Game Stability, Balance, and Health Over Time

[jaxom]

  

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

The sheer amount of changes to the written rules, either in the main rules of Codex books (including dataslates)... the game is ponderous and I just can't bring myself to play it. Even fans of it must acknowledge the work required, as keeping track of everything written in the Codex, then changed, is a job and I have better games to play.

 

And if I'm not playing, I ain't bothering to paint and model it. Which means I ain't buying models either.

 

This game is a mess. It really needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. A new edition might save it, but I reckon 11th would just be an extension of 10th rather than a rewrite.

 

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Not really. If one is tech-savvy, there are plenty of regularly-updated means to keep track of rules besides the Codex. Honestly, GW should just make codexes more akin to lore and painting inspo books similar to the Arcane Journals of TOW, at this point. Maybe put the detachments and enhancements in there, if you must have rules. 

 

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

Well meanwhile, my gaming group of 40 year olds can't be convinced to bother playing it as they don't want to keep track of it all.

 

When you work for a living with kids, it can be detrimental to have to manage your game rather than just play it. Sure some folk don't mind, but others do.

 

I also can't get my sons to play as they feel like there's too much to keep track of and changes "all the time." Not when the PS5 does all that for you.(Which is sad times for me as a long term fan)

 

1 hour ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

Would you rather go back to the "good ol' days" where codex were dead on arrival for multiple editions and we got little to no updates during said edition? These frequent and in depth updates are objectively a good thing, because it means GW are trying (if not succeeding) to keep the game balanced and healthy.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I don't feel like 8th edition was the "good ol' days". Nor 7th. Dead on arrival Codex books (like currently experiencing) is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

5th was good. Go back to that. (I say tongue in cheek)

 

52 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

GW could try doing what they said they were going to do with 10th and simplify the game, giving themselves an actual chance at balance from the start, and remove the need for nonstop rules changes. It is not objectively good for a wargame that requires dozens of hours to build/paint an army to drastically change the construction parameters for those armies on a regular basis.

 

How many other wargames are out there completely upending things every three months? This is not an unsolvable problem.

 

21 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

If any of you are familiar with the computer game Dota (or its more popular cousin, League of Legends), you're probably familiar with large balance updates like this. I'm mostly talking out of my butt here because I haven't played actual games of 40k, but I've played thousands of dota matches and it's easily one of the most complex games rules-wise you'll find. Over one hundred characters, each with abilities, stats, items, and other minutiae that all substantially effect game balance. Big sweeping changes to how the game is balanced and played happen every year or so, with some updates that would certainly qualify as a new "edition". Minor updates, similar to points values in 40k, happen every few months (though with less frequency since fewer staff work on the game than during its heyday). 

 

All of this is to say that simplicity in game design is a choice. You'll gain players who want simple games and lose players who want complex games. I tell people that Dota takes 1,000 hours to not suck at, but if you put in that thousand hours you've got a game that you're going to love for the rest of your life. Complex games offer opportunities for skill expression at the cost of a higher barrier to entry. For 40k, it's not the rules that are keeping me from playing, it's that I need to build an army first, and then the big stopper will be that games take 3+ hours. Nonstop rules changes help the game stay fresh (as repetition in a complex game is hugely boring). And while there is certainly a cost for needing to build new components to a 40k army, having rules changes in the game gives motivation to players to go back to their painting and modelling desks. Again, I'm mostly guessing due to my lack of a complete 40k army, but that sort of motivation sounds good to me, because that's the part that got me into this hobby in the first place. 

 

TL:DR - Arguing the positives. I believe this is individual preference, versus objectively good for a game's health.

 

17 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

This game sucks and their balance team should be fired. 

 

1) There was definitely not enough time to playtest before the launch of 10th.

2) They really need to stop writing codexes in serial.

3) Combat Patrol seems relatively steady, but is literally restricted in terms of force composition.

[Karhedron]

I agree that 10th edition definitely seems to have come out half-baked. I don't mind using player data to refine points values (indeed I am a big fan of the MFM updates) but regularly rewriting core rules is becoming tiresome. Especially when people get mixed up and lose track of which update is the latest one. 10th edition is starting to feel increasingly like an extended beta test for 11th.

[ThaneOfTas]

43 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

10th edition is starting to feel increasingly like an extended beta test for 11th.

Which is a part of why I have mostly checked out of actually playing 40k until 11th. I'm hoping they'll bring back some of what is missing from 10th, plus will just be a bit more polished, although I'm not hopeful.

[phandaal]

58 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I agree that 10th edition definitely seems to have come out half-baked. I don't mind using player data to refine points values (indeed I am a big fan of the MFM updates) but regularly rewriting core rules is becoming tiresome. Especially when people get mixed up and lose track of which update is the latest one. 10th edition is starting to feel increasingly like an extended beta test for 11th.

 

Yeah, I still take my 40k armies out for a spin at least once per month, but not using 10th edition 40k rules. It is just not feasible or a good use of my free time to build units for and play games with a ruleset like we have seen for 10th.

 

That said, every time I meet somebody for a game there are many tables filled with people playing 10th edition 40k. So maybe I am in the minority, but either way it feels like a healthy decision to spend my free gaming time with other rulesets.

[Cleon]

I wish I had confidence that 11th will be the polished version of the 8-10th train and not another hard reset to another crazy start point, but at this point I have no idea what GW is thinking.

[jaxom]

27 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Yeah, I still take my 40k armies out for a spin at least once per month, but not using 10th edition 40k rules. It is just not feasible or a good use of my free time to build units for and play games with a ruleset like we have seen for 10th.

 

That said, every time I meet somebody for a game there are many tables filled with people playing 10th edition 40k. So maybe I am in the minority, but either way it feels like a healthy decision to spend my free gaming time with other rulesets.

I get the feeling that GW expects players to have jumped on board 40k as a 'lifestyle', like checking updates regularly and watching videos or reading articles to see what they mean; rather than something that can be taken off the shelf, enjoyed, and put away until next time.

[Doghouse]

The game has drifted too far from wargaming and gone too far into a live service tabletop game model for me sadly. You finally get on top of everything then they hit the reset button, I think it's got a lot to do with their financial commitment to create a new product every three years as a business than remain true to the hobby to be honest.

 

I'm willing to take one last gamble on Heresy but other than that I've gone back to first edition for a much more free and creative system which is what I prefer.

[Evil Eye]

1 minute ago, Doghouse said:

The game has drifted too far from wargaming and gone too far into a live service tabletop game model for me sadly. You finally get on top of everything then they hit the reset button, I think it's got a lot to do with their financial commitment to create a new product every three years as a business than remain true to the hobby to be honest.

 

I'm willing to take one last gamble on Heresy but other than that I've gone back to first edition for a much more free and creative system which is what I prefer.

This is exactly how I feel; I've been collecting the various material needed for 4th Edition 40K because, with the right mix of 3.5 and 4th ed Codexes, it's up there as one of the best rulesets 40K ever had, at least IMO. Modern 40K feels too much like a "tabletop E-sport" with all the games-as-a-service nonsense you'd expect out of an EA product.

[apologist]

@Captain Idaho's experience chimes with mine:

 

my gaming group of 40 year olds can't be convinced to bother playing it as they don't want to keep track of it all. When you work for a living with kids, it can be detrimental to have to manage your game rather than just play it. [...]

 

I also can't get my sons to play as they feel like there's too much to keep track of and changes "all the time."

 

At the risk of dragging that Star Wars meme out again, I like the idea of having a regularly updated ruleset far more than the reality.

 

The key problem is that the game is too fragmented. 40k is currently trying and failing to be 'all things to all men', with too many bolt-on options, additions and updates, and not a solid enough shared core. Worse, there's so much 'noise' that it's very hard to actually learn the game on your own. What do I mean by noise?

• The rules (which are actually pretty short and concise) are hidden in the centre of a 320pp book.
• The language is legalistic and technical, rather than user-friendly.
• The rules are divorced from the army lists, requiring you to get additional material.
  • This additional material is in a number of different formats – Codex books; cards; seasonal themed books
  • The additional material sometimes (but not always) overlaps with other bits of additional material
• The rules are supposedly split into three ways of playing – but there's actually more than this; they're not treated equally; and it's not always clear which additions apply to which way of playing.

The really sad thing is that the company has set up lots of well-intentioned ways in, but it's overwhelming.

 

Just look what you get if you type in 'Warhammer 40,000' to a browser. Up pops a website – brill – that has a heading 'Getting started with Warhammer 40,000'. Great. Click that and you are presented with this:

 

 

Why are there four starter sets? And why, if you instead go to the GW website to buy one, are there only three? Why is one 'Introductory', and the other 'Starter'? 

 

This is symptomatic of a broader issue with GW rules. They've moved away from the old 'basic' and 'advanced' terms for rules, but by avoiding those terms (presumably out of a desire not to sound exclusionary), they've had to introduce jargon: 'Matched Play'; 'Narrative Play' etc. – which is then not front and centre of their sales.

 

+++

 

Were I king of GW, I'd have...

 

BASIC GAME

Everything to do with this would have 'Open Play' (or whatever term you want for the casual/beginner gamer) clearly marked on it. 

All you need to play Warhammer 40,000 is this rulebook and whatever models you like. Something akin to Combat Patrol as the basic game, but not worry so much about it being perfectly balanced.

 

RULES 

• This would be a small softback core/basic/starter rulebook, intended to be bought alongside a Combat Patrol boxed set. It would be written in a friendly, plain English manner.
• This Open Play rulebook would include a simple set of points values at the back, exactly as the Field Manual is presented.
• It would have a short lore section introducing the universe and each faction, and clearly show where you can find more about the factions.
• It would explain that Open Play is the basic game, and that there are two options for the advanced game: Narrative Play and Matched Play.

MODELS AND RELEASES

• The vast majority of boxes would be clearly marked with Open Play, and have the rules for the units, but no points values in them.
• Open Play would be what was presented front and centre in shops.
• Combat Patrol boxes in particular would have a prominent Open Play label.

UPDATES 

• None. This would remain unchanged for the entire edition.

+++

ADVANCED GAME – OPTION 1

This is the inheritor of 'Crusade'/Narrative Play, but would be rebranded to be far less vague.

RULES

• A larger, fancier, hard-bound alternative book would be marked with a Narrative Play. 
• This would include much more in-depth background on each faction, alongside – crucially – identical rules to the Open Play rulebook. The rules would remain plain English, while the lore sections would be more richly written.
  • That way, you can buy one or the other (or both) and understand the connection – but you don't need to lug a 300pp book everywhere.
• Codex and Crusade expansions would be marked as Narrative Play. These would provide the rules to play particular Craftworlds, Chapters, Regiments etc., (i.e. the rules would show how the rules in the model boxes are used to provide the organisation of the faction in the lore) and much more depth on particular regions of the settings. 
• Crusade books would include 'historical army lists' – no points, but rather a set list for a particular set of missions and ideas for flexing them to better fit your collection.

MODELS AND RELEASES

• Special characters and one-shot units exclusive to a Crusade would be marked Narrative Play. Like all the other boxes, they would include rules for the unit, but no points values.
• An equivalent to the Combat Patrol boxes would be produced with the Narrative Play label, and be a way for GW to sell the equivalent of the splash release Piety and Pain and Eldritch Omens boxes – themed collections of models to tie in with a particular Crusade.
• These boxes would tend to build on Combat Patrols.
• Battlefield terrain sets for the Crusade would also be marked with Narrative Play.
• A section of each store could be dedicated to 'Crusade', with the season's rulebooks and boxes together.

UPDATES

• A Crusade would last for a year or so – essentially a series of linked splash releases. 
• Over the course of the Crusade, you would get two or three books that reveal the ongoing narrative of the campaign.
• At the end of the Crusade period, a compilation would be released, including any revised or updated rules. Any tweaks made here would pop up free online for anyone who bought the individual books.

 

+++

ADVANCED GAME – OPTION 2

This is the inheritor of tournament gaming and Matched Play.

RULES

• The Matched Play Munitorum Field Manual would be a companion softback book for the Open Play basic rules. This would be written in the current legalistic style, with very tight wording.
• The rulebook would be marked Matched Play and include the sort of equal points missions etc. familiar now.
• It would include a complete set of points, in the manner of the old Index books.

MODELS AND RELEASES

• No models would be exclusive to, or marked with, the Matched Play label.
• Reference card packs, mission packs etc. would be released to support it.
• An online app, accessed with a code from the Munitorum Field Manual, would support this mode of play.
• Card decks would allow you to share info with the opponent quickly and conveniently.
• A section in the store would be hived off for Matched Play.

UPDATES

• The Munitorum Field Manual would be updated every three months, with points and rules being tweaked on the app.
• Changes would also be distributed through White Dwarf and WarCom, clearly marked with Matched Play.

+++

 

With that model, you've got a much clearer and more obvious signposting for people. Want a fun, casual game? Try Open Play, which is basically Combat Patrol with a bit more flexibility and freedom. Want more depth? Expand into Narrative. Want more of a contest or skill? Choose Matched Play. These would all feed into one another, too – so GW wouldn't need to be worried about things feeling exclusive.

 

Each of the three options then has more of an identity, GW still gets regular income from releases, but the game serves different groups of people much better, and has a broader appeal.

 

[Aarik]

To me, the real crux of the problem is that GW's initial rules are lacking so often.  If the initial rules were better, then there would be less need to tweak them (or do so as drastically) so often.  I do think that the rules updates are the lesser of two evils, but I think the difficulty of keeping up with frequent changes is also a problem.  Ideally, I would like to see GW shift back towards each edition iterating on the prior one, rather than being a complete tear-down and rebuild that seems to result in a two steps forward, two steps back outcome.

[Norman Paperman]

1 hour ago, Doghouse said:

The game has drifted too far from wargaming and gone too far into a live service tabletop game model for me sadly. You finally get on top of everything then they hit the reset button, I think it's got a lot to do with their financial commitment to create a new product every three years as a business than remain true to the hobby to be honest.

 

I'm willing to take one last gamble on Heresy but other than that I've gone back to first edition for a much more free and creative system which is what I prefer.

Easily the best counter-argument to my post (quoted in OP). While I am a player who likes active development (which I think is different enough from a "live service" to mention), there are always going to be many players who don't. The rules for Chess haven't changed in a long ol' while, and that's part of the charm. 

 

A competitive scene is always going to require some level of balance updates, otherwise there's a best choice to make. Perfect balance in a complex game is almost entirely impossible, and everyone would converge on the same few armies over time. That gets stale quickly and dies out. Therefore I'd argue that maintaining balance for a competitive scene runs counter to the "truer" hobby scene where players aren't as concerned with a level playing field.

[jaxom]

I've been thinking about this sort of thing on-and-off as I've worked on my on table-top wargame system. Your ideas parallel some of mine. I hope you don't mind if I note somethings based on my thinking.

1 hour ago, apologist said:

BASIC GAME

Everything to do with this would have 'Open Play' (or whatever term you want for the casual/beginner gamer) clearly marked on it. 

All you need to play Warhammer 40,000 is this rulebook and whatever models you like. Something akin to Combat Patrol as the basic game, but not worry so much about it being perfectly balanced.

 

Just so. In my mind, this is particularly the game mode for people who just want to play with whichever miniatures they think are cool and want to collect. No faction rules, no force organization, just points and rules for each unit. 

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

RULES 

• This would be a small softback core/basic/starter rulebook, intended to be bought alongside a Combat Patrol boxed set. It would be written in a friendly, plain English manner.
• This Open Play rulebook would include a simple set of points values at the back, exactly as the Field Manual is presented.
• It would have a short lore section introducing the universe and each faction, and clearly show where you can find more about the factions.
• It would explain that Open Play is the basic game, and that there are two options for the advanced game: Narrative Play and Matched Play.

 

I'd split any lore into a separate pamphlet rather than it be in the rules reference. I'd include a QR code in the rulebook to a Designer Commentary and a living FAQ. But's that logistical stuff 

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

MODELS AND RELEASES

• The vast majority of boxes would be clearly marked with Open Play, and have the rules for the units, but no points values in them.
• Open Play would be what was presented front and centre in shops.
• Combat Patrol boxes in particular would have a prominent Open Play label.

 

I'd include points in the boxes or at least a QR code to where they can find them, to future-proof releasing units whose Open Play points are not in the Open Play rulebook.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

UPDATES 

• None. This would remain unchanged for the entire edition.

 

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

ADVANCED GAME – OPTION 1

This is the inheritor of 'Crusade'/Narrative Play, but would be rebranded to be far less vague.

RULES

• A larger, fancier, hard-bound alternative book would be marked with a Narrative Play. 
• This would include much more in-depth background on each faction, alongside – crucially – identical rules to the Open Play rulebook. The rules would remain plain English, while the lore sections would be more richly written.
  • That way, you can buy one or the other (or both) and understand the connection – but you don't need to lug a 300pp book everywhere.

 

This goes back to separating lore from the rules; I'd repackage the same rule book, but instead of a lore pamphlet (as in Open Play), this is a full lore book, covering roughly what the lore section of BBBs have covered.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

• Codex and Crusade expansions would be marked as Narrative Play. These would provide the rules to play particular Craftworlds, Chapters, Regiments etc., (i.e. the rules would show how the rules in the model boxes are used to provide the organisation of the faction in the lore) and much more depth on particular regions of the settings. 
• Crusade books would include 'historical army lists' – no points, but rather a set list for a particular set of missions and ideas for flexing them to better fit your collection.

 

 In my own system, rather than having historical army lists for mission sets, the Force Organization charts are representations of historical/traditional armies and come with a rule to reflect those forces (and because I was designing it with units having points). I think that it makes Narrative Play more attractive for pick up games.

 

I really like army-wide rules being bespoke at this level so one could make a rule appropriate for a mixed Imperial Guard and Deathwatch force, for example. Similar to detachments, but more specific to narrative examples.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

MODELS AND RELEASES

• Special characters and one-shot units exclusive to a Crusade would be marked Narrative Play. Like all the other boxes, they would include rules for the unit, but no points values.
• An equivalent to the Combat Patrol boxes would be produced with the Narrative Play label, and be a way for GW to sell the equivalent of the splash release Piety and Pain and Eldritch Omens boxes – themed collections of models to tie in with a particular Crusade.
• These boxes would tend to build on Combat Patrols.
• Battlefield terrain sets for the Crusade would also be marked with Narrative Play.
• A section of each store could be dedicated to 'Crusade', with the season's rulebooks and boxes together.

 

I really like all of this. I'd add some sort of "use as X unit in Open Play" label for the special characters and one-shot units. The Narrative Play battlefield terrain sets reminds me of what GW did for Boarding Actions and for Kill Team.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

UPDATES

• A Crusade would last for a year or so – essentially a series of linked splash releases. 
• Over the course of the Crusade, you would get two or three books that reveal the ongoing narrative of the campaign.
• At the end of the Crusade period, a compilation would be released, including any revised or updated rules. Any tweaks made here would pop up free online for anyone who bought the individual books.

 

This is basically what GW is doing for Kill Team and it seems to be working well.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

ADVANCED GAME – OPTION 2

This is the inheritor of tournament gaming and Matched Play.

RULES

• The Matched Play Munitorum Field Manual would be a companion softback book for the Open Play basic rules. This would be written in the current legalistic style, with very tight wording.
• The rulebook would be marked Matched Play and include the sort of equal points missions etc. familiar now.
• It would include a complete set of points, in the manner of the old Index books.

 

Logistics again, , I'd have the MFM rules be the Open Play rules but with the most recent FAQ and errata baked into the writing and alongside it. Definitely written legal document style. Matched Play would be similar to current 40k; choose a single faction, choose a detachment, choose your units.

 

1 hour ago, apologist said:

MODELS AND RELEASES

• No models would be exclusive to, or marked with, the Matched Play label.
• Reference card packs, mission packs etc. would be released to support it.
• An online app, accessed with a code from the Munitorum Field Manual, would support this mode of play.
• Card decks would allow you to share info with the opponent quickly and conveniently.
• A section in the store would be hived off for Matched Play.

UPDATES

• The Munitorum Field Manual would be updated every three months, with points and rules being tweaked on the app.
• Changes would also be distributed through White Dwarf and WarCom, clearly marked with Matched Play.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Aarik said:

To me, the real crux of the problem is that GW's initial rules are lacking so often.  If the initial rules were better, then there would be less need to tweak them (or do so as drastically) so often.  I do think that the rules updates are the lesser of two evils, but I think the difficulty of keeping up with frequent changes is also a problem.

I think it is the largest, fundamental difference between the 40k rule writers and the AoS rule writers. The AoS side has, in general, been a lot tighter upon release.

Edited June 20 by jaxom

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Which is a part of why I have mostly checked out of actually playing 40k until 11th. I'm hoping they'll bring back some of what is missing from 10th, plus will just be a bit more polished, although I'm not hopeful.

Yeah that’s how I’m feeling now.

the indirect nerf was completely unnecessary. I don’t follow the competitive scene very closely but whenever I see a video about a winning list, I don’t see much if any indirect fire in them.

[Doghouse]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

This is exactly how I feel; I've been collecting the various material needed for 4th Edition 40K because, with the right mix of 3.5 and 4th ed Codexes, it's up there as one of the best rulesets 40K ever had, at least IMO. Modern 40K feels too much like a "tabletop E-sport" with all the games-as-a-service nonsense you'd expect out of an EA product.

 

I think that is a very good idea. The spotlight is always going to be on 'current edition' but at the end of the day there are another nine viable renditions of the game and you can hybridize them like you are doing which can be a fantastic edition to your own hobby time.

 

55 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

Easily the best counter-argument to my post (quoted in OP). While I am a player who likes active development (which I think is different enough from a "live service" to mention), there are always going to be many players who don't. The rules for Chess haven't changed in a long ol' while, and that's part of the charm. 

 

A competitive scene is always going to require some level of balance updates, otherwise there's a best choice to make. Perfect balance in a complex game is almost entirely impossible, and everyone would converge on the same few armies over time. That gets stale quickly and dies out. Therefore I'd argue that maintaining balance for a competitive scene runs counter to the "truer" hobby scene where players aren't as concerned with a level playing field.

 

I completely agree. I do get where other players come from that enjoy competitive play and can completely understand for a lot of newer players this is how it has always been for them and probably always will be as the editions advance on. I probably think that I am more of an explorer in 40k, ambling around taking in the sights and having adventures rather than being a dedicated General. If I were a character in the 40k universe I'd probably end up being more akin to a treasure hunter travelling from system to system getting into scrapes with the local crime syndicates and minor alien species rather than be the more typical Imperial Commander giving orders to entire regiments while fighting for the survival and conquest of entire planets in the name of Him on Terra.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The only core rule change I would have supported is preventing rerolls for things that succeed on a 2+

[phandaal]

53 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

I think that is a very good idea. The spotlight is always going to be on 'current edition' but at the end of the day there are another nine viable renditions of the game and you can hybridize them like you are doing which can be a fantastic edition to your own hobby time.

 

I have just been using Grimdark Future rules whenever I take the army out. The size and welcoming nature of the community was a pleasant surprise for sure.

 

It is interesting because most of the armies are 40k armies, and people are still buying 40k models, just not using 40k rules to get them on the table. Really shows where people are checking out. People are just not interested in locking their free time up with whatever the current rules team is producing.

[jaxom]

Grimdark Future is a bit too simplified for me, but that is also part of it's appeal. I wouldn't say no a game of it, though.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Live service is a great way to describe current 40k rules. I cannot understand how the current way of doing things is good. It is incredibly off putting. 

[ThaneOfTas]

I really wish that OOR worked for me, conceptually I really like it, but it's just too stripped down unfortunately.

[Zoatibix]

We’re now at the stage that the designers can’t update the app to match the changing rules.

 

Example being the various incarnations of the ‘Vect’ ability keeping their old wording but players need to remember that there’s another rules document that changes the wording.

 

I have some GSC stuff arriving tomorrow; I’m very tempted to return it and try Star Wars Legion instead.

[phandaal]

15 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

I really wish that OOR worked for me, conceptually I really like it, but it's just too stripped down unfortunately.

 

That was my impression as well, although once we started getting into games with it we realized we were spending more time participating in what was happening on the table and less time looking at rulebooks.

 

Commenting on the game, joking about models getting vaporized by a particularly bad roll, etc. It was almost like we were playing a game or something. 

[DemonGSides]

6 hours ago, Zoatibix said:

We’re now at the stage that the designers can’t update the app to match the changing rules.

 

Example being the various incarnations of the ‘Vect’ ability keeping their old wording but players need to remember that there’s another rules document that changes the wording.

 

I have some GSC stuff arriving tomorrow; I’m very tempted to return it and try Star Wars Legion instead.

That's a much bigger change than what they've normally been able to do for the app overnight which has generally been points. Rules documents showing up in the app tend to take a few days, and it's been 24 hours.

 

I get it, but some relaxation may be in order before flying off the handle about the app being updated. 

[Marshal Rohr]

If you watch Duncan’s interview with Jordan Sorcery he spells out the main problem, essentially GW doesn’t have a clear vision of what the game is and it swings wildly back and forth between “competitive play doesn’t matter” and “competitive play is all that matters”. We are in the latter right now. It’ll swing back the other way eventually. 

[Schurge]

Yes, the lack of stability and the state of the game keeps me from getting back into the hobby. Its ironic, because its biggest draw (outside the lore / nostalgia) is the "stability" of its community. I can go into any FLGS along my travels and find strangers to play with.

 

I don't want to be on a monetized treadmill, or to have my models squatted or replaced.

[Schurge]

3 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

That was my impression as well, although once we started getting into games with it we realized we were spending more time participating in what was happening on the table and less time looking at rulebooks.

 

Commenting on the game, joking about models getting vaporized by a particularly bad roll, etc. It was almost like we were playing a game or something. 

 

People are wary of the simplicity and lack of fluff. Is it really much simpler than 40k? (Chess is simple too, but it allows for a lot of skill.) (Fluff comes as much from mindset, models, scenarios, as it does rules.)