain simple objective.

 

To this, you add various modules:

Open Play – This becomes the 'talking game'. When you have more time or brainspace, you discuss with your opponents which of the layered additions you wish to include. That is; you opt to include some, all or none of the following: More missions, Points values, Strategems, Secondary Objectives, character names etc. These are presented as discrete additions, and supported by articles in White Dwarf explaining what they add or bring to the game. E.g. 'points allows for greater granularity; perfect if you value a sense of fairness'; 'Character names are a good way of making your army feel more your own. Here are some tables to help generate them.'

 

Matched Play – supported by Seasons, Chapter Approved and other material that aims to make the game more suited to competitive 'sport'. This includes a centralised subset of Open Play additions such as seasonal mission packs and scenarios. These change from season to season and are updated regularly.

 

Narrative Play – supported by Crusade, worldwide events and other material that aims to make the game more suited to mutual storytelling and roleplay. This includes a subset of Open Play additions decided in your gaming group (option of points, strategems etc.) and which have a set start and end point (including the option of leaving it completely open-ended). This option is explained through numerous examples, including narrative-themed books.

 

+++

The specifics above are my example suggestions, but the broader point is that there's a sense of clearing the weeds from the centre. Giving everyone a simple starting point to get involved along with clearly laid-out options for expansion will lead to a healthier game, as it brings new people in and helps mitigate the analysis paralysis of 'how do  we play this game?'.

Edited January 17, 2022 by apologist

[Xenith]

Posts from Scribe and N1SB echo what I put in the feedback on game complexity to GW:

 

Stratagems fail at their very inception regarding matched play. Stratagems are supposed to represent moments of heroism, battling against the odds, or renewed vigour, or derring-do in your army, giving them special abilities, etc. All of which are narrative elements. 

 

Stratagems, by their very nature, are narrative abilities and are better suited for that kind of play. In matched, they are just 'trap cards' to bait and switch your opponent.  

 

Agree with the above in that matched/tournament play should be stripped back to have as few moving parts as possible (especally where those moving parts are changing a units statlines or abilities in-game). First among these is moving codex specific strats into narrative play only. CP's are a great tool, but they should be kept for stuff like rerolls or core book stuff. 

 

 

[Kenzaburo]

I absolutely agree with the goonhammer article, it sums up what I've posted elsewhere on here. But reading this thread had me wondering...

 

Back in like 4th or 5th I started creating cheat sheets for my army so I wouldn't need the books and flip through them all the time (ironic, since rules were scarce compared to 7th or 9th). I put down stats, weapons profiles and shorthand descriptions of what all the units special rules (USR or their own) do. So it's a bit like today's battlescribe. Now I could look at  my cheat sheet and immediately know all my options. 

 

But how would I do it today? Of course I use battlescribe, but there's still tons of rules missing. When I thought about this yesterday, I figured that I'd actually need to put down all the stratagems available to that unit with according CP cost in shorthand to get a better idea of what a unit could do. In some cases those unit entries will be long as hell. 

 

I've always been a fan of wargaming systems which use unit cards and I was hoping that dataslates would be the same. GW would sell them, in a nice layout, with all the unit stats and their rules printed on them and I would no longer need my cheat sheets. They provided those cards in form of warscrolls for AoS. And then they did a 180 for 40k and even removed equipment special rules to put them into strats. THIS is bad design, it's unwieldy, doesn't make much sense and ends up counterintuitive. 

 

Others have said it more than once and more eloquently: There's too much bloat. Too many layers of rules, too many moving parts. I totally understand what brother PenitentOne likes about it and the roleplayer in me agrees that more character for all the armies is good. At the same time I hate overcomplicated rules. My last game was fun and a chore at the same time. I had to prepare several days (not counting me painting the scenery, my minis and providing an enjoyable gaming environment with snacks, drinks and whatnot for my buddies). I had to read up on 9th ed rules again, then my dex, then my supplement, sort out all the strats I would not be able to use, build the list and on top of it was all the crusade stuff.

 

That last thing, crusade, is probably the biggest achievement of 9th for me - it's even more rules, sure, but these are the ones I chose myself to add in more flavour. The ability to add this layer of complexity if I want is great, even more so that I can do it while my opponent doesn't have to. It enables me to do some campaign play without the risk of people dropping out or the thing petering out and you're left without other players. 

 

But all that other stuff, man, it's just too much stuff. I already work 50-60h weeks in a very complex environment. My brain is basically fried come the weekend. And my first kid is still on the way, so who knows how it will be after the kid's born. Probably not better, I guess. 

 

I was actually wondering if I should ask my buddies to revert to an older edition like 4th or 5th. That would rob us of some units and my Custodes and Primaris wouldn't be usable. I was considering 8th, since it has all of the current armies. Sure, there's broken things in older editions, too. I do remember leafblower guard and Jaws of the World Wolf, but none of us used that stuff anyways. Games still took long, but I was less exhausted afterwards. I dropped Infinity a few years ago because despite their gorgeous models I felt it was too complex for me to fully enjoy. Back then 40k was considered a beer and pretzels game. Didn't feel that way when I last played 9th.

 

One last thing tho: Some people will enjoy this complexity, I know. I simply don't. And I don't know what GW could do to satisfy you guys and me. All I know is that 40k rules swing like a pendulum, sooner or later. They almost always seem to go into the farthest opposite direction, with rare exceptions of 4th to 5th and 6th to 7th.

[Xenith]

 

 Games still took long, but I was less exhausted afterwards...Back then 40k was considered a beer and pretzels game. Didn't feel that way when I last played 9th.

 

You've articulated something that was in my head, but couldn't describe. The mental load of 9th is insane, for little additional 'fun'. 

 

Something else we've seen is that 40k is now dominated to an extent by 'professional' 40k players, that is, largely people who own or are associated with FLGS's, podcasts, websites etc (looking at Frontline, Glashammer, Goonhammer, all the others). These folks win tourneys, which then increases their rep to get clicks and advertising revenue from their battle reports, streams and casts etc. That's the reason they can stay on top, is precisely because 40k is their job, and winning tourneys is marketing for their work. 

 

That's the people that are discussing and driving the rules that we see. The casual player can't keep up with people who's job is literally to play and win at 40k. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Xenith

[Noserenda]

Thats a very good point actually, did GW ever actually sell packs of datasheets? It feels like a no brainer and im sure they did but i might just be confusing with AoS

[MARK0SIAN]

Thats a very good point actually, did GW ever actually sell packs of datasheets? It feels like a no brainer and im sure they did but i might just be confusing with AoS

They did for imperial knights. They’re great, they’re a cardboard sheet with the profiles and weapon info on for all the options for that model. Basically the full datasheet. They’re super useful and make gaming so much quicker. However they’ve only done them for knights as far as I know. I guess because the knights codex has a very small number units even compared to something like grey knights let alone guard or marines in general. I wish they’d do it for more units but I guess for someone like marines you’d end up with a stack of card that’s as thick as the codex.

 

Edit - For clarity the cards only covered the units in the actual dex, not the Forgeworld stuff.

Edited January 17, 2022 by MARK0SIAN

[Noserenda]

Thats a shame, they really are a useful gaming aid, i made a version for SoS in 30k and use em in AoS, i suspect the ever chonky Marine codex might indeed be the problem there!

[Kenzaburo]

In 9th I can't see cards be a thing for datasheets. They are next to useless. You only need to look on there for the stats, which are actually easy to memorise and maybe the weapons profiles (which is only an issue with primaris and their tons of weapons and variations tacked onto units and vehicles^^).

 

I want all the special rules and options on there. For that we have too many stratagems, but it was very much doable in older editions. And yes, AoS does it, I think, or at least did it. And while I'm not a fan of that setting, the practicality of that rules system and it's aids seems to have quite some merit. :)

 

@Xenith: The exhaustion was real. I don't know how tourney players do it. It just showed how different the approaches of players to the game are. To me the challenge should be in the decisions I have to make in positioning and target priorisation on the table, not in getting prepped and flipping through cards and books for a week. Because that makes it seem less like a miniatures game but a mental exercise and how good I can remember things in my free time. :)

 

I wouldn't call 9th problematic per say. As with most editions, the core rules are once again solid and I like their approach of bulleting the rules, adding crusade and all that. I also like how the design studio is making a clear attempt at giving flavour to factions and subfactions. The breaking of those core rules, the whole vehicle dilemma and the additional layers of rules are to blame for most of the problems, though.

[Dark Shepherd]

I think part of this problem for the current edition might be Maelstrom/objective cards were certainly popular where I play (and ETC I think too) but Open War cards seemed downplayed in 9th/given less focus as a way to play and felt like that fun matched play way was replaced with the choice of Crusade or Tournament Styley both of which are quite different Edited January 17, 2022 by Dark Shepherd

[phandaal]

I think part of this problem for the current edition might be Maelstrom/objective cards were certainly popular where I play (and ETC I think too) but Open War cards seemed downplayed in 9th/given less focus as a way to play and felt like that fun matched play way was replaced with the choice of Crusade or Tournament Styley both of which are quite different

 

So many people have no idea the Open War card deck even exists, or if they know about it they do not actually know what it is.

 

Had people ask me where to get them once we play a game though. GW could probably sell a lot more if they would advertise them.

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

I think part of this problem for the current edition might be Maelstrom/objective cards were certainly popular where I play (and ETC I think too) but Open War cards seemed downplayed in 9th/given less focus as a way to play and felt like that fun matched play way was replaced with the choice of Crusade or Tournament Styley both of which are quite different

So many people have no idea the Open War card deck even exists, or if they know about it they do not actually know what it is.

 

Had people ask me where to get them once we play a game though. GW could probably sell a lot more if they would advertise them.

Id forgotten they still existed til you said it to me in a thread!

 

Maybe its a new toys thing of they wanted to push Crusade but also assert dominance so to speak over the tournament scene

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@BrainPsyk - I think the problem with this line of argument is that if someone isn't happy with a video game they're out 60 dollars plus dlc and their gaming system is still just as useful. If someone doesn't like an edition of 40k they may have thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours invested in it. That isn't something people should just abandon. I think the survey that GW gave us showed that accessibility is a concern for them, the pandemic has been great for their business, but the challenge is going to be keeping as many players as possible engaged.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[Slave to Darkness]

 

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.

 

Just because someone is prepared to put more time into it doesnt mean the game itself will be or appear better to us, would people put time into a bad relationship because it will get better?   Bad rules are bad rules, no matter how much time and effort you invest. 

[OldWherewolf]

“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.

 

 

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.

1 - you guys are taking my argument and going off the deep end. 

2 - apparently you don't know what constructive means.

 

So let me show you the difference:

 

 

The game would be better if we dropped strategms

 

Is griping.  There's nothing constructive in there, and there is no data to back it up, and yes these hold no value as opinions in my mind.  Compare that to my actual opinion on strats:

 

 

The game would be better for newcomers if we reduced the number of strategms.  People can only remember about 5-7 things off the top of their head, so having 20-30 useless strats in each codex hurts the game overall because most people won't remember them and won't use them, and it slows the game down having to look them up even if we do remember them.  if we limited strats per codex to 5-7, then many of those can be identical across codexes (like -1 to hit), and that would make the game easier for newcomers, reduce the stratagem count from ~400 across 20 codexes to ~100, with many of them being duplicated, and the remainder being fluffy heroic moments.  Now it's not so overwhelming.  Even if the total number went up to 10, most people would remember the key strats, but advanced players would be rewarded for focusing on an army.

 

Notice there's now a fixed problem (newcomers & strat overload), a condition/boundary on the problem (only remembering 5-7), and a direction for a potential solution (5-7, with duplicates across codexes), and data to back up the direction (reducing overall load from 400 to 100 with duplicates further reducing the load).

 

Now, can you go into your codex and boil your strats down to 5-7?  Absolutely.  That is a solvable problem with data to back up the opinion.  That is a constructive argument.

 

So now, let's look at the game.  Does 9th edition 40K have a cognitive load problem - it absolutely does.  IMHO, it also has a balance problem (I play Astra Militarum).  But let's stick to the cognitive load problem.  What is it, and what can be done about it?

 

• For my guard, it's tough for me to remember all the orders I give out.  So, to help me remember the order(s) I give to units, I put the old green Epic die next to the unit (crosshairs for Take Aim!, 3 stacked carets for Move Move Move!, etc.).  When Raising Banners, I literally put a banner off Etsy on the objective.  Those tokens remind me of what's going on during the game so I don't have to remember everything.  I put a d4 on my manticore to tell me how many missiles I have left, and I magnetized my HK missiles on all my tanks so I could remove them after the HK missile is fired.
• For strats, I use a Russian Wiki that has the strats next to the unit.  Then I make a note on my roster datacard about relevant strats with a short note (like "hail of fire - max shots vs vehicle - 2CP").  Now I don't need to go look it up as much.
• Then in my codex and rulebook, I use the post-it bookmarks and have every major section tagged.  (strats, relics, powers, army rules, HQ/Troops/FA/HS/etc.) When I need to look up a strat/unit/etc, it's always within a couple pages of where I opened my book, so lookups are very fast.

 

So even as a returning player I've broken the problem of cognitive overload into manageable and solvable chunks.  Even if the solution isn't perfect, it gets me to where I need to be quickly.  If I miss something, I make a note of it (physically writing it on a piece of paper helps me remember it), and move on. 

 

This is the process I go thru whenever there is a "problem".  Is there a boundary condition?  What can I do to alleviate it?  Does the boundary condition give me a workaround?  Is it a *me* problem? 

 

I guarantee you, most of the folks complaining about having to look something up have not tagged their books.  They probably don't have the FAQ printed out, much less printed out and in their codex for quick reference.  (Phone/Tablet/GW's 40k app lookups are slooooowwwwwwwww).

 

Those complaining about remembering auras probably haven't named their marine captain in Battlescribe to "Capt RR1s To Hit!", or dropped a token down, or put the cast psychic power next to the unit it was cast on.

 

 

[phandaal]

 

 

Those complaining about remembering auras probably haven't named their marine captain in Battlescribe to "Capt RR1s To Hit!", or dropped a token down, or put the cast psychic power next to the unit it was cast on.

 

 

I named my Chaplain "Gristle McThornbody" in BattleScribe because the guys from MST3K are geniuses and Space Mutiny is a classic. Same thing for my Ravenwing Champion, "Bolt Vanderhuge." Feels more satisfying than naming them after their abilities.

 

Remember what they say - everyone has opinions, and everyone thinks theirs don't stink.

 

(Except for me. My opinions are the gold standard and do not in fact stink.)

[Triszin]

with all factions getting there own version of the same rules, really needs to have a USR made for it that  has different grades.

 

EX.

 

Transhuman: a outright Fails on dice rolls of 1,2 or 1,2,3

 

If we were to add a STR level requirement to it, it expands the rule, making it more balanced and fluffy and offering different levels of lore friendly/not out right broken.

 

ex.

Marine infantry: could be given Transhuman on rolls of 1,2 on all Incoming Weapons ST value of 4 and lower.

 

Terminators: could be given Transhuman on rolls of 1,2 on all Incoming Weapons ST value of 8 and lower.

 

Bane blades: could be given Transhuman on rolls of 1,2 on all Incoming Weapons ST value of 12 and lower.

 

and so on

 

 

doing so Creates a universal special rule that replaces a dozen + different rules and strats.

 

 

 

Ditch Parry and other Melee focused unique named Inv saves,

 

Create: Refactor field ( Invulnerable save of 4,5, or 6 when in engagement range)

 

invulnerability: is a catch all for all types, while refractor only applies to models in engagement range damage is coming from a model in engagement range.

 

 

 

Because we do not have granularity to USR's it creates a unique version of that rule for each faction and or hero.

 

By adding granularity to it, it removes the necessity to have a dozen + names.

We also need to acknowledge that Stats can go BEYOND 10, and it should be done.

 

 

And for lore friendly, you can call it by the faction specific name in the lore sections, just for gaming purposes it is X or Y
 

[Scribe]

Just me (on phone) or is there some forum corruption going on here?

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah something is wrong with the thread. I can see text but it’s not in boxes, lots of it’s cut off and I can’t really tell who is saying what. Every other thread seems fine

[Brother Casman]

There's a tag that needs to be fixed in Jorin Helm-splitter's post from 12:30 pm (GMT -4) http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/372955-goonhammer-article-on-40k-that-its-overwhelming-now/?p=5785452

[spessmarine]

yes, the thread breaks at Jorin Forum-splitter's post for me

[Dark Shepherd]

The forum broke before the game did

[phandaal]

The forum broke before the game did

 

40k Stands!

[MARK0SIAN]

See, the game is too complex to even discuss without the forum breaking! I rest my case

[Triszin]

please advise, is it better now?

[MARK0SIAN]

No, sorry, still the same