PDA

View Full Version : The simplification of 40k?



Starwolf
25-05-2007, 23:28
The recent trend of 40k armies, along with current rumors about future armies, has me a trifle worried. Everything seems to be losing unique qualities which are replaced by universal special rules. No more wargear for Eldar or DA, and it appears Chaos will loose most of its wargear section. Chaos also will loose their special units which add character to the game, like unique demons and abilities (bloodrage), which are replaced with universal special rules (random abilities for demons [none of which are unique] and furious charge for Berserkers).

My question is this: Is this change to 40k for the better, or for the worse?
In my opinion, this is a change for the worse. Games will be simpler and easier for new people, but much of the character and unique qualities to armies and races are being removed.

What is your opinion?

Commissar Bob
25-05-2007, 23:38
I personally think that the simplification has some excellent potential, and this potential was realized in the DA codex. But my concern is that they are taking it too far. That is my big worry about the upcoming chaos codex. While they are trying to simplify how the army works, I feel that they are going to remove too much of the individuality of the army. I am going to keep an open mind though, and wait and see how chaos and maybe even eventually the ork codecies look.

Commissar Bob

ReDavide
25-05-2007, 23:45
Simplicity doesn't necessarily mean lack of variety. The Eldar codex can easily accomodate fluffy armies from all the craftworlds, and they have more options than ever before due to the rebirth of formerly bad units and introduction of completely new units & weaponry.

If the Chaos 'dex turns out to be as well done, I'll be a happy boy. (Well ok the layout is obnoxious, but that's another thread...)

The Orange
26-05-2007, 00:27
Well I'm into 40k more for the hobby and fluff then the gameplay. But as long as it's fun, I don't mind too much what direction it goes. Speed of the games is of course important too. Even with these simplifications, my friends and I rarely get more then a game in a month, :eek: . We just can't set that much time aside. Of course 2 vs. 2 1500pts each does take a while to set up.

ImperialFist18
26-05-2007, 01:37
Personally, I find that 40k is most definately the most complicated warhammer game there is. Although, new armies are always interesting and new rules can sometimes be difficult to pick up, but once you start playing with them and get a feel for them, they can dramatically affect your playing experience.

ProjectMayhem
26-05-2007, 01:54
For the competitive gamer: For the better.

For the casual gamer: For the worst (or, it depends).

Honestly, I believe GW is correct in formating it's rules design to a consistent standard based on competitive play, since competitive players are more limited in how they can use the rules vs. casual gamers. I personally wish that they took this stance of having a standard in rules dev at the beginning of 4th Ed. instead of five codices in. Hopefully, GW doesn't deter from this philosophy the rest of the way.

CryoMax
26-05-2007, 04:56
I chose "other", so I feel compelled to state my case.

I was going to choose "Overall, for the better", but it's a hard call. I think the basic rules being so much simpler in 3rd & 4th edition is a great thing; anyone who's played Rogue Trader rules (1st edition) knows it makes games actually playable.

On the other hand, they've also simplified the options, and I think that can be a little iffy. It's definitely a lot easier to balance a unit if there aren't very many permutations to deal with, but it also means units themselves become very generic, and I like having lots of options as a way to support unique and individual armies, full of character. Sure, you can convey a lot of character with how you model things, with the fluff back story you give your army, but that can get you only so far, before you end up having a difficult time explaining to your opponent that your IG rough riders are mounted on motorcycles for fluff reasons, but they actually move like cavalry, because that's what the army listing is designed for...

...Paul

Bloodknight
26-05-2007, 05:21
I chose "for the better". I also feel that it doesnīt really get simplified, but its focus shifts from list building to gameplay.

WLBjork
26-05-2007, 06:21
40K lost me in the change from 2nd ed. to 3rd ed. with it's oversimplification (not that there weren't some changes needed, I feel it could have been handled more like 3rd ed. to 4th ed. though).

The current trend of balanced armies however is fine.

Curufew
26-05-2007, 07:26
The rules are too shallow. Come on why does it take the same BS to shoot at a Grot 24 " away from you and a gaint monsterous creature 24" away from you.

Defcon
26-05-2007, 07:38
I agree partially with the shallowness of the shooting rules. While I am sure there would be some drastic reworking required I would imagine that the shooting penalties from Fantasy could be carried over without much difficulty. 1/2 range penalty, shooting IC penalty, no skirmisher penalty (obviously), soft/hard terrain penalty and the large target bonus.

However with the general BS being a 4 (all my armies are 4 BS on average), it would make lower-BS armies suffer too heavily perhaps. This could even introduce more USRs like sharpshooter etc to negate said penalties or what-have-you.

Irondog
26-05-2007, 08:07
Personally I feel that a lot of character has been lost in the oversimplification of 40k. Granted, 2nd edition games were often a mess, generally devolving into a rules argument, but they had character. The change to 3rd edition (and 4th) made the games much more playable, especially in a tounament setting, but there was definitely something lost. I give you the following example.....

2nd ed Orks had a nifty toy called the Shokk Attack Gun which basically fired snotlings through a warp tunnel at the intended target. You would make a random roll on a table depending what type of target was hit. Here's an excerpt from the vehicle table.

"In a moment of wicked Orkish malintent, the Snotlings were fed a breakfast of fungus gruel and toasted squig washed down with spore juice. The effect of this on the Snotling digestive system would be bad enough, but the distracting journey through the warp has made things worse. The emerging Snotlings are suffering from dire and uncontrollable flatulence.

In the confined compartments of a vehicle this fills the space with fetid green vapor and renders the crew utterly helpless. All hatches are thrown open and they hang out gasping their last breaths. The vehicle grinds to a halt, streaming green gas from every opening and seething with frenzied Snotlings."

There were also effects where the vehicle would move and shoot randomly, and all kinds of other fun stuff. They don't have this kind of character in 40k anymore. Somehow "I rolled a 4 on the glancing hit table, the vehicle loses a weapon", just doesn't have the same feel to it.

jubilex
26-05-2007, 09:14
One of my concerns is that the current trend seems to be aimed at balancing the armies. Now, in of itself, that should be a good thing. But balance seems inevitably reliant on simplicity. Simplicity may lead to lack of character. So, it depends on how deep they cut. Minor surgery or major heamorrage, we shall see. :) :( :skull: ?

rintinglen
26-05-2007, 09:22
Balance is wonderful, unfortunately, they are starting too late and doing it poorly. Looking at the DA, and Eldar Codices, I am not too thrilled, and the pace at which they are going is just plain terrible.

Kargush
26-05-2007, 09:32
Overall, I like the changes. Most of them, anyways. But I still want some nitty-gritty to sink my teeth into(guess why I like GURPS...?), and 40K lacks that. I would very much like to see a supplement that adds some of the detail back, like grenade throwing, more advanced movement rules, the works... I've played Rogue Trader once, and I loved it. All the nitty little details I like...

Stella Cadente
26-05-2007, 09:34
Overall, the change is OBVIOUSLY for the better

Marius Xerxes
26-05-2007, 10:13
I guess they are taking the quote of "The ends justifies the means" to heart. While in the end they are gaining the balance everyone so screams for, i feel the way they are going out with with Marines in general is not fun. 5 or 10.. wow great.. thanks for that choice. Hey if ya want a character with something a lil differant from a power fist or force weapon.. look to special characters.. by no means come up with your own idea... Thanks for making my characters i use useless.. guess that means i have to buy new ones.. guess that was the plan afterall.

Easy E
26-05-2007, 10:52
For the competitive gamer: For the better.

For the casual gamer: For the worst (or, it depends).

Honestly, I believe GW is correct in formating it's rules design to a consistent standard based on competitive play, since competitive players are more limited in how they can use the rules vs. casual gamers. I personally wish that they took this stance of having a standard in rules dev at the beginning of 4th Ed. instead of five codices in. Hopefully, GW doesn't deter from this philosophy the rest of the way.

I totally agree with this poster. There seems to be a dicothomy on the internet between the Tournament players and the Universe players that doesn't need to exist. 40K is big enough for both types of gamers and more.

To flog a dead horse, GW needs to create a Codex: Tournaments similar to Cities of Death that lays out the guidelines for tournament play, provides streamlined/clear RAW rules, balanced scenarios, and formalized list options. That way all of us who want to play tournaments or competitive games will have the same base to work from.

The problem in my eyes, is that the studio is currently focusing on the types of gamers they run into, see, and hear the most from. That's the tourney players. Therefore, their feedback is getting the most response and changing all of 40K to fit those ideas, when in reality they are simply a subset of 40K players no different than ork/Eldar/SM players. Would you want the ork players to get their way across all of 40Ks scope?

I don't think Universe gamers would be having such a difficult time, if the Codex books had been used the same approach since 4th Edition started. Look at the C:SM compared to Codex: Eldar. The design philosophies are very different. C:SM is all about CUSTOMIZATION, where Codex: Eldar is about STANDARDIZATION. I like the Codex: Eldar and think it is done really well (layout aside), however the customization does not have the same depth as C:SM. If the same watchword had been used consistantly, the obvious change would not be so jarring.

Sorry for the rant, these are topics I feel strongly about.

Morris
26-05-2007, 12:15
40k is simple, but not in a way that is good. I mean I messed about with a basic rule set based on Dungeons and Dragons. Nice and easy however it didn't disregard key details and probabilities.

What I REALLY think is so so stupid is that you can't assault out of a transport, thus destroying the whole point of having transports in any army (bar DE who can still do it in a fashion)

philbrad2
26-05-2007, 12:36
Personally, I find that 40k is most definately the most complicated warhammer game there is.

You didn't play RT/2nd ed or Necromunda then ;)



40k is far simpler these days. With 4th ed GW finally got its act together with the universal rules, this has arisen because so many 3rd codices all had a similar rule but written differently - i.e. True Grit.

While I welcome moves such as this, something like the Eldar codex and the rumours I'm seeing with Chaos and a potential Codex: SM redux would indicate that the a large degree of customisation players had at their finger tips is coming
to an end, forces are starting to become quite generic, simply having a a universal rule or two tagged on them. For clarity fine but to make something stand out unless the universal rules are expanded everything starts to appear quite 'cookie cutter' like. Wargear lists are trimmed an I feel some of the characterfulness is being taken away.

As for gameplay 40K ruleset is quite slick now, assault I find as being as it should have been in game play, not an overriding 'must have' as it was in 3rd ed, its now very much an element of overall combat and not and overwhelming element. Vehicles are better, still not perfect by any means, shooty troops a have some boon to this fact with rapid fire instead of engaging dedicated assault troops. Psykers fair better than they did in 3rd ed. Overall it is much more balanced. Having played since RT days it is the easiest ruleset to play its geared much more to large scale engagement -more so when Apocalypse comes out. I would like to see something more advanced including as an add on for skirmishes than having to rely on rule sets like Necromunda, which again have been tweaked in recent years but are still quite clunky. I enjoy Kill Team but this seems a bit 'basic' I'd like a properly developed rule set for such a game rather than a chopped down version of 40K.

In summary, 40K 4th ed does exactly what it says on the box. Its a wargame and for fielding large armies (which of course brings GW more revenue) its fine.

Those wanting more detail and possibly a fresh skirmish level game are left to our own devices, either the fairly low-tech Kill Team rules or far more characterful, but sometimes long winded, Necromunda.

Then again you could always play 2nd ed 40K...

PhilB
:chrome:

byteboy
26-05-2007, 12:50
I like the idea of Tournament books/rules.However, if I play my non tournament army vs. a tournament one, and win; I just know, in my opponents eyes, he will think the win does not matter since my army was not tournament legal.

This would then create a bigger schism between tournament and non tournament players.

I am currently adopting 2nd Ed Firing/Movement and Splitting Fire into 4th Ed games. I don't want this game to turn into a spiffy version of chess where I just have cool looking models that don't do anything real special game wise.

static grass
26-05-2007, 12:53
Most people equate change with the unknown which they then equate with fear. Therefore change is bad.

Proof? Check the "ZOMG!!! ChaOs CodeX is teh nerf" thread in the rumours section.

MY THEORY!

Many people shouting down the changes in the codexes see them themselves as "the elite" to say it that way. The elite establish their position by winning games. Winning is done during the army selection phase, this is the most complex phase in the game as it basically makes or breaks your army (See alatioc Ranger army for reference). The elite player maintains his "elite" status winning games through better knowledge of the coedexes. Simplifying the codexes allow new players to understand the selection process easier and reduces the importance of the army selection phase and thus threaten the status of the elite player. The elite player denounces the changes for various reasons but say being good at 40K is the only thing he is good at could be a reason.

Perfect Organism
26-05-2007, 13:08
Most people equate change with the unknown which they then equate with fear. Therefore change is bad.

Proof? Check the "ZOMG!!! ChaOs CodeX is teh nerf" thread in the rumours section.

MY THEORY!

Many people shouting down the changes in the codexes see them themselves as "the elite" to say it that way. The elite establish their position by winning games. Winning is done during the army selection phase, this is the most complex phase in the game as it basically makes or breaks your army (See alatioc Ranger army for reference). The elite player maintains his "elite" status winning games through better knowledge of the coedexes. Simplifying the codexes allow new players to understand the selection process easier and reduces the importance of the army selection phase and thus threaten the status of the elite player. The elite player denounces the changes for various reasons but say being good at 40K is the only thing he is good at could be a reason.

Harsh, but I think you might have a nugget of truth there.

Marius Xerxes
26-05-2007, 13:09
People still have an idea of what a "Tournament" v. "Non Tournament" list is. At least around here you are graded on differant aspects of your army which will affect an overall champion beyond what you get for painting skill and battle results. Quite frankly if its in the codex as an option to use and in no way breaks any rule, then you shouldnt have something set up to penalize you in its employment in a game.

Basically what all this comes down to is styles of play. The people who want things changed most are the ones who cry cheese and instead of wanting to change their army to preform in a differant manor then what they invisioned, they want the other guy to be forced to change the way they play and how they invision their force. Tactics and stratigies are ever changing and thinking of new ways to use the resources at hand is critical to the evloution of warfare. This game being a simplistic war game, should at least on the tacticle level, mirror that.

How dare they target our officers.. thats just not right. Oh wow they realized our troops dont know what to do without them.. dang.. maybe we should change our tactics cause we have no one to run to and make them stop. :cries:

byteboy
26-05-2007, 13:10
I don't fear armies like old Altaoic Rangers. A good General makes a well rounded army, that can put up a pretty good fight vs. anything thrown at them. Many variables come into the game:terrain placement/model placement/mission type/who places models first and who gets first turn.

That, in itself, can deeply alter how each player perceives what can/cannot happen in the game.

I can roll a Ranger army, it's easy. I have seen 30 Hormagaunts blitz through 3 units w/o having many issues. Drop ordnance or even Incendiary Whirl Wind rounds and they are toast.

Many of the people are pissed our hard earned $ and/or time spent converting models for WYSIWYG is tossed out the window when GW makes drastic alterations in armies.

The fact that, all of a sudden things in my army are altered erratically, and/or totally phased out is uncalled for and people should stand up for themselves when something they own, is now obsolete in this genre of entertainment.

This is one reason I refuse to keep supporting the company if they keep shafting all the people who put lots of $/time into their armies and either have to reconvert(thusly destroying an awesome paint job) and/or having to once again purchase models applicable to the newest release of the army.

Winning has nothing to do with anything. Its the fact GW is listening to all the whiners who cannot play the game tactically and actually ******* adapt new ways to the army they play. Now they need the ******* company to tell them what you can/cannot have in the army, w/o you actually thinking how you want to play the army.

Essentially, all the lemmings are following what GW tells them to. GW tells them, "now you have to play this army this way" and people roll over for it and don't speak up. Start standing up for yourselves, learn how to play the army and stop looking for "I win" buttons. It's people that just "take it" will be the ones that, ultimately, make 40k a Sci Fi version of chess later.

Marius Xerxes
26-05-2007, 13:18
Amen byteboy.. amen

ehlijen
26-05-2007, 13:20
I think that simpler in this case is better, as many of the 'differences' where created simply to differentiate otherwise identical armies because of fan demand (Chapter of the month....) and then other armies's fans started demanding similar things because the new armies where 'overpowered' and in the end everyone was running around with a str 5+ rending power weapon on a bike with a 2+ armour save and furious charge! Ragh! Things weren't getting more diverse with extra special rules: they were getting more the same.

The game needs to go back to the point where the choice between a flamer and a plasma gun is as major as it gets, because it is a major choice in the squads application. And I approve of everything that makes a codex easier to understand. But then I also want them to get rid of all the variant marine chapters (the eldar can do it! why can't we?) and I want only one book for chaos (renegades shouldn't be different enough to warrant their own book, and why should a person need 2 or three books just to fully understand his army? ie I really don't like the beast/hordes of chaos split they have in fantasy). I think I'm ranting, sorry. One last thing: the differences should be mainly in the stat line (this inlcudes movement) and the equipment, with one or two armywide rules maybe. If that's not different enough, it doesn't deserve it's own codex.

Marius Xerxes
26-05-2007, 13:29
Im all about bringing things back into line, dont get me wrong. But they should have done it in one swoop, rather then doing it piece mail like the currently are now. The should step up the codex release process and bring out at least 3 a year. With mutiple development teams all working together on ideas, but having enough time to work seperatly enough to get the ball rolling they could do this.. but as long as you have one man breaking his mind over every decision...

byteboy
26-05-2007, 13:30
You also forget, listening to his 12 yr old son.....:D :D
Hahahaha!

Ozorik
26-05-2007, 14:08
40K lost me in the change from 2nd ed. to 3rd ed. with it's oversimplification

The exact same thing happened with me. I hung about in 3rd ed for a while but eventually moved on. My 3 games of 4th ed have only shown me that things have gotten worse. I gave 40k a final chance last year but the game is simply dull and some of the rules are so abstract as to be rediculous.

40k is currently a pale shadow of its former self with a noticable lack of depth and dull gameplay. Further simplification will only make things worse.

2nd ed had its problems, close combat most obviously and then things such as the infamous virus outbreak strategy card. It also had sensible shooting rules, psycology rules and a bit of depth to the game play. Things like overwatch, smoke grenades, decent vehicle rules (even if they were a little clunky) and psycic powers made the game much more tactical and enjoyable.

jimthegray
26-05-2007, 14:10
Personally, I find that 40k is most definately the most complicated warhammer game there is. Although, new armies are always interesting and new rules can sometimes be difficult to pick up, but once you start playing with them and get a feel for them, they can dramatically affect your playing experience.


nah 40k is the simplest of the bunch and had been dumbed down to the point I rarely play it any more.

Bunnahabhain
26-05-2007, 14:41
Other.

Compared to 2nd ed, the simplification has been far too much great, and mainly counter-productive.

Lets see, what have we lost:
Good things.
Meaningful Psychology
Armour save Modifiers
Sensible vehicle rules
Varied movement speeds
Overwatch
Variety

Not sure about: The Psychic phase

RIP. The very slow close combat system. Fine for 10 models, not for 200!

Lord Malek The Red Knight
26-05-2007, 14:54
What I REALLY think is so so stupid is that you can't assault out of a transport, thus destroying the whole point of having transports in any army (bar DE who can still do it in a fashion)
so you prefered the 3rd ed "Rhino Rush"? :wtf: :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

anyway, you can still assault out of Open Topped Vehicles and Landraiders after moving, and out of any vehicle if you get out before it moves. plus you can now shoot more when disembarking (due to changes is Rapid Fire rules).

~ Tim

KITS AND BITS
26-05-2007, 14:55
the rules are currently great , the previous edtions suffered from becomming just about who read the books the most and could pull out some really vauge rule that changes the game when you have it won , now due to "simplification" the game is about army choice , tactics and stratergy ,which is as far as i can tell is what war games are about anyway.

lord_blackfang
26-05-2007, 15:47
Simple is good. Universal Special Rules especially are one of the best things that could happen to the game.

Honestly, why would we need different mechanics for each unit that was slightly better at one particular thing, when the end result was often similar?

Why have Furious Charge, Waaagh!, Combat Drugs, and various other abilities (+2 attack on the charge on some Space Wolves, etc) to improve combat performance when just one of these can work perfecly well for all units?

People are too hung up on "unique" mechanics. They make them feel special, I suppose. But they don't really add anything to the game, and just open up more rules loopholes and contradictions.

Starwolf
26-05-2007, 18:47
I understand what some of you are saying, but war is chaotic, you don't always understand what the other guy has, or what his stuff can do. I have heard rumors of Necrons loosing WBB and getting Feel no Pain. How lame is that? Absolutely Zero character.

I agree with previous posts: GW only hears from tournament players, so tournament rules become the standard. Also, we should stand up for ourselves. If we don't like the changes, we should call them up and tell them what we think. If they get enough calls, they will know our minds.

War is always a chess match, but darn it, can't it be a characterful chess match?

samiens
26-05-2007, 19:32
Well, I for one don't miss the three-four hour games of 2nd edition. And people moan about the AC now, it was the uber weapon of 2nd ed- I for one loved up to 10 shots in a turn each one doing D10 wounds. Plus did anyone ever really know how to resolve combats in 2nd ed- the RAW way was basically unplayable!

Overwatch completely unbalanced the game- the easiest way to win was pretty much to put the entire army on overwatch and stop your opponent manouvering at all.

2nd edition was a game of referencing and not tactics- having a better memory for all the weapons and rules made you a better player- a game should not be an intelligence war-that's elitist. I'll be honest, when 3rd ed came out I hated the idea of a simplified ruleset and refused to play, narrowmindedly playing 2nd ed.

3rd edition was basically a completely different game- a larger scale tabletop game than the wagame of 2nd ed. It was faster but very raw and needed the 4th edition ruleset to iron out the flaws. Its not a massively detailed simulation- its a fun, fast game with highly logical rules where the complexity is tactical rather than an intlligence war.

To the people who say that the new codicies effectively proscribe playing style- you could not be more wrong! the DA 3rd ed codex was a shooting only codex in effect, whereas now you can't realistically choose to go just one way- tactical combined arms play wins the day, otherwise the DA are a horrid army to use. Real tactics are needed.

The various add-ons you choose don't make you a great tactician- it simply accentuated the paper-scissors-stone mentality that is being addressed in the new codicies. You might lose the character of your IC a bit but most of that is fluff and the new ideas make armies more like an army not a hero's retinue.

However, whoever came up with the idea for a more detailed skirmish system based around more detailed characterised individuals would be a great release and generate plenty of gaming revenue.

I wish they sped up releases too, but this needs to be done right and the very future of 40k, GW and as such wargaming itself may rely on it- how many people start gaming with a non-GW system? They are the only company successful enough to reach the general public. I want this done right, look at the mess they made when they did speed up releases- the staple Blood Angels almost went extinct.

I wish people would get behind GW a bit more- I have game development experience and would happily create a variable system so detail maniacs can be satisfied but I think actual 40k is a damn good game that is getting better, if you want to kill it then go elsewhere- that's consumer choice, I hope you find as easily accessible a game that satisfies you, i'd miss the 40k universe. I also like the fact that tactics win the day- I have yet to find a game where this is as true.

Allarion
26-05-2007, 19:38
i would just like to point out, this is is a great reason to use the word simplification

Justicar_Freezer
26-05-2007, 20:00
In the end I went with other though I was at first thinking of for the worse. The reason I went with other is because I think simplifing the army books is in a way a double edged sword. In one way it will make the game more about what happens in the game and less about the army list the player picks but than again that is what I see as the problem because it takes the joy of customizing your force away to an extent.

I myself don't like the trend of forcing special characters down our threats. I liked being able to build my army leader the way I wanted and not having to take the uber high lord of my chapter or regiment into battle. To me that just dosen't make sense.

Another thing I dislike is the replacement of army specific special rules with universial rules. Why does GW have to do this. They weren't complicated and at least in my gaming group they never slowed the games down. Than again my gaming group also used to add different rules to the basic ruleset and the armies for the fun of it.

I guess in the end I'll wait and see however as of now I'm not exactly thrilled with the route GW has taken Blood Angles which is the army I first came into the game with. Nor are the people of my group really thrilled with the new Eldar. At the end of the day between myself and the rest of the guys in our gaming group we have all the old codexs from 3rd edition and the one before the eldar codex of 4th edition so we may just end up mixing what we like from 2nd, 3rd and 4th to get a game we enjoy and if I want to play a game with the standing ruleset GW has in print I'll play Warhammer Fantasy.

I hope that made sense.
Justicar Freezer.

The_Dragon_Rising
26-05-2007, 20:07
Other- i found that whilst the eldar codex did limit choices thanks to no armoury the fact that they are balancing units thouhg making them simpler is no damaging the game at all.

If they can do this with each codex then not only should "cheese" threads slow down but it will be a more fun game to play.

susu.exp
26-05-2007, 20:40
I voted better. The main thing making the rules simpler allows is more freedom for gamers. Adapting a simple structure for your own use is a task one can perform. Changing a very complex structure leads to unforeseable results. Fan lists for 3rd were better than for 2nd and for 4th they are even better. Itīs easier to add a house rule, than to remove an "official" rule (I know there were places where getting rid of virus outbreak actually generated intense debates).

Brother Alecium
26-05-2007, 20:58
The changes and the movement that Jervis Jonson and the rest of the "Genuises" at games workshop seem to be making is crapping up the game. The custimization level of the armies is drasticly going down, and that is the reason that I began to play in the first place. It really upsets me that GW wants to dumb the rules system and the game itself down so that they can bring in more business by attracting younger and younger players. I am not saying that children don't have the right to play like everyone else. But what I am saying is it's not right for GW to ruin the game for all of us so that they can seperate a bunch of kids' parents from their money.

Carlos
26-05-2007, 21:01
With the gradual increase of squads having more USR's as opposed to loads of individual rules we move away from a game obssessed with having to memorise a million different things and trying to out-power your opponent to a game based more on tactics and leadership.

Personally I cannot complain about ANY change for 40K. Everything GW has modified has been for the good of the game, Rogue Trader vets be damned and they have my thumbs up.

TheOTHERmaninblack
26-05-2007, 21:03
I totally agree with this poster. There seems to be a dicothomy on the internet between the Tournament players and the Universe players that doesn't need to exist. 40K is big enough for both types of gamers and more.

To flog a dead horse, GW needs to create a Codex: Tournaments similar to Cities of Death that lays out the guidelines for tournament play, provides streamlined/clear RAW rules, balanced scenarios, and formalized list options. That way all of us who want to play tournaments or competitive games will have the same base to work from.

This is my second favorite answer to the whole "simplification/balance/streamlining" trend. My first, as always, being an expansion of the MacRagge set to include basic lists for all armies while leaving the overall game alone.


Most people equate change with the unknown which they then equate with fear. Therefore change is bad.
.....................
Many people shouting down the changes in the codexes see them themselves as "the elite"

You are quite wrong. Having learned my lesson in the purged chaos thread, though, that's as far as I'll go with it.


so you prefered the 3rd ed "Rhino Rush"?


Rhino rush was indeed a bad thing. Unfortunately, the cure for it was nearly as bad. Honestly, the way to stop such things is and has always been across the table, rather than in the book.


Simple is good. Universal Special Rules especially are one of the best things that could happen to the game.

Honestly, why would we need different mechanics for each unit that was slightly better at one particular thing, when the end result was often similar?

Why have Furious Charge, Waaagh!, Combat Drugs, and various other abilities (+2 attack on the charge on some Space Wolves, etc) to improve combat performance when just one of these can work perfecly well for all units?

People are too hung up on "unique" mechanics. They make them feel special, I suppose. But they don't really add anything to the game, and just open up more rules loopholes and contradictions.

Following your logic, why even HAVE nine or ten armies? One list ought to do it just fine if the only differences are paint and modelling. GW could sell all the different models they want and you'd just fit them into the proper slot.



a game should not be an intelligence war-that's elitist.

--------------------------------:wtf:-------------------------------


Overall, my main cause of worry is the nagging feeling that GW is following in the footsteps of such companies as Wizkids, who forgot their core demographics in favor of a rarified heirarchy.

What sort of business model is it that tells you to cater to 5-10% of your customers at the expense of the other 90-95%? Realistically, how many 40K players are tournament players vs casual players? Which group is likely to spend the most money?

Following that thought train, which group will spend more, the set piece board gamers who want all armies to be equalized and similar or the fluff gamers and modellers who'll run an army up to 2000 and then start another one, or who'll run variants of a given army because they're tired of playing the same force over and over?

It's been my experience that power gamers are invariably contained in that 10% tournament players set, since it quickly becomes difficult for them to even GET a casual game due to their unsportsmanlike natures. That kind of makes me wonder why the entire ruleset is being changed to get rid of them while penalizing the 90% pool of casual players.

Son of Makuta
26-05-2007, 21:55
Simplification is good for tournaments, good all-round if done in moderation. But if over-done, as with the Chaos codex it seems, that's extremely bad for everything else. I've got a Chaos army planned, but the way the new 'dex seems to be going, I may end up abandoning it! Wot no Wargear?!?!

Zerosoul
26-05-2007, 22:38
Following your logic, why even HAVE nine or ten armies? One list ought to do it just fine if the only differences are paint and modelling. GW could sell all the different models they want and you'd just fit them into the proper slot.


That's absurd and you know it. There's a difference between simplification and making everything identical. It is the height of foolishness to have scads of similar, but slightly different, rules when you can just have one.

I really don't understand why there's this reaction towards making codices simpler. One of the primary gripes about 40K is that it's essentially driven by making lists. The new codices are changing that by making everything a viable choice(Eldar was good for this, the DA codex was great - everything is viable), and decreasing the amounts of silly choices so that it's hard to really screw up a list. This puts the focus back on the tabletop, where it should be. I cannot fathom why this is a bad thing to people.

TheOTHERmaninblack
26-05-2007, 23:53
That's absurd and you know it. There's a difference between simplification and making everything identical. It is the height of foolishness to have scads of similar, but slightly different, rules when you can just have one.

It's only a matter of degree. Like the old joke about whether the girl will sleep with you for a million dollars, once you've established precident, the rest is only accounting.



I really don't understand why there's this reaction towards making codices simpler. One of the primary gripes about 40K is that it's essentially driven by making lists. The new codices are changing that by making everything a viable choice(Eldar was good for this, the DA codex was great - everything is viable), and decreasing the amounts of silly choices so that it's hard to really screw up a list. This puts the focus back on the tabletop, where it should be. I cannot fathom why this is a bad thing to people.

The gripe results from taking away a major factor of the game. Make lists impossible to screw up and there's no skill involved in making a list.

Next thing to gripe about is terrain. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen a viable list pummelled because the player was naive enough to let his opponant place terrain. So let's take the ability of a player to screw his opponant over by terrain placement out of the equation. That would easily qualify as streamlining.

Oh, and how about deployment? I've had guys walk out before ever laying a model down because bad rolls screwed them over for deployment. Or maybe their opponant (the one who placed the terrain, remember?) crowded their zone and made successful deployment impossible. So deployment has to be simplified, In the end, You have a tabletop divided into squares, you MUSt deploy your general in the center of the back row, your psycher beside him, and etc.

You are correct in that A does not equal Z insofar as some simplification isn't necessarily a bad thing. But where to stop once you've succumbed? If you're going to change the rules because they can be exploited or because some players cannot read sufficiently to learn them, where do you stop?

Oh, and here I see on the horizon the great god BALANCE. But what does that mean, really? Some take it to mean that all choices are equally valid. Some take it to mean that anybody can pick the game off the shelf and play without effort. Personally, to me, balance means that, when I sit down across the table from my opponant, the outcome should be in doubt. If we cannot tell who's going to win before we start, the game is balanced. And yes, I know that not all games will be in doubt before you start. That's true in all games, including the chess that keeps rearing its head as the end result of "streamlining". In the end, it should be player skill that determines the outcome. Of course, the only way to absolutely guarantee that is to standardize all forces and remove chance from the equation. And yet, nobody's suggesting we get rid of the dice, are they?

There should be the ability to make bad lists; that's part of gameplay, like learning terrain placement and proper deployment. A good player will learn from mistakes and adapt. Yes, all units should be viable, but equal? Nah. More importantly, bad combinations should have consequences, just as should bad tactics and bad organization.

There are plenty of simple games on the market, and many of them are fun to play. 40K's strength has never been simplicity, it's been depth of experience. Try to make it into something else and you lose what it is.

GreenDracoBob
27-05-2007, 01:44
I said that its the same 40k. As much as it changes how army lists are built, it still looks the same, or rather similar, when played. I also chose this option because, as many have said, it is both good and bad, depending on the player. Induviduality is lost for competion and balance.

ProjectMayhem
27-05-2007, 03:44
I totally agree with this poster. There seems to be a dicothomy on the internet between the Tournament players and the Universe players that doesn't need to exist. 40K is big enough for both types of gamers and more.

To flog a dead horse, GW needs to create a Codex: Tournaments similar to Cities of Death that lays out the guidelines for tournament play, provides streamlined/clear RAW rules, balanced scenarios, and formalized list options. That way all of us who want to play tournaments or competitive games will have the same base to work from.

The problem in my eyes, is that the studio is currently focusing on the types of gamers they run into, see, and hear the most from. That's the tourney players. Therefore, their feedback is getting the most response and changing all of 40K to fit those ideas, when in reality they are simply a subset of 40K players no different than ork/Eldar/SM players. Would you want the ork players to get their way across all of 40Ks scope?

I don't think Universe gamers would be having such a difficult time, if the Codex books had been used the same approach since 4th Edition started. Look at the C:SM compared to Codex: Eldar. The design philosophies are very different. C:SM is all about CUSTOMIZATION, where Codex: Eldar is about STANDARDIZATION. I like the Codex: Eldar and think it is done really well (layout aside), however the customization does not have the same depth as C:SM. If the same watchword had been used consistantly, the obvious change would not be so jarring.

Sorry for the rant, these are topics I feel strongly about.

I believe, you really hit home on this one.

As I see it, 40k is sorta following the blueprint of the M:TG CCG. They have a beginners set, core rules, and advanced sets.

GW is making the core rules and army lists based on competitive play and universal access. The rules supplements and campaigns are geared to casual/experienced players. The increase in quality plastics and accessory sprues are for the hobbyist. The increase/reintergration of story/background for each new codex are for the fluff nuts. The new format and rules standard are to establish consistency in product presentation, which is actually considered good business practice when promoting a brand name.

Basically, it is one giant compromise, which probably will alienate the hardcore viewpoint anyway. Keep in mind, despite what conspiracy theorists may tell you, that miniature games is too niche a product to market solely to one demographic, especially one that doesn't generate it's own source of income (i.e. the 12-15 year olds). A lot of this "simplification" may very well have to do with balance issues, rules lawyering, and flat out confusion caused by obscure rules combinations which is not limited to younger gamers.

I think it would suit us well, even those who diagree with this new policy, to realize that we all had to start somewhere, and perhaps help getting this newer generation of gamers established and comfortable with the hobby could increase the demand for stuff like CoD, Apocalypse, campaigns, and a possible Advanced 40k rules set. I think GW would eventually explore that option if there is a demand for it.

Corporal Chaos
27-05-2007, 03:52
I am of a mixed opinion. I like the changes but it does remove the flavor of the armies and the little things that made the vet sgt special. That little piece of wargear rarely used but there non the less. So I voted it makes it for the worse, but I will roll with the changes and play 40K as long as I can.[dice0]

Stormsender
27-05-2007, 09:03
I voted the changes are for the worse.
Why?
Because customization and being able to equip my army how I want is what I liked about 40k. The less is more adage doesn't work for me in 40k, less means boring, and even less than that means I find a different game to play, which has been the popular choice at my gaming store. The DA changes are killing the gaming group at my store nobody likes the uncertainty

My buddy who loves his DA has hung it up with 40k and is playing WM now at least with WM you know the rules are very stable, like a rock compared to 40k. I am joining him in playing WM, if GW wants to change the rules like Jervis changes his underwear, I figure on waiting till the dust clears before I invest another penny.

Arbiter7
27-05-2007, 10:12
The only edition of WH40K that I've ever played is the 4th.

Being a Fantasy player for several years now, I started out on 40k mainly because my sci-fi futiristic minature game (warzone) flunked out. I began reading the fluff and I enjoyed it very much.



What I have to say about th 4th ed. -without having played any of the previous- is this:


It's actually *very, VERY* nice to play a game in a setting that you enjoy very much, *WITHOUT* the headache that usually follows you after an intense 4-hour 2k WHBfantasy game.

As a fantasy player, I enjoy the simplification.


*The* wargame of GW *is*, was and will be WHFB.

GW understands this very good and is making the best out of it.


I apologize to 40K fanatics, but if the game mechanics for 40K is even simpler than WHFB, then I embrace it.


I feel that the GW plan goes like this:


LOTR is tailored for kids and beginner wargamers

40K can please: kids who love metal/adult beginners as well as more experienced wargamers, *mostly because of its fantastic background setting

WHFB has the most advanced game mechanics and therefore is best for players who enjoy a more involved game, of any age.


I have no idea how 40K used to be, but as a fantasy player, I'm glad it is the way it is now.

Easy E
27-05-2007, 10:44
I like the idea of Tournament books/rules.However, if I play my non tournament army vs. a tournament one, and win; I just know, in my opponents eyes, he will think the win does not matter since my army was not tournament legal.

How is that different then today? If I took my Feral Orks and whip up on some MEQ list that someone was playing for a tournament, how will they feel?

At least if you are using a Tournament list against a Universe list in my system, the match-up is not expected to be fair. In reality, most people would only use Tournament vs. Tournament or Universe vs. Universe lists. That would allow the gamers to have a discussion about what type of game they want, and make sure they both have at least somewhat similar expectations from their gaming experience. This discussion alone would reduce the cries of cheese and increase the fun factor of every game of 40K.

Ronin_eX
27-05-2007, 10:56
Well I think the worst of the simplification has already happened. During the change from 2nd to 3rd a lot of rules were taken out to streamline the game:

- The movement stat was taken out and replaced by standardized movement.
- Save modifiers were taken out and replaced with AP.
- To hit modifiers were taken out and made an alternate save.
- Overwatch was done away with.
- Assault rules became like shooting rules (actually I liked this myself)
- Vehicles were simplified due to the loss of the 'to hit' mods (i.e. no more penalties to hit while moving fast).
- Many others I don't care to go through (loss of wargear being one that seems to strike a chord with people in the current edition).

So now with the game fully simplified so that you can have battles with hundreds of minis with no slow down. Great! So they get down to making codecies and start finding out how limited the system is. Where second edition had many basic systems in place third had only a framework on to which things could be added. So add they did, everytime a problem or discrepency came up they made a special rule.

- Oh no, our new movement rules don't take into account fast moving infantry very well = fleet of (wing, foot, tentacle, etc.)
- Well these genestealers sure aren't as good as they were against marines = rending
- Hmm, these Ravenwing aren't really all that great, to bad we can't give them jink, oh look that invulnerable save makes sense = jink save
- Hmm, now that all these close combat weapons have no stats how can we make one better than the other = choppa/chainaxe, power weapon/fist

Do I really need to keep going? The game is not really any simpler, it is just a simple framework with a multitude of exceptions/special rules added to it now. GW simplified the entire system in order to streamline it and then instead of rebuilding basic systems so that everything functioned in a cohesive manner they simply built on extensions and special rules until the game was worse off than it was before. Why do we need things like rending, choppas, powerweapons and all kinds of rules that ignore the standard armour rules when a save modifier provided the same thing with a more cohesive feel throughout the system? GW ended up cutting of too much and instead of going back and fixing it they add kludge after kludge until the game is rife with exceptions and loopholes because despite their best efforts at simplification the game is now a morass of special rules instead of being a single cohesive system.

Second edition had its flaws but that mainly came from an overabundance of pointless wargear and some clunkiness in the assault phase to name some other things. However at its core it was a very simple system that was quite powerful. Had GW spent time fixing the game rather than excising everything from it and rebuilding it through the use of random rules additions then the current system wouldn't suffer so much from loopholes and poorly written rules stemming from multiple inconsistent rules throughout the system.

If anything the current codecies are an effort to go back to the spirit of what 3rd edition wanted to be. A streamlined game that didn't need a bucketload of special rules to run. Sure they still slip back into familiar territory (rending Deathcompany anyone?) but they are showing a willingness to actually stick to a vision of a more balanced and streamlined game now. I may not love the 4th edition but it is a damn sight better than the rule-apalooza that came out of the codecies of 3rd edition (every codex seemed to have multiple, unique game changing rules just because the designer thought the game was missing something). The creation of USRs has curbed this somewhat by giving designers a large pool or pre-made rules from which to use but the over-reliance on special rules as opposed to actual rule systems (e.g. the move stat compared to the fleet of * rule) tends to cause discrepencies and inconsistencies where none should exist.

Wow, didn't mean to rant for quite that long, but the way GW handled 3rd edition is a real sticking point for me. The minute I see them stray from their current vision and going back to the chaos that was 3rd edition I am packing up and going back to games with rule systems that actually have some kind of internal consistency to them. I dearly love 40k for the background and because it was my first wargame but they have a lot to make up for if they want to get me to enjoy their games like I used to during 2nd edition.

byteboy
27-05-2007, 11:00
EasyE- you keep forgetting that takes communication and understanding. If someone only has a Tournament type army & I only have a non tournament type army, it is pretty obvious what the outcome will be.

Marius Xerxes
27-05-2007, 11:14
Not to Tear into the bumper cars player above.. but if Fantasy is the staple of GW.. why do all the tournies i go to, including the GT's support and usually have a significant higher populations of 40k players then fantasy.

Simplification to me does not mean its not for advanced players. To me it means they are doing this because with so many players and interpretations, they have to bring it down because to many questions are being asked and loop holes exploited. Having originally started out as a Fantasy Player way back on 3rd ED Fantasy i can tell ya if anyone was like me, its the style of play that drew me into and cemented myself in 40k.

They are completly un compareable systems.. Fantasy dosent even have missions.. every battle is set up 12 and go at it. 40k has a much more in depth game to game system which ensures there being more to the game beside simply beat the guy across the table up. After that, i dont think there is anything to compare them on. It just pruely style and pace of game play after that that i think draws players from one to another.

Marius Xerxes
27-05-2007, 11:37
Second Edition a simple system... maybe you played under a differant 2nd i played with.

Vehicles were simplified because you no longer had to move a ceritan speed before you could move faster in the next trun, you cant use a 50 point Rhino to ram into a 200 something point Leman Russ and blow it up cause vehicles can ram anymore.. and when you do hit a vehicle, you dont have a hit location chart of where on the vehicle you hit, then seperate damage tables for each location on top of that !

No sustained fire dice, no bagillion ammount of templates for an almost unending ammount of differant weapons systems.

The biggest simplification of all.. all you need now are D6's. Armour pen for some weapons was a D20 + D12 +2D6 etc.

The game was pure crazyness with differant wargears and options, and Characters that were amazingly customizeable. I loved Second Edition, but to call 3rd more complicated is really a far far strech. The armous value system in 3rd is more simple.. you either have a save, or you dont !

Chainaxes are going away if the rumors are true anyway. Power Weapons were mearly introduced to include in the game a level of weapon that was nasty enough to always take away a save on your regular line troops. But again.. you either get a save, or you dont. Not a save -6 like it was for a Lascannon. And Terminator Armour save was 3+ on 2D6.. thats just way more complicated.

No more math of that kind invovled anymore. It is far simpler then 2nd.

Bloodknight
27-05-2007, 13:13
They are completly un compareable systems.. Fantasy dosent even have missions.. every battle is set up 12 and go at it. 40k has a much more in depth game to game system which ensures there being more to the game beside simply beat the guy across the table up. After that, i dont think there is anything to compare them on. It just pruely style and pace of game play after that that i think draws players from one to another.

Actually WFB has several scenarios to choose from (but not in the BFSP rulebook, only in the big one), but most people choose to play pitched battles.

Tactically WFB is the more advanced system and 40K is beer and pretzel play in my eyes. And itīs good that both options are there - I enjoy both games very much.

Easy E
27-05-2007, 14:04
EasyE- you keep forgetting that takes communication and understanding. If someone only has a Tournament type army & I only have a non tournament type army, it is pretty obvious what the outcome will be.

Which is the exact same outcome as you would have now.

If a game like Flames of War can have different time periods that players manage to navigate, I'm sure 40K can handle a little thing like Tournament vs. Universe. Theoretically, a simple look at the opponents army would be able to tell you right away which type of game they were geared for.

As for communication in 40K. It should all ready exist in discussions of terrain and types of terrain before the game begins. So, the basic idea of communication before game play all ready exists.

Marius Xerxes
27-05-2007, 14:06
Im not sure how tactically it is more advanced.. i just think givin the type of tactics in use, 40k resembleing moden tactics more then Fantasy, people have a better initial grasp on it.

I think again it just comes to preferance of what you enjoy playing, for those who dont enjoy both.

Master Jeridian
27-05-2007, 14:19
Separation of Tournament and 'Universe' armies, seriously?

Basically your trying to take human nature out of humans, you think by presenting a collection of nerfed Universe armies in a separate system certain people will suddenly stop trying to WAAC?

No, just like every attempt at Composition ever made, these people will use the Codex Universe Armies and try to make the beardiest, power gamery army they can manage- so that they can still win most of the games.

In non-Tournament environments they will use Codex Universe Armies rather than Codex Tournaments, because all their fluff bunny friends will be using it, so they must to get a game. And they will still win most games and have filthy lists.

Worst case scenario- the Codex Tournament Armies are more balanced, ensure a fairer game, whilst Codex Universe Armies will be full of loopholes, game inbalances, etc to fit the 'fluff' better. Which will mean Codex Universe games will be the abode of WAAC'ers and power gamers looking for easy wins.

Worst of all it will cut a clear divide between two groups of gamers- making the assumption that everyone can be pigeonholed into 2 extremist views- the WAAC'ing Tournament Goer and the Fluff Bunny.
In truth, most gamers sit in the middle. I manage to go to Tournaments and still like and theme armies around the fluff (unfortunately not always at the same time).

DesolationAngel
27-05-2007, 14:21
Simplier, but still good, only problem I have with it is that there will be more obvious lists (ie DA and BA) where they more or less work themselves out for you in a competitive sense (ie who wouldn't take mephiston, a chaplian and death company or samael and a ravenwing force in a competitive environment).

Chaos will also get simplified, causing a lot of obvious choice lists too, either way doesn't bother me, just a shame that all the lists can't be simplified in one go to address obvious competitive imbalances.

Ronin_eX
27-05-2007, 19:31
Second Edition a simple system... maybe you played under a differant 2nd i played with.

Vehicles were simplified because you no longer had to move a ceritan speed before you could move faster in the next trun, you cant use a 50 point Rhino to ram into a 200 something point Leman Russ and blow it up cause vehicles can ram anymore.. and when you do hit a vehicle, you dont have a hit location chart of where on the vehicle you hit, then seperate damage tables for each location on top of that !

No sustained fire dice, no bagillion ammount of templates for an almost unending ammount of differant weapons systems.

The biggest simplification of all.. all you need now are D6's. Armour pen for some weapons was a D20 + D12 +2D6 etc.

The game was pure crazyness with differant wargears and options, and Characters that were amazingly customizeable. I loved Second Edition, but to call 3rd more complicated is really a far far strech. The armous value system in 3rd is more simple.. you either have a save, or you dont !

Chainaxes are going away if the rumors are true anyway. Power Weapons were mearly introduced to include in the game a level of weapon that was nasty enough to always take away a save on your regular line troops. But again.. you either get a save, or you dont. Not a save -6 like it was for a Lascannon. And Terminator Armour save was 3+ on 2D6.. thats just way more complicated.

No more math of that kind invovled anymore. It is far simpler then 2nd.

The basic system of 2nd edition was incredibly simple, I'm not saying everything in it was simple though. Most of the complications came from wargear or the assault system (having to roll for cloud effects was a pain). But take out the overcomlplicated assault system and the game stopping wargear and suddenly it doesn't take all that long to play. Anyone redesigning the system should have worked fixing what they had instead cutting up the basic systems and taking out everything but the bare bones. If basic systems (like armour mods and such) were used in 3rd edition instead of making a special rule everytime the system couldn't do something then the resulting game would run much more smoothly. All I'm saying is that 3rd edition failed to actually streamline the game in anything but a trivial way.

Now instead of the system allowing players tactical choice, it limits us and special rules are needed to make the game anything more than "move/shoot a little/get into assault". 3rd edition's method of adding hacks and kludges to its own system has ended up simply complicating things. Many of the special rules we have today could simply be using an actual system instead of forging ahead and making up a whole rule for something.

For me 3rd edition wasn't an improvement of the earlier edition of the game but instead a needless rewrite because someone couldn't be bothered to work the kinks out of the system they already had.

Ian Argent
28-05-2007, 01:24
I voted for positive, but I'm not sure I call it simplification...

Ronin_eX
28-05-2007, 01:46
I agree with Ian Argent, what they are doing now is true streamlining (i.e. what was supposed to happen in 3rd edition). I look at the DA codex and find a lot of tactical choices I get to make due to the way the list was written. This is great compared to current lists where instead of battlefield options you hear things like "optimal builds". The addition of battlefield choices to the some of the newer lists (Combat Squads, Deathwing Assault, etc.) has actually made gameplay more complex despite removing choices in listbuilding. 4th edition is shaping up to be a good fix for the problems in 3rd. No if they would just spend more time writing cohesive rules the game will start looking a lot better. It's no Warzone or Metropolis but it is a damn sight better than it was at the beginning of the 3rd edition. Thus my vote on the current round of "simplification" is that it is good because it serves a purpose and actually improves the game instead of simply taking away my tactical options on the battlefield.

Easy E
28-05-2007, 16:20
Separation of Tournament and 'Universe' armies, seriously?

Basically your trying to take human nature out of humans, you think by presenting a collection of nerfed Universe armies in a separate system certain people will suddenly stop trying to WAAC?

No, just like every attempt at Composition ever made, these people will use the Codex Universe Armies and try to make the beardiest, power gamery army they can manage- so that they can still win most of the games.

In non-Tournament environments they will use Codex Universe Armies rather than Codex Tournaments, because all their fluff bunny friends will be using it, so they must to get a game. And they will still win most games and have filthy lists.

Worst case scenario- the Codex Tournament Armies are more balanced, ensure a fairer game, whilst Codex Universe Armies will be full of loopholes, game inbalances, etc to fit the 'fluff' better. Which will mean Codex Universe games will be the abode of WAAC'ers and power gamers looking for easy wins.

Worst of all it will cut a clear divide between two groups of gamers- making the assumption that everyone can be pigeonholed into 2 extremist views- the WAAC'ing Tournament Goer and the Fluff Bunny.
In truth, most gamers sit in the middle. I manage to go to Tournaments and still like and theme armies around the fluff (unfortunately not always at the same time).


Thanks for challenging me, it keeps the mind sharp. You bring up some good points.

First, I don't expect this system to stop WAAC play at all. It hopefully will encourage it. In the proper environments between players that agree they want that type of game. The purpose of the Universe/Tournament system is to allow gamers to have a discussion about the type of game they want, before they start. That way both players can be on the same page.

The Codex: Tournaments will also create a system where WAAC is encouraged. Then Universe games will focus on having fun and relaxing. Balance won't be an issue. Will some people still cheese their Universe list? Of course, however if the focus isn't on winning but story telling, those WAAC people will A) Get bored and move on B) Turn to Codex: Tournament C) Get laughed at and not played for not understanding the purpose of a Universe game.

So in your worst cas scenario, the WAAC'ers will turn to Universe gaming for easy wins. However, they will be meaningless to anyone else. The Universe system is designed to take the focus of 40K away from just winning. It will do this by creating a variety of lists that may or may not be balanced, scenarios that may or may not be balanced, and campaign packs with balance otpional, and new game settings. Why would anyone use these, because to some people 40K is more than just racking up victories, and currently those people are not represented in the 40K system.

You say creating a divide between types of players is bad, in principal I can agree with this. The sad truth is that this divide all ready exists. Instead of sweeping it under the rug, let's acknowledge it and do something profitable with it. Is it fun for a Tournament player looking for a challenge to crush someone that is more of a Universe player? Is it fun for a Universe player to go up against a Tournament player? I don't know, but a discussion about which system they are going to use before beginning the game will give you a better clue as to the game you are about to get.

I will use a personal example, one day I wanted a relaxing game with my uncompetitive LaTD. At first, no one wanted to play an army that wasn't tourney legal. After talking some more, I convinced a SM player to take me on. He whipped out his min/maxed anti horde list. Needless to say, it wasn't pretty. I was abit frustrated, and after talking with him he didn't seem to get much from the game either. Now, would this have happened if we had discovered earlier that I wanted a more laidback Universe game and he wanted a Tourney style game? Maybe or maybe not, but at least we would have a better understanding of what we wanted out of the game. I could have tweaked my list to be more competitive, or vice versa. The way it went down, we both felt like our time would have been better spent painting and swapping war stories.

So to sum up. A dualism of gamers all ready exists and we should stop trying to ignore it. Instead, let's embrace it. With GW's guidance we can all move to a better form of 40K for all types of gamers.

chivalrous
28-05-2007, 17:17
I grew up with 2nd edition, I must have bee 12/13 when I started playing it and while it took a wekend of practice games to really get into the swing of the rules and the system.
I was incredibly simple and back then, the writers put a lot of effort into explaining how each individual rule worked, anyone remember the two pages used to describe how the Shokk Attak Gun worked? I accept that you had to put some time and effort into absorbing these specaial rule but with the detail we were given and the context in which the rules were placed, we hardly ever had a rules debate (remember still we were 12/13 years old).

Frankly the chage from 2nd to 3rd edition changed far too much. There are three things that needed addressing, Combat, Characters and the psychic phase.
Combat, because it took far to long to play out. I loved the way it worked and it's fantastic for Necromunda, but if you were facing a horde army, then a combat phase could last for hours. It is possibly the only change made in the rules that I approved of.
Characters Herohammer was something of a problem, where an army focussed more on the killing ability of its characters than on the army itself. 3rd edition managed to solve this pretty well actually.
Psychic phase It didn't want to be removed, but a lone psyker had a little too much influence on the battlefield at times. Removing the phase all together went a bit too far, reducing psychic powers to little more than a plasma gun, in many cases, was a reduction too far. A system closer to the current Fantasy magic phase would have been far more appropriate.

As for unnecessary changes, well, Bunnahabhain has said it all:-


Other.

Compared to 2nd ed, the simplification has been far too much great, and mainly counter-productive.

Lets see, what have we lost:
Good things.
Meaningful Psychology
Armour save Modifiers
Sensible vehicle rules
Varied movement speeds
Overwatch
Variety

Not sure about: The Psychic phase

RIP. The very slow close combat system. Fine for 10 models, not for 200!

Lord Malek The Red Knight
28-05-2007, 18:52
thing is, we still have "Varied movement speeds" - just not represented with an "M" stat.

sure the standard speed is Move 6" - Assault 6", but we've also got:
Move (2D6, pick highest)" - Assault (2D6, pick highest)"
Move 6" - Fleet D6" - Assault 6"
Move 6" - Fleet D6" - Assault 12"
Move 12" - Assault 6"
Move 12" - Fleet D6" - Assault 6"
Move 6" - Move 6" (Assault Phase)
Move 12" - Move 6" (Assault Phase)
Move 24"

so thats (at least) 9 different Movement Speeds in the core rules (ive not counted any Codex-only special rules there)!

plus theres Difficult Terrain, Move Through Cover, MCs in Difficult Terrain and Scouts, and things like Pile In Moves, Consolidation/Massacre Consolidation, Hit and Run and 2 different Fall Back speeds (2D6 & 3D6).

and thats not even including Vehicles (plus Fast Vehicles and Roads)/models in Transports!

what was that about a lack of different Movement speeds? :p

~ Tim

Ian Argent
28-05-2007, 20:47
How would people feel about leadership being lower across the board, but everyone had the option, at least, to rally below half (a la Bonding Knife in Tau codex)? ATSKNF instead becomes take Ld tests on 3d6 pick 2 and autorally. More chances to fail a Ld test, but it's less important?

Right now every time you take a Ld check you're taking an awful risk - and there are times I'd really LIKE marines to retreat and take a better position.

Ronin_eX
28-05-2007, 20:49
I never said that they lacked the variation, I said that the standardized move speeds were later changed by things like 'fleet' and 'slow and purposeful' because the designers found the basic system in place didn't allow for the variation they wanted. In any case how did a move stat slow down the game much more than remembering which move type you are and any movement special rules? I'm just saying the move stat was a much more elegant solution than having standardized movement types AND special rules involving movement as it could handle both duties in most cases. 3rd edition only had standardized movement at the beginning which actually did streamline the game, albeit maybe too much, which is why they started packing on more special rules.

That's my only point when I compare 2nd and 3rd I find that due to the oversimplification of the system in 3rd edition (some simplification would have been good, but not as much as they did) they needed to start making special rules in order to make things unique. The new style of 40k codecies is getting it right by using a small amount of special rules to add flavour but not going overboard until it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. In short I'm saying that I don't think the current round of streamlining is all that bad when you compare it to what has already happened in the 3rd edition.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
28-05-2007, 21:10
I never said that they lacked the variation, I said that the standardized move speeds were later changed by things like 'fleet' and 'slow and purposeful' because the designers found the basic system in place didn't allow for the variation they wanted. In any case how did a move stat slow down the game much more than remembering which move type you are and any movement special rules?
well under 4th ed, the movement speeds tie in better with other rules.
by making the standard move 6", that allows Difficult Terrain to be taken on 1D6.
Rapid Fire range (2 shots) is 12", most basic weapons have a 24" range, while Pistols have a 12" range. the Melta rule is also 6".

by breaking things down into 6" chunks, it makes things far more tactical, IMO. if you move into range to shoot twice with your Rapid Fire weapons, any surviors will be left in range to charge you in return. if you shoot a Melta Gun at short range, you will be close enough to potentially get hit by the D6" blast when if it explodes.

i know im not making my point very well (TV is on behind me...), but there is a valid point there, IMHO. back in 2nd ed where wasnt as much of a relationship between weapons ranges and movement speeds. while the different M stats and ranges were more realistic, it felt more like an attempt to simulate the battle than be a game.

~ Tim

Codsticker
28-05-2007, 21:24
I voted for Improvement. It's interesting to note that a significant number of the posters that object to the latsest edition do so on the basis trhat the game is insufficiently complex to entertain them. For the last year or so I have been following historical gaming and the trend there seems to be towards what is referred to as "quickplay" (ie. simplified) wargaming. The "game" aspect being more important than a realistic miniature representation of combat.

Ronin_eX
28-05-2007, 22:25
True enough on the point about the 6" partitions of movement. It makes for a simple balance but I actually think it along with the removal of other rules (optimal weapon range mods and the loss of overwatch) really deemphasizes the importance of movement for more than just getting into assault. Now shooty armies really don't even move while in 2nd edition it was a very important phase it now seems much less important than the shooting/assault phases. The best part about the newer marine codecies coming out is that combat squads encourage you to move elements of your army in order to maximize your firing lanes which is a great change from the static 6-man las/plas squad. I hope to see GW emphasize mobility for more than just assaulting the enemy in future codecies.

chivalrous
28-05-2007, 23:55
I voted for Improvement. It's interesting to note that a significant number of the posters that object to the latsest edition do so on the basis trhat the game is insufficiently complex to entertain them. For the last year or so I have been following historical gaming and the trend there seems to be towards what is referred to as "quickplay" (ie. simplified) wargaming. The "game" aspect being more important than a realistic miniature representation of combat.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there were elements of 2nd edition that needed to be streamlined and quickened but in my opinion, too much got needlessly streamlined.

cailus
29-05-2007, 00:23
After playing 40K for 10 years I think that a standardisation of the rules is necessary.

Several factors point me to this direction:

1. People tend to forget most special rules anyway. For example in 3rd/4th edition I've never seen anyone remember Mephiston's Transfixing Glare, Daemonic Weapon mastery tests and only rarely remember Hit & Run or The Horror (for Nid critters).

2. Special rules often lead to confusion e.g. if you are in combat with both a unit with Warp Scream (-1 Initiative for opponents striking against them) and a unit without Warp Scream. So for example if my Marines were fighting Undivided Chaos Marines and Daemonettes, they would be simultataneously I3 against the Daemonettes and I4 against the Chaos legionnaries.

It was even worse in 2nd edition - for example flamers were a pain in the butt because the on fire rules as were most remain in-play grenade types simply because it was easy to forget them. The flamer on fire rules were confusing.

3. Incorrect misinterpretation of rules - Most players I know struggle with the rules (hence I often act as a rules referee at my club). I've known 2nd edition veterans who struggle with even the simpler shooting rules let alone army specific rules.

Again rules are misinterpreted with the most common one being people conveniently forgetting the disadvantages of their rules. Khornate players for example remember to roll for Blood Frenzy but forget that they should move towards the closest enemy unit.

4. Most special rules are questionable in their application. For example why would an Ork be scared of a Necron flayed one? Or why would Daemons be subject to night fight rules when they see souls and not the real world? So the special rules should either be more complicated and convoluted or changed and further simplified.

5. Confusion - the USR removes confusion especially in cases where rules in different codexes had a similar effect.

And inspite of all the special rules and often crazy unit variety, most people seem to pick out the most efficient units, play on terrain sparse tables and use the most dumbed down tactics (shooty guy stands & shoots, assault guy charges forward).

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 05:08
I find that taking many of those constant effect things out of 2nd edition takes out much of the time consuming stuff. 2nd edition suffered from an overabundance of wargear with a lot of different rules for each one. Cut out all the needless time sinks (rolling for plasma/vortex grenade wandering, being on fire, etc.) and you end up with a game that takes about as long to play as the current edition but has more tactical choice.

I think the main reason people tend to remember long games of 2nd edition is because they started to play very large games with the system (2000+ points) and 2nd was meant to be used with 1500 point armies in lots of terrain (this was in the game's designer notes). I think GW should have pushed Epic as the huge battle game while keeping WH40k around as the skirmish level game. Epic has always done large battles better than 40k but during 2nd edition 40k did small scale engagements quite well. It needed some balancing and streamlining but not on the scale that was done in 3rd.

Too bad Epic was relegated to specialist games as it had the chance to be used for what many use WH40k for today (The upcoming Apocalypse book is some evidence of this). At this point in time 40k scales down quite poorly to small points games whereas 2nd edition was fun even if each player only had a squad or two in play. I think the optimal "scale-up" of 40k games should have been Warhammer 40,000 then Epic 40,000 just so neither game steps on the other's toes. As it is now both WH40k and Epic can be used to play the same size of game (large game in 40k is a small game in Epic).

zodgrim
29-05-2007, 05:13
I like special rules. And I like when they are unique. I can see why they do it for entry and tournament business strategy. But I don't really like it.

WLBjork
29-05-2007, 05:41
I find that taking many of those constant effect things out of 2nd edition takes out much of the time consuming stuff. 2nd edition suffered from an overabundance of wargear with a lot of different rules for each one. Cut out all the needless time sinks (rolling for plasma/vortex grenade wandering, being on fire, etc.) and you end up with a game that takes about as long to play as the current edition but has more tactical choice.

I think the main reason people tend to remember long games of 2nd edition is because they started to play very large games with the system (2000+ points) and 2nd was meant to be used with 1500 point armies in lots of terrain (this was in the game's designer notes). I think GW should have pushed Epic as the huge battle game while keeping WH40k around as the skirmish level game. Epic has always done large battles better than 40k but during 2nd edition 40k did small scale engagements quite well. It needed some balancing and streamlining but not on the scale that was done in 3rd.

*Waves hand* I've actually played 10K games of 40K2 in a day. Same-sized games in 40K3 took a day as well. Part of that was due to better rules familiarity with 40K2 - the most commonly used weapons and tables were memorised, and we rarely used silly wargear (like the aforementioned grenades).


Too bad Epic was relegated to specialist games as it had the chance to be used for what many use WH40k for today (The upcoming Apocalypse book is some evidence of this). At this point in time 40k scales down quite poorly to small points games whereas 2nd edition was fun even if each player only had a squad or two in play. I think the optimal "scale-up" of 40k games should have been Warhammer 40,000 then Epic 40,000 just so neither game steps on the other's toes. As it is now both WH40k and Epic can be used to play the same size of game (large game in 40k is a small game in Epic).

Up to the release of Epic 40K, we were all planning on doing Epic (Space Marine). The release of Epic 40K was a mistake, as it seemed to go rapidly from being the third game supported by GW to a niche (later, specialist) game. Biggest problem for me? Oversimplification. All the weapons were removed, and units were given "Firepower", "Anti-Tank", "Death Ray" or "Barrage" ratings instead - lost a heck of a lot of flavour. Whilst Epic:Armageddon has brought some of this flavour back, it seems unfortunately a little too late for the game.

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 07:05
Yeah, I'm guilty of big 2nd edition games myself. But I wont blame the system for being slow because I'm playing at a level that it wasn't meant to support. It's the people that went and played 5000 point games and complained how long it ended up taking that bugged me. I'm fine with doing mega-battles but they take a long time and simplifying a game so that they are possible tends to lose detail if you try to scale back down which is a damn shame because I tend to play skirmish games instead of huge battle games at 25-28mm. I love large scale games but for those I like going all out and playing at 6-15mm instead as that allows for truly huge forces due to the amount of abstraction. Well I still have hope that they will do a proper expansion for skirmish level games in 40k. I mean, mega-battles are getting one so it only seems logical (yeah, that's where the plan fall through don't it? :p) that small scale games should get them to.

rintinglen
29-05-2007, 08:29
You didn't play RT/2nd ed or Necromunda then ;)




Then again you could always play 2nd ed 40K...

PhilB
:chrome:

Only if you are thirteen, out of school, and have all day to do it.

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 08:41
Only if you are thirteen, out of school, and have all day to do it.

Or maybe if you play the game at 1500 points as the designers suggested and have a nice game that lasts an hour or two. 2nd edition taking all day to play is only true in the cases where people played at 5000 points and up. It's not as complicatate as it is always made out to be, too bad most people can't give it a try now and realize that (I still have 2nd edition games every so often so this isn't my nostalgia talking).

Nurglitch
29-05-2007, 08:50
The reputed length and complexity of 2nd edition Warhammer 40k seems to grow with every new edition that comes out. By the time the 6th edition is released it will be common knowledge that games in 2nd edition took at least a week for a cray to compute whether Abbadon had beaten Marneus Calgar in a round of close combat with a virus-vortex-assault cannon.

MindSlave
29-05-2007, 08:53
Having just read the simplified DA dex', I hated it!! So few choices... So bad, in fact, I started to play Inquisitor! much better! back to the complicated game we know and like.

Sir_Turalyon
29-05-2007, 09:02
I would not call it simplification at all, rather shifting attention from equiping characters to equiping / using units, as it should be. Everything that makes players act more like generals and less like quatermasters is step in right direction.

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 09:55
The reputed length and complexity of 2nd edition Warhammer 40k seems to grow with every new edition that comes out. By the time the 6th edition is released it will be common knowledge that games in 2nd edition took at least a week for a cray to compute whether Abbadon had beaten Marneus Calgar in a round of close combat with a virus-vortex-assault cannon.

That's nothing I once played a game that lasted a month and each assault phase required us to perform advanced matrix algebra in order to find out who was able to even consider rolling to strike his opponent. After this was decided we had to perform a best 26/50 game of rock, paper scissors to find out whether our close combat weapons jammed that turn. Then we had to apply modifiers! God after all that ceremony I didn't have the energy to add and subtract from a fixed value so we generally just forgot and tossed vortex grenades until we won the game (all those deviation rolls were randomized by rolling a D1,000,000 and calculating the resulting digit of pi at the position specified by the roll). But damn if it wasn't more fun than 3rd edition. :p

(now I wonder if this general law applies to RT or if the length of games is simply abstracted to "I'll tell you when ther first one has finished" at this point) ;)

Corax
29-05-2007, 13:43
I would say that conceptually simplification and standardisation is a good idea - within reason. It's the execution that I have serious doubts about... :eyebrows:

Worsle
29-05-2007, 14:07
Well there is the possibility the next expansion rules will be fore the opposite of apocalypse and be built for small scale battles allowing for more detail to be added, it would strike me as the most obvious place to go any way.. I rather like the state the core rules are in just now and the additions to them they are making, I also really like the Eldar and DA codex so the game is headed in the right direction for me any way.

Carlos
29-05-2007, 14:25
People were bringing 5000+ pts to a game because this is what they wanted: Armies, not gangs of characters. 2nd ed's detail works for Necromunda but has no place in a fast and fluid games system.

The reason the game works so well now is that:

1. They halved the pts for most things (Marines used to be 30, now 15pts) so a 1500pts game is actually the equivalent, minus the characters, or a 3000pts 2nd edition army.

2. They got rid of all the crap rules. Overwatch DID slow games to a crawl, rolling for grenades every turn, looking through piles of cards and books to find what happens when a turret is blown off of a Predator, the psychic phase, different movement rates and modifiers for EVERYTHING made it such a pain in the **** to fight battles with armies.

Gaftra
29-05-2007, 14:29
i think sometimes "simplification" gets confused with "clarification". the DA codex is a good example of this. Codex DA is BY FAR the easiest to read, understand, and use codex ever produced. Every rule and item in the game is clearly labeled and even the page number is given! as far as reducing the options for customizing your list you really havent lost it just becuse you rules are smeared throughout a book in sub tables, tiny italicized notes, second printing codexes, and random online content that no one except the exceptionally lucky can find.

warhammer 40k is a living and changing game and to expect rules to be static and immutable is nuts. i remember the shift from 3rd to 4th and how people swore they would never play under the new close combat rules or how their army of BA (no joke) was completely invalidated because you couldnt assault out of a rhino. Im notsaying that all changes are made for the better but the ones being made are hardly the earth shattering game-quitting disaster its getting made out to be.

fwacho
29-05-2007, 15:48
I like the new codeci statign exactly what a unit can have in teh entery... this helps avoid abuse by power gamers and clears up other questions of legality. 40k has had some very hard to interepet rules in the past (3rd ed.)and is working hard to making games easier to play while still maintaining some diversity. I just hope that they keep the neccessary complicaiotn that make armies fun ie.. we'll be back, grot rules, marine traits, these were well and good and gave character. they haven't over simplified yet. teh trick is to streamline but not castrate. hopefully they'll keep the balance right

fenrisbrit
29-05-2007, 17:11
Any concept can be taken too far and simplification for balance is teetering on the edge. The change from 2nd to 3rd brought the simplified rules system which is about right (minor tweaks for 4th accepted). Taking the colour out of the codeci is not the way to go. Eldar just about got away with it IMO although I still regret the loss of the Craftworlds (and no you cannot replicate them all sufficiently well from the new Dex). DA seems a little too streamlined although to be fair I do not play them. I am most worried about the apparent reduction in the next C:CSM.

Zerosoul
29-05-2007, 17:50
It's only a matter of degree. Like the old joke about whether the girl will sleep with you for a million dollars, once you've established precident, the rest is only accounting.

Slippery slope arguments are poor argumentation.


The gripe results from taking away a major factor of the game. Make lists impossible to screw up and there's no skill involved in making a list.

Good. Why should there be? Why should people be punished for taking the units they like and want to use? Shouldn't everything be worthwhile and worth taking?


Next thing to gripe about is terrain. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen a viable list pummelled because the player was naive enough to let his opponant place terrain. So let's take the ability of a player to screw his opponant over by terrain placement out of the equation. That would easily qualify as streamlining.

:rolleyes:


Oh, and how about deployment? I've had guys walk out before ever laying a model down because bad rolls screwed them over for deployment. Or maybe their opponant (the one who placed the terrain, remember?) crowded their zone and made successful deployment impossible. So deployment has to be simplified, In the end, You have a tabletop divided into squares, you MUSt deploy your general in the center of the back row, your psycher beside him, and etc.

:rolleyes:

Wow, I'm starting to sense a pattern here...


You are correct in that A does not equal Z insofar as some simplification isn't necessarily a bad thing. But where to stop once you've succumbed? If you're going to change the rules because they can be exploited or because some players cannot read sufficiently to learn them, where do you stop?

Or maybe - just maybe - they're altering the rules to make all units worth taking and to make lists reflect the background a little better? And, yes, to simplify the list-making process so that the game is decided on the table, as opposed to in the list-making phase?

I know, that's heresy on the Internet - to suggest that the game actually be played instead of mathhammered. After all, according to the Internet, no one has ever had fun playing 40K, which is all decided in the list-making phase and has no tactics to it whatsoever and is unbalanced and MARINES MARINES MARINES anyway.


There should be the ability to make bad lists; that's part of gameplay, like learning terrain placement and proper deployment. A good player will learn from mistakes and adapt. Yes, all units should be viable, but equal? Nah. More importantly, bad combinations should have consequences, just as should bad tactics and bad organization.

All units aren't equal in the new codices. The only difference is that you can't spam las/plas and win anymore - at least in the new lists. You can't just, say, take throwaway tac squads and not fit them into your battle plan anymore. If the inability to take Purity Seals is the consequence of the game being rebalanced to the point that list-making is deemphasized and play is back to being the number one component, then sign me up for that.


There are plenty of simple games on the market, and many of them are fun to play. 40K's strength has never been simplicity, it's been depth of experience. Try to make it into something else and you lose what it is.

40K is exceedingly simple - that's not bad, but the core of the game is "roll a die, look up result on table". It has been for a while. Don't let nostalgia blind you.

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 20:24
People were bringing 5000+ pts to a game because this is what they wanted: Armies, not gangs of characters. 2nd ed's detail works for Necromunda but has no place in a fast and fluid games system.

The reason the game works so well now is that:

1. They halved the pts for most things (Marines used to be 30, now 15pts) so a 1500pts game is actually the equivalent, minus the characters, or a 3000pts 2nd edition army.

2. They got rid of all the crap rules. Overwatch DID slow games to a crawl, rolling for grenades every turn, looking through piles of cards and books to find what happens when a turret is blown off of a Predator, the psychic phase, different movement rates and modifiers for EVERYTHING made it such a pain in the **** to fight battles with armies.

I think you're perpetrating some crass hyperbole with your second point. The only thing that really slowed the game down were unchecked wargear, the assault and psychic phases. Changing that and that alone would speed the game up. Things like datafax cards actually sped the game up (it was a reference card with any and all data needed and rolling vehicle damage to little longer than it does now). Overwatch only slowed the game down because you had to think about your movement and how your opponent could react to you. Different movement rates are no less complicated than what we have today with different movement rates and special rules.

Maybe people wnated to play bigger games, if that was the case maybe GW should have started pushing Epic as its flagship title instead of WH40k as 40k can't do big battles nearly as well as Epic. Instead now they have two systems dealing with the same thing when one could be used to make small games fun again.

As I've said I like the current edition quite a bit but it lacks the ability to scale down the game size to what I find fun.

StormKnight
29-05-2007, 20:59
The only thing that really slowed the game down were unchecked wargear, the assault and psychic phases.

Let's see, 10 marines are shooting. I'm going to have...hmm, those 4 use their bolt pistols since they are within 8". The rest will use bolters. Darn, one of the bolt pistol marines is 9" away, and these 2 marines back here are over 12". So I've got 3 bolt pistol shots at +2, 1 at -1. 5 bolter shots at +1, and 2 at no mod. Now, those 3 bolters are shooting through the cover, so its no mod for 2 and a net -1 for the guy at long range. And this bolt pistol can only see your flamer model, so we'll need to check him seperately since he can only kill the one target.

That's what really slowed down 2nd edition games. (And no, I didn't play 5000 point games).

Overall, I think 4th edition is a huge improvement over the earlier version.

So what's up with:

* The new Eldar codex being simplified? I really don't see what's been lost. There's not a 'Wargear' list, but all the same options are still available to the models (well, except a Warlock with no gear at all, but that was an option that shouldn't have existed in the first place). Exarchs even got one more weapon option each.

* Movement Rates. I never got the ideas these removed to 'simplify' the game - they were removed because they had too little impact. 90% of troops had a move of 4. A move of 5 was pretty much irrelevant on a turn by turn basis, since the only time it mattered was finicking "I want to be EXACTLY 13" away from you so I can get in short range next turn but you can't". I'd rather be making more interesting decisions than "how accurately can I estimate 1" increments?" while playing a game.

If anything, the new movement types are more complicated, but they maintain clearly decisive range bands and make things that move differently REALLY move differently, and compress differences into something that's visible on a turn by turn basis.

Ronin_eX
29-05-2007, 22:58
Let's see, 10 marines are shooting. I'm going to have...hmm, those 4 use their bolt pistols since they are within 8". The rest will use bolters. Darn, one of the bolt pistol marines is 9" away, and these 2 marines back here are over 12". So I've got 3 bolt pistol shots at +2, 1 at -1. 5 bolter shots at +1, and 2 at no mod. Now, those 3 bolters are shooting through the cover, so its no mod for 2 and a net -1 for the guy at long range. And this bolt pistol can only see your flamer model, so we'll need to check him seperately since he can only kill the one target.

That's what really slowed down 2nd edition games. (And no, I didn't play 5000 point games).

Oh no math! RUN! :p

Really, is it that hard? 2nd edition games were half the size of current 40k games. My Deathwing army had a little over 11 models in it. Marine armies may have had 20-25 troops in them at 1500 points. The whole point is that 2nd edition wasn't for playing mega-battles, it was a skirmish game. Most games only took a few hours at most as you tend to memorize things in the system (when was the last time you looked at the 'to wound' table or the 'to hit' table?). Without even consulting the rulebook I can remember most any modifier that I (as a marine player) would ever need. The human brain is the ultimate in parallel proccesors and we have people complaining that a few guys in their squad have different modifiers applying to them. I guess where you see a complicated I simply see a wealth of choices.

The rules aren't hard to remember at all, there aren't that many modifiers any one player has to keep in mind when playing the game. Is it easier than what we have now? No, but is it all that hard to remember this stuff? No, all it takes is that each player knows the rules and games are very quick. God forbid you actually have to remember some of the rules you read in the rulebook.

By taking out modifiers they trivialized the importance of movement and cover. My terminators wont stand in a building that gives anything less than a 4+ cover save because it simply isn't worth it. How does that even make sense? Under 2nd edition the use of cover is what saved your **** as armour couldn't always be relied on. Games of 2nd tended towards the use of more robust and devious tactics than we have today and that is why I will love it more than the current edition when it comes to small games. Now can people stop pretending that 2nd edition required a degree in rocket surgery to play? It's simply not true, I still play the bloody game and though it may start getting slow at high point levels at the point levels it was meant to be played at it is a fast paced but deep game.

StormKnight
30-05-2007, 00:15
Really, is it that hard?
I said absolutely nothing about hard, I said slow. I don't care what you have memorized, it takes longer to figure out seperate modifiers for each model and their specific line of sight and range.

In case you can't tell, despite having not played the game in many years, I still remember the range and to hit mods for bolt pistols and bolt pistols and the cover mod. I still found it horrifically slow and clunky.


My terminators wont stand in a building that gives anything less than a 4+ cover save because it simply isn't worth it. How does that even make sense? Under 2nd edition the use of cover is what saved your **** as armour couldn't always be relied on.
Because terminators are a stray, fringe extreme elite case. For 95% of the models in the game, standing in cover greatly improves your survival. Yes, I'm looking at you to marines - stop whining about AP 3 weapons and just get behind a wall when they shoot at you. (By going into cover, your terminators are probably at bigger risk of getting trapped in rubble than the benefit of 'cover' - anything that can punch through the armor can punch through the cover just as easily, and any shot that had to hit a tiny weakpoint did so because of careful aim at the tiny weakpoint and doesn't care about the half of you that's in cover anyway)


Games of 2nd tended towards the use of more robust and devious tactics than we have today...
If you consider "arrange as many heavy weapons as possible in a line and shoot every turn" robust and devious tactics.

Ronin_eX
30-05-2007, 00:51
Let me guess your group played with almost no terrain and the whinged at how powerful overwatch was? Again 2nd edition was meant to have a lot of terrain the phrase "the more terrain the better the game" comes to mind. Just as it is now, loading up on heavy weapons on an empty board makes for a very one sided game. When you actually put a decent amount of terrain down (I usually go for 75% coverage in 2nd edition) heavy weapons are no better than anything else you can take.

And why do these fringe examples exist at all, doesn't that imply sloppy playtesting? Shouldn't all troops benefit from use of cover and not just those with a worse save. I don't care if a lascannon can punch through a brick wall because I'm hiding behind it and it will be more likely to miss than if I were out in the open.

How much slower is figuring out modifiers? Most wargames I play contain modifiers. Warzone uses them for damn near everything and most games of Warzone go faster than games of 4th Edition 40k. I still don't see how adding a little math to the game makes it slow and clunky, I really don't. 40k does large games very well where things like modifiers could get in the way, but if I have said time and time again that I got into 40k because I liked skirmish wargames. The 3rd edition shifted focus from what I liked playing and made it more or less impossible to have fun low point games.

I guess I'm just wasting my breath trying to explain at this point, I still don't think the game is any slower or more complex when you play it in the fashion it is supposed to be played just as I wont fault 4th edition for playing large games really well. It's just that I, as a lover of skirmish scale games, have no way to play in the style I like anymore short of simply playing 2nd edition (which is why I still have it). I wish GW would just put out a supplement for people like myself who like to play the game with a handful of minis and a good amount of detail.

I think at this point I'm done arguing the point as I don't think either of us will end up convincing the other that they are right. Different people enjoy different things and it seems we both tend to be opposites when it comes down to game scale and rules complexity. So may you enjoy your games in your own way while I go off to enjoy mine in my own way.

StormKnight
30-05-2007, 01:56
I still don't see how adding a little math to the game makes it slow and clunky, I really don't.
There is absolutely no reason you should and I have never said anything of the sort.

2nd edition was slow and clunk because it had lots and lots of "things" to take into account. A target unit in at least 1/2 cover granting a -1 to hit mod or a 5+ cover save I think would be about the same speed and ease of play; pretty fast; having to calculate whether each firer and target had cover and roll dice individually based on each will slow the game down drastically no matter which you use.


Let me guess your group played with almost no terrain and the whinged at how powerful overwatch was?
Huh? With almost terrain, overwatch is pretty useless - you can already see the target, just take the shot!

Heavy weapons were just drastically more effective at killing stuff for their price in 2nd edition; what changed this in 4th was not changes to how cover worked, but the ability of rapid fire weapons to get off 2 shots at short range, a standard move of 6" instead of 4", standard scenarios based around movement, and terrain movement penalties that aren't so crippling that no one in their right mind will enter it.


I usually go for 75% coverage in 2nd edition
That sounds like way too much to me; that would be like having 3 table quarters COMPLETELY filled solid with terrain. I can't see even a city fight or jungle board getting that dense; I usually find the 25% recommended is pretty good, I think people just don't tend to realize how MUCH terrain 25% really is.

Ronin_eX
30-05-2007, 02:10
It's not as much as you might think actually. It also emphasizes a lot more movement as you and your opponent try to achive firing lanes on eachother. 75% is my standard practice in Cities of Death right now and it makes games really interesting. I recommend trying a game or two with loads of terrain in the current edition, it pretty much changes how the game plays and can make for a lot of interesting maneuvering. 25% is a good minimum but it always seems like too little to me, so I normally I just put terrain down until I achieve 25% and then add more until I think it will be interesting. It's always a blast when you've got loads of terrain. :D

silashand
30-05-2007, 02:20
Those wanting more detail and possibly a fresh skirmish level game are left to our own devices, either the fairly low-tech Kill Team rules or far more characterful, but sometimes long winded, Necromunda.

Then again you could always play 2nd ed 40K...
:chrome:

Which for the majority of us more detail desiring players means we are left hanging in the wind. Personally, I believe both standardization and customization could have been achieved, but GW appear either unwilling or unable to do so. I'd like to play a game that had just a bit more detail and maintained the customizability I like, but I just don't see it happening. Apocalpse may help in some regards, but from what I hear it may be even more streamlined due to army sizes. I like the 40K universe and the interesting storylines it provides, but for me the choice is not one of the above three. It's come down to mostly not playing at all.

Cheers, Gary

StormKnight
30-05-2007, 02:20
It's not as much as you might think actually.
Since neither of us can see the others battlefields, this is hard to discuss, but I truly believe you are overestimating how much terrain you are putting on the board.

I didn't really realize how much terrain 25% was until I was drawing up a plan for a map on graph paper and made a point to make sure at least 1/4 of the squares had terrain.

Templar Ben
30-05-2007, 02:33
I think it is worse but I think it is necessary without making fundamental changes to the game.

cailus
30-05-2007, 02:36
Without terrain 2nd edition was as mindless as 4th edition without terrain.

The problem with 40k is that many of the players are lazy and often prefer to play "killfest" games with no objectives other than slaughter. They're lazy when it comes to building terrain and even when they have access to it, don't use too much.

They then get lazy with list building and tactics - they take only the super optimised lists and adopt either standard stand-and-shoot or move forward-and-assault tactics.

Coincidentally where I've seen all of the above in play, the players involved hav unpainted armies and often only partially assmebled models.

I've seen many games where this sort of attitude prevails. These games are boring to watch and are also boring to play. I pick and choose my opponents to play against people who play for fun, who like a challenge, enjoy a narrative and who take pride in their armies.

Feran
30-05-2007, 03:06
Honestly it is still 40k. If it is still fun to play then play I shall. I am not going to complain about the changes. (expect for a few)

Ronin_eX
30-05-2007, 04:07
Since neither of us can see the others battlefields, this is hard to discuss, but I truly believe you are overestimating how much terrain you are putting on the board.

I didn't really realize how much terrain 25% was until I was drawing up a plan for a map on graph paper and made a point to make sure at least 1/4 of the squares had terrain.

Nah, I'm just used to games where there is quite a bit of terrain, to me 75% is quite a good amount. Especially when you lay out "area terrain" effects (I love that part of CoD you just need to put down four building corners and you have a large piece of terrain). Maybe saying it isn't as much as you think it is was a bit of hyperbole on my part but I really believe that more terrain makes for an interesting game.

WLBjork
30-05-2007, 05:41
I've been trying to think of the word I want for ages, and it's finally come to me.

40K2 had a more complex ruleset, but I found it more intuitive than 40K3.

It's similar to the fact that I'm now playing Sagamani Island Tactical Simulator, and whilst that ruleset is more complex than Battlefleet Gothic (a lot more complex - it uses 3D10v for starters :o), I believe SITS will prove more intuitive than BFG, meaning the games run as fast.

Ronin_eX
30-05-2007, 07:47
I think you just hit the nail on the head with that. That probably explains why I like them and still do. The rules were intuitive in that they made internal sense. When things make internal sense games speed up.

StormKnight
30-05-2007, 15:39
If 25-30 marines was about right and it was only playing the game "as it was not meant" to be played that caused problems, what was up with Imperial Gaurd and Orks? To match up 25 odd marines you need around 75 odd squishies. If moving and firing 75 marines is too slow, so is moving and firing 75 gaurds.


In case you can't tell, despite having not played the game in many years, I still remember the range and to hit mods for bolt pistols and bolt pistols and the cover mod.
Heh. Except I blew it - I was thinking a bolt pistol was +2/-1, when its actually +2/-. (I think the +2/-1 is for laspistols and autopistols). I think I actually remember the stats more from playing Necromunda than 40K. Still pretty close for a game I haven't played in several years :)


The rules were intuitive in that they made internal sense.
That will make a huge difference for anyone! No matter how measurable the level of complexity is, something that "feels" right will always feel better. But that's not going to be a universal across different players. I find the current rules more internally sensible than 2nd edition; thus to me, they are more intuitive.

A neutral shade of black.
30-05-2007, 15:45
Ignoring the previous five and a half pages entirely.

Personally, what has me sick of 40k isn't the complexity of lack thereof; it's the hypocrisy inherent to saying "it's wonderful! it's the best" when it clearly isn't because of humongous balance issues and a dev team incapable of writing clear rules if their lives depended on it.

As far as I'm concerned, this "new" 40k is neither better nor worse than what came before; it's just different. What it does bring with it, however, is (hopefully) a ruleset that's balanced and clear. On a personal level, I have no problem with a 40k that is much simpler than 2nd Edition and that assumes it, as long as GW does away with the sycophantic hypocrisy and accepts the fact that its wargames are bad and can be fixed. I'm convinced the DA codex is a step in the right direction, but annoyed that GW isn't going to release all the codices at the same time (yes, I'm aware of the logistical limitations), since that implies a period of even larger imbalance whilst we wait for every force to be converted to the new, simpler system.

Darkhorse
30-05-2007, 16:27
It seems to be heading towards Epic with 28mm models, which leaves the skirmishes of 40Ks origins having little or no resemblance to what we have now.
AS it is I'm to all intents and purposes, fielding a full Epic detachment in fairly standard games. This I feel loses contact with the individual troopers who are fast becoming generic anonymous cannon fodder lost in the grand sweep.
I think there should be some move to get back to the squad level stuff we had in 2nd ed.

silashand
30-05-2007, 17:00
I think there should be some move to get back to the squad level stuff we had in 2nd ed.

From what I can guess based on Jervis' comments, they will probably take Kill Team out of the basic rulebook in the next edition. I think if they have their way they will probably release skirmish level versions of 40K and WFB so that players who want that type of individuality can then play it. I know Necromunda and Inquisitor fill that bill currently, but to many players they do so only halfway. Those who like the skirmish type environment want to use the figures in *their* army, not some bastardized version that only allows certain things because a random designer thinks it doesn't fit within their pet system. Of the two I think Inquisitor has the potential to fit the bill better, but only if they allow *all* races and options so players can use the models they have, and more importantly *want* to field. I don't mind 40K for what it is, but IMO it's too simplistic and you lose a lot of the character of the army by doing so. I mean, WFB manages to have pages and pages of magic items and by all accounts, is finally achieving a level of balance that has been needed for some time. Why these same designers feel the need to remove all the wargear options for customizing their characters in 40K I don't know. What I do know is the former is appealing to more and more players in my area who are dropping 40K for a more complex and *fun* system.

JMO...

Cheers, Gary

gitburna
30-05-2007, 17:15
the change is for the better, theres no "overall" in my mind. Its just better. What was the need for an armoury in the new Eldar book when in the last one it consisted of about 8 items which only two models had access to ?
Dark Angels armoury cuts out the tat which is by and large "option for options sake" and makes the basic unupgraded unit more viable. heavy weapons got reduced, min maxed was all but cut out. The army followed the well established background for it [as a codex chapter] . It also establishes a trend for other codexes in terms of the costing and availability for other high-powered weaponry which will stop the current formulae of "as much las plas and hidden powerfists as possible"