PDA

View Full Version : What streamline means and how it affects 40k *Warning: Rant Incoming*



Herkamer63
02-02-2017, 20:57
Rumors are saying 8th edition of 40k is coming, right? Right. When a new edition comes, that means some changes come with it, right? Right. Now the one term that keeps being thrown around is streamlining. I know what the term means to me, but to other people, and for authors on websites like BoLs or Natfka, I think they are thinking of something totally different. Instead of me explaining what it means, here's a few definitions, from different sources, relating to the term streamline, in relation to how it relates to what is being talked about.

Merriam Webster - to bring up to date; to put in order; to make simpler or more efficient

The Free Dictionary - to improve the efficiency of, often by simplification

Business Dictionary - to improve the efficiency of a process, business or organization by simplifying or eliminating unnecessary steps, using modernizing techniques, or taking other approaches.

Cambridge Dictionary - to improve the effectiveness of an organization such as a business or government, often by making the way activities are performed simpler

Collins Dictionary - to streamline an organization or process means to make it more efficient by removing unnecessary parts of it

There's a common theme to this: make easier and more effective. I understand there are people reading this and saying "I knew what it meant. Why did he go through the trouble bringing this up" Fair argument to those who truly understood, but it's not relating to those people. It's actually regarding to those who throw the term around, just to make themselves sound smarter, and don't know what it means. Now that a few definitions have been pulled, and hopefully understood (not holding my breath), we can talk about how 40k WILL NOT be AoS.

First off: 40k was never in big trouble to begin with. It has its problems, but no where near as many and big as WFB. Over 50% of GW's sales are SM products, and most of their customers play 40k. You could say it was simpler than WFB. WFB had way too many rules, steps, and confusion that it needed to change in a big way. So GW to a knife to it and made everything with its rules a heck of a lot easier. Thus AoS is born, and, wow, did it get a total make over. It still uses some elements of WFB, but nowhere near as complicated. A new game for new, and veteran, players where everyone can just enjoy, have a good laugh with your buddies, and have fun. In many ways, WFB is no more, as far as GW continuing it. 40k on the other hand, never had that problem, and still doesn't.

When many people say streamline 40k's rules, they say it's gonna be exactly like AoS. Let me be clear on this: NO IT'S NOT! There maybe a few things that maybe used from AoS, but not become a duplicate. It'll still be 40k with all the armies still intact along with the core rules it has now. There are areas that do need streamlined, but to say many (some people may see it as all) rules to head that way is absurd in this case. Why would that happen? To my knowledge, based on the number of people that come out to the tournaments, the majority of people are fine with most of the rules. I can see rules like ATSKNF being struck from the core rule book and being a Adeptus Astartes rule, which would make sense since they're the only ones using it, and individual books being rolled up into their corresponding codex (like all the marine armies, along with any supplements, a part of Adeptus Astartes). That would be an example of streamlining: easy and quick to find based on that information. No need to gut anything just to get from point A to Z. Now, we can see the unit's model(s) getting a sheet of statlines and some very basic rules coming with their packaging. Good idea in my opinion. To see everyone's statline in a big rulebook: possible, but I don't see that happening. AoS can get away with that because of the way it's setup, but 40k, though similar, is whole other game. Rules that apply to everyone will still be in the BRB, but other than that, don't expect much to change.

I understand there are some areas that need streamlined. The biggest problems, however, is still with the codices, not so much with the core rules. We're talking stats, rules, and pt costs (Craftworld Eldar is THE perfect example of this, Tau a very distant 2nd). That's where I think many of the changes will be made. Things like detachments and formations, I think, are here to stay. Quite honestly, they're well received for a much more narrative game that we are now playing. I hope they stay, especially for those who have created their own original armies. Anyway, streamlining doesn't mean changing the entire object into something else, but rather make easier to understand. I just thought I'd bring this up because it's become very annoying beyond belief, and it seems no one wants to address this. Thanks for letting me vent.

lanrak
02-02-2017, 22:02
@Herkamer63.
Well before any streamlining can be done,someone has to decide on the scale and scope of the intended game play.
If you want to end up with a war game, rather than a thinly disguised sales pamphlet that is.:biggrin:

Easy E
03-02-2017, 15:09
Maybe they will bring the rules back to 3rd edition. That was pretty streamlined. :)

lanrak
03-02-2017, 17:54
@EasyE.
''Maybe they will bring the rules back to 3rd edition. That was pretty streamlined and bland.''

Fixed that for you.:biggrin:

Herkamer63
03-02-2017, 22:16
Lately, I've had an idiot problem. People are just so ignorant to the facts. They read a headline they don't understand and automatically start assuming everything will be changed. It just grinds my gears so much that people would be that stupid. Does it sound like things will get easier? Yes, but the game itself won't change. Again, the bigger issue is with the codices, not the universal rules. I just wish people would understand that. You guys that responded are cool, though. Alot of other people: grrrr...you can't fix stupid.

f2k
05-02-2017, 19:44
Streamlined is one of those strange buzzword that doesn't really have a firm definition. I use it as a term meaning a simplifikation of the game, accomplished by rewritting the rules to be clearer and more concise, combined with cutting rules whenever possible. Your milage may vary though.

As for 40K...

Well...

Like it or not, 40K is in trouble. Whether it's the prizes or the rules or a combination of them can be debated. But whatever it is, something needs to be done.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it reduces to a level of Age of Sigmar. If I have to play a game with bad rules, then I prefer four pages of bad rules rather than a hundred pages of bad rules. And yes, they are bad rules. Over the years more and more stuff has been added and now the core system has virtually broken down under the weight of all the extra stuff.

The main issues is the crazy push to turn 40K into a mass combat game. Fair enough, if that's what floats your boat then... But if that's what you want, then you need to write rules to support that. As it stands, 40K is, at it's core, a skirmish game. But now so much extra has been bolted on that it's hard to figure out what's going on. The level of abstraction is all wrong and, even worse, it varies from phase to phase and rule to rule.

Of course, Games Workshop messing with the rules, merely for the sake of being able to push a new edition out the door, doesn't help at all. Nor does the emphasis on selling stuff, even if it come at the expense of the game. If Games Workshop had wanted it, we could have had a highly polished version of the 2. edition rules by now. But alas, it was not to be.

The final nail in the coffin is that they don't seem to care much about the rules. Play testing is sloppy at best (if they even do play test) and they clearly consider themselves a miniature company rather than a game company. As such, a drastic reduction in rules makes sense. Less time wasted writing rules and more time spend creating new models.

As for Fantasy, that's a hard nut to crack. Fantasy used to do well around 5. or 6. edition, give and take a bit depending on the local community. But even then there were worrying signs and portents in the sky. Support became worse and worse. New models were few and far between. Entire armies were forgotten and received no updates at all... Is it any wonder that the game started losing popularity?

Games Workshop has a bewildering habit of dropping support for a game, then going "see, the game isn't popular", and use that to justify dropping the game entirely. It's a self fulfilling prophesy.

theJ
07-02-2017, 13:19
@Herkamer63:
Two things:
1. Could you try to sound less insulting to your strawmen? No disrespect, I do the same myself, but when people read other things into rumours than you do, it doesn't give you permission to treat them like idiots. If you're right, you're better off being patient(and pleasant) than bashing, since all bashing does is bash them away, thus preventing them from "seeing the truth"... especially in this case, seeing how
2. The rumours concern the edition itself, not the codices coming after it.
I agree with you, the codices are the main issue with the system as it stands... but that does not change the nature of the rumour. The rumour says the system is getting streamlined(I think I heard the number 30pages somewhere...? I could be misremembering) - good, bad, or a little bit of both, that still leaves the rumour at saying the game is getting streamlined. Nothing else.
I will also say it IS a worrying rumour. We've seen AoS fail, and yes, we can assume that by now, they'll have taken lessons on board from that debacle... but we still don't know what those lessons were.
I know what I'd learn from AoS, you no doubt know what you'd learn from AoS, but neither one of us could possibly know what GW would learn from AoS. Do they perceive its simplicity as one of its problems? After all, the main complaints have been the setting, story, and listbuilding, have they not? details aside, 'tis rather rare for any critics to even glance at the rules themselves, so how would GW know of its flaws?
..
And even without the precedent of AoS, "streamlining" is still a pretty scary word; if something is to be streamlined, then that means something is going to be streamlined out... so what'll it be? the statlines? the customisation? the army structure? ...the standardisation?
I do not know.
And that does little to soothe my unease.

Easy E
07-02-2017, 16:07
Did AoS fail? Debatable.

Karhedron
09-02-2017, 13:49
Did AoS fail? Debatable.

From what I have heard, sales have picked up since the release of the General's Handbook. It looks like GW have realised that releasing a game with no balancing mechanism and expecting players to do the balancing themselves was not the brightest idea. I think that this was a personal philosophical choice by Jervis Johnson who failed to appreciate that without a balancing mechanism, it is very hard for new players to have fun. In spite of his assertions, it takes a lot of gaming experience to be able to come up with scenarios and/or forces that are balanced. For someone who only has the time to play 1 game a week, they want to play, not go through endless frustrating iterations trying to achieve balance.

I have a hunch the new 40K rules will look quite a lot like the Battle for Vedros ones. Expect to see armour values go and for vehicles to pick up saves and wounds instead.

H3L!X
09-02-2017, 17:10
I understand there are some areas that need streamlined. The biggest problems, however, is still with the codices, not so much with the core rules. We're talking stats, rules, and pt costs (Craftworld Eldar is THE perfect example of this, Tau a very distant 2nd). That's where I think many of the changes will be made. Things like detachments and formations, I think, are here to stay. Quite honestly, they're well received for a much more narrative game that we are now playing. I hope they stay, especially for those who have created their own original armies. Anyway, streamlining doesn't mean changing the entire object into something else, but rather make easier to understand. I just thought I'd bring this up because it's become very annoying beyond belief, and it seems no one wants to address this. Thanks for letting me vent.

Could you elaborate?
The Eldar Codex isn't top dog that easily anymore, actually a good number of codices passed it already. It may was at its Release though. (If that's your point)

Otherwise ... i will just wait and see. Not that i could change anything anyways. But i always can stick to 7th.

BillyBones
14-02-2017, 22:12
I agree, that the main rulebook is lesser problem than codices. The core rule IMHO need some corrections in certain unit types, that are rather cheesy, some simplifications and clarifications, simplifying the psych phase and possibly revision of the USR. The codices are another story, back in 5th ed. I used to know most of the armies maybe not in detail, but enough to know what to expect of them, now I don't even bother. I really like the idea of formations, but some of the formations are so broken and their rules are just so complicated, that completely screws the game.

Horace35
20-02-2017, 14:59
I doubt they will go full AoS on 40k, Aos probably did not perform as well as they intended (especially first up) and some of this was kickback against a massive simplification of the system. I personally like my games complicated but I realise this is not the accessible thing Gw really is aiming for now. I expect the rules will be trimmed substantially to make it more pick up and play. I doubt they will want to do TOO much because they will not really want to anger the large golden egg laying player base

sephiroth87
22-02-2017, 15:57
I sincerely and without irony hope they AoS it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Coasty
23-02-2017, 10:03
Could you elaborate?
But i always can stick to 7th.

7th? I've stuck with 2nd. 8th will have to be super awesome to change that. Somehow I don't see them pulling off the required awesomification if they've stated their aim is 'streamlining'. I like the depth of 2nd but every edition since then has removed depth and added breadth, if you see what I mean? At this point I can't see GW's 'streamlining' efforts doing anything but abstracting the game to the point of turning it in to expensive chess.

Sotek
23-02-2017, 10:16
Streamline flyers, FMC and such that they're not in different modes and all sorts of shenanigans and dial back the extravagant psychic phase and I'll be happy.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-02-2017, 14:36
For the record, I don't have a problem with setting a frame for discussion. It helps clarify things.


7th? I've stuck with 2nd. 8th will have to be super awesome to change that. Somehow I don't see them pulling off the required awesomification if they've stated their aim is 'streamlining'. I like the depth of 2nd but every edition since then has removed depth and added breadth, if you see what I mean? At this point I can't see GW's 'streamlining' efforts doing anything but abstracting the game to the point of turning it in to expensive chess.

This also describes me. For all its merits, 2nd ed. needed to be 'streamlined' and when GW failed to do it, the players did. The fixes I have in my sig were generated on Portent back in the day and I was surprised by how common they were among people I'd lever met. There was a clear consensus about what needed to be done to speed game play and remove clutter from the rules, and GW ignored it and did something else.

The key to predicting the next incarnation of 40k is understanding what GW expects from it.

That would be sales.

GW has spent almost two decades spelling that out to its customers: They sell miniatures, not solid game rules. The game rules are a means to an end, nothing more.

In the early years of the company it was different and one could cut them some slack because they were still establishing the parameters of the system. Books and supplements could come out in WD and people accepted that because the rules were a work in progress.

At this point, they've had seven tries to build the "definitive" rules for 40k, and even longer for Fantasy. The reason it hasn't happened is because they simply don't want it to happen.

I suspect that many of the internal discussions go something like this:

Manager: What's that you're working on?

Sculptor: It's a new kind of vehicle. Has claws and can jump across the board.

Manager: Looks great. We can probably charge $60 for it. Do we have rules yet?

Game Designer: No, but I was going to make it really powerful.

Manager: Make it essential. Make it into a whole new class of figure that every army needs to win.

Game Designer: Got it. Of course it will throw every existing army list into chaos...

Manager: It better! Okay, back to work, I'm going to go start pricing new sports cars.

Expecting GW to come up with a streamlined, easy-to-use and balanced game that scales well and isn't cluttered to death with new units and special rules is a sucker's bet. I'd love to see them do it, but it ain't gonna happen.

Lord Damocles
25-02-2017, 14:45
I suspect that many of the internal discussions go something like this:
And that's how the Gorkanaut was designed. ...no, wait, the Lord of Skulls. ...the Shadowsword? ...the Obelisk!?

Kahadras
26-02-2017, 01:12
Did AoS fail? Debatable.

Depends I suppose. AoS crashed and burnt in my club. Fantasy went from a dozen players to zero virtually overnight and it never recovered. Even after GW 'fixed' it nobody bothered going back.