Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[IthilanorStPete]

*facepalms*

GW, I want to get into this hobby. I want to give you money. Please stop discouraging me.

[Blackhawk748]

*facepalms*

GW, I want to get into this hobby. I want to give you money. Please stop discouraging me.

They are SHOCKINGLY good at doing that. They are also good at hitting you at a point of weakness when the army you want to play is good. Then you spend three years where it isn't.

[IthilanorStPete]

They are SHOCKINGLY good at doing that. They are also good at hitting you at a point of weakness when the army you want to play is good. Then you spend three years where it isn't.

It's less the power level concerns and more the painting thing. That's not the part of the hobby I'm terribly interested in; I'm fine not competing for whatever painting prizes a tournament has, but don't punish me in every game because my army's unpainted or painted sloppily.

[Squark]

Aside from shafting hordes, it also applies unevenly to armies. Necrons tend to be pretty monochrome, and therefore easy to paint. The heraldry explosion that is a Battle Sister or Space Marine Character, on the other hand...

[Forum Explorer]

*facepalms*

GW, I want to get into this hobby. I want to give you money. Please stop discouraging me.

Yeah...I wouldn't bother. At least for a while. From what I've seen, I'm actually going to say 9th is worse than 8th at it's height. So good job breaking it GW.

[Blackhawk748]

It's less the power level concerns and more the painting thing. That's not the part of the hobby I'm terribly interested in; I'm fine not competing for whatever painting prizes a tournament has, but don't punish me in every game because my army's unpainted or painted sloppily.

I've honestly painted ONE Ork boy as a test for the paint scheme. Then I looked at the 100 ish Ork's I'd have to paint and went "Nah" and just played with grey plastic. So I'm with you

Yeah...I wouldn't bother. At least for a while. From what I've seen, I'm actually going to say 9th is worse than 8th at it's height. So good job breaking it GW.

I'm gonna go a bit crazy here and say that it may wind up worse than 7th. AND I'M AN ORK PLAYER

[LansXero]

The worst part for me is that its straight up 10 points, no scale. Thats 2/3 of a secondary, so completely non-optional. But then 'battle ready' is base, contrast, wash. So it doesnt do anything it wants to do (get people invested in painting) while antagonizing existing players. Pretty much par for the course with 9th.

[Blackhawk748]

The worst part for me is that its straight up 10 points, no scale. Thats 2/3 of a secondary, so completely non-optional. But then 'battle ready' is base, contrast, wash. So it doesnt do anything it wants to do (get people invested in painting) while antagonizing existing players. Pretty much par for the course with 9th.

I forsee it being obliterated in the first Errata. Or possibly before depending on fan outcry.

[LansXero]

I forsee it being obliterated in the first Errata. Or possibly before depending on fan outcry.

Well, TOs have always had it in their power to add or remove whatever they see fit for events, so its probably going to be a non-issue. Its just more of the sentiment behind it, and my personal hard time understanding who this edition is aimed to.

[Blackhawk748]

Well, TOs have always had it in their power to add or remove whatever they see fit for events, so its probably going to be a non-issue. Its just more of the sentiment behind it, and my personal hard time understanding who this edition is aimed to.

Im honestly trying to figure out how one of the people (who should have either degrees in Game Design or experience in Games Design) didn't slap the person who suggested this upside the head.

This is NOT something you do in game design.

[Saambell]

This is once again really screaming "beer and pretzels hobby players given control of the rules, and are enforcing a pile of house rules to make the game feel better to them and other super casuals to play while kicking the tournament players they hate to the curb". 90% of the changes seem to be out to screw people focused on the game and brute force people into going all hobby happy fun times.

[Cheesegear]

Well, TOs have always had it in their power to add or remove whatever they see fit for events, so its probably going to be a non-issue. Its just more of the sentiment behind it, and my personal hard time understanding who this edition is aimed to.

8th Ed.:
Simple rules, easy to understand, almost anyone can play. Record profits.
However, simplified rules meant that 'people who could read good' managed to game the system, creating a massive power divide between the casual spender player and the competitive spender player.

9th Ed.:
Remember 5th Ed.? And how there was no 'casual scene', because the casual players, and competitive players, were the same? And the community was extremely small because the rules were complicated, which meant that only 'people who could read good', played the game at all? And because the casual and competitive metas were identical? It meant that the tournament scene was arguably the best in the game's run. But it also meant that the casual and PUG scene was ****ed and turnover rate in stores and clubs was extremely high and communities were fractured.

That's what we want to go back to. We want to give casual players a whole heap of non-choices, to make them feel like they have the illusion of control (e.g; Terrain rules), even though we've eked out almost every rule and mechanic of the part of the game that really matters - that is, how the game is actually played.

90% of the changes seem to be out to screw people focused on the game and brute force people into going all hobby happy fun times.

Commission Painting businesses start booming. So that's a plus.

[Forum Explorer]

Someone told me that the 10 VP for painting is only for narrative and open missions. Which doesn't seem any better really. That just shouldn't be a rule at all.

[Cheesegear]

Someone told me that the 10 VP for painting is only for narrative and open missions. Which doesn't seem any better really.

It sounds worse.

Casual player:
1. Has job,
2. Has family,
3. Doesn't really read rules because more important things to worry about (e.g; Fees and Bills),
4. Plays one or two games a month because that's all they have time for,
5. ...Gets punished for not painting their army.

For tournament players 'If you want to win, at least do hobby' is something that should always be encouraged...And that's where Best Painted and Best Overall comes in. Hobby matters.

But enforcing it by tying it to a win condition, feels wrong.
(Imagine if you had a rule basically enforcing that your armies be painted, but then go to a tournament with uncut MDF boards and paper squares for terrain)

[Renegade Paladin]

Nope, that's straight in the Eternal War mission pack, which is the matched play missions. Not going to link the full leak, because copyright law (and forum rules) and the fact that whoever leaked it at 4chan put profane watermarks all over it (super against forum rules). But that is the matched play scoring system.

On the one hand, most large tournaments already require you to paint in order to play at all. On the other... I'ma delete that from the mission pack.

[Cheesegear]

Nope, that's straight in the Eternal War mission pack, which is the matched play missions.

It feels like a Space Marine player being told that the colours they subjectively like, dictate the objective mechanics of their army.
Oh wait...GW actually did say that.

[Blackhawk748]

It feels like a Space Marine player being told that the colours they subjectively like, dictate the objective mechanics of their army.
Oh wait...GW actually did say that.

Was that not walked back shortly after they said it because pretty much everyone descended on them? Still doesn't stop this idiocy.

[Cheesegear]

We know how Actions work, now:

A unit performing an Action cannot:
- Be engaged with an enemy unit
- Move, Advance or Fall Back
- Manifest Powers, make ranged attacks, or declare a charge.

A Character performing an Action has their Auras turn off.

A Psyker performing a Psychic Action:
- Takes a Psychic test, and can take Perils as normal (i.e; Kill themselves)
- Can be Denied as normal. So you get nothing! You lose! Good day, Sir!

Action Objectives are trash tier Secondaries.
Only pick Secondaries that require you to destroy opponent's models.

Welcome to 9th; "We pretended to give you choices."

[Forum Explorer]

We know how Actions work, now:

A unit performing an Action cannot:
- Be engaged with an enemy unit
- Move, Advance or Fall Back
- Manifest Powers, make ranged attacks, or declare a charge.

A Character performing an Action has their Auras turn off.

A Psyker performing a Psychic Action:
- Takes a Psychic test, and can take Perils as normal (i.e; Kill themselves)
- Can be Denied as normal. So you get nothing! You lose! Good day, Sir!

Action Objectives are trash tier Secondaries.
Only pick Secondaries that require you to destroy opponent's models.

Welcome to 9th; "We pretended to give you choices."

Interestingly, the only decent kill objectives are: Kill Vehicles/Monsters, Kill Titanic models, Kill more things then your opponent.

So there is the disadvantage to vehicles.

On a different note, I actually like the Crusade missions. Though the point cap is still annoying and the 10 points for painting is still present.

[Drasius]

I know this forum is a bunch of coddled crybabies at times, but are you all insane?

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEE! How dare you give points to people for painting their army to even the most barebones standard. You're not my real dad GW!"

Paint your damn models if those 10 points mean so much to you (seriously, rattlecan primer and contrast would let you have an entire army done in an afternoon if you weren't picky), or don't if you have some weird obsession with grey plastic, or just make a houserule to ignore it if you're in a group who for some bizarre reason hates the hobby but loves the game.

Most of the people here have had their armies for years, if not decades, don't you dare try and tell me you haven't had time to paint an army.

[Avaris]

I know this forum is a bunch of coddled crybabies at times, but are you all insane?

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEE! How dare you give points to people for painting their army to even the most barebones standard. You're not my real dad GW!"

Paint your damn models if those 10 points mean so much to you (seriously, rattlecan primer and contrast would let you have an entire army done in an afternoon if you weren't picky), or don't if you have some weird obsession with grey plastic, or just make a houserule to ignore it if you're in a group who for some bizarre reason hates the hobby but loves the game.

Most of the people here have had their armies for years, if not decades, don't you dare try and tell me you haven't had time to paint an army.

Seconded, kind of. This is a strange inclusion by GW, but it is being treated like the coming of satan himself, much like everything with 9th. Realistically, the way gaming communities and hobbyists work is that either both players will feel comfortable with having unpainted armies, in which case neither will get the points, or they won’t, in which case both will get the points. And being quite a low level of VP means it will rarely actually matter compared to the VP from elsewhere.

Should it be a rule? No. Is it worth getting this worked up over? Also no. Save that energy for the things that actually effect gameplay, though I don’t trust some of you to have a sensible response there either, given you seem to be determined to hate absolutely everything about 9th. There are definitely some areas that can be improved (the new morale rules stand out to me in this regard), but the sheer vitriol being thrown at every single change is insane.

[LeSwordfish]

It feels like a Space Marine player being told that the colours they subjectively like, dictate the objective mechanics of their army.
Oh wait...GW actually did say that.

Yeah, and everyone ignored it. What's your point?

Save that energy for the things that actually effect gameplay, though I don’t trust some of you to have a sensible response there either, given you seem to be determined to hate absolutely everything about 9th. There are definitely some areas that can be improved (the new morale rules stand out to me in this regard), but the sheer vitriol being thrown at every single change is insane.

I'm with Avaris here: a whole bunch of people have decided already to hate 9th edition, and so no meaningful analysis is possible here. Nobody's thinking about things in terms of "is this good or not", they're just trying to find the shortest route to "it's bad". And naming no names but some people did the same for the first few months of 8th Edition (they keep nerfing guilleman!) and then called it the best the game has ever been. Sounds less like you're doing serious analysis and more like you're just knee-jerk announcing that New is Bad and Old was The Best.

At a certain point, if you hate it so much... stop playing. Do something else with your limited time on earth. Especially do something else than whining on the internet.

[Forum Explorer]

It's a bad rule because it drives new people away from the game, and encourages you to NOT buy models. Because that new cool thing you got? Well it has to be painted before you play. That new player wanting to play? Are you fully painted? No? Ok, you lose.

Now I fully expect everyone to ignore this rule. But the fact that they put the rule in the game in the first place is disgusting.

[Cheesegear]

Drasius is back, horray!

Most of the people here have had their armies for years, if not decades, don't you dare try and tell me you haven't had time to paint an army.

Because it's that much harder to start a new army.
Because it's that much harder to use new models, because GW just invalidated three-quarters of the models you own.
Because it's that much harder for a new player, to paint their army.

This is a strange inclusion by GW, but it is being treated like the coming of satan himself, much like everything with 9th.

Okay. After backspacing my first response...

There are multiple things wrong with 9th Ed., many of them unnecessary, and many of them unnecessarily complicated.
You've been reading about them.

You preface your point with the fact that it's a 'strange inclusion'.

It's all of it.

It's like, after reading all of the changes over the last two weeks, it's like the edition is also saying, at the 11th hour:
"Oh, and by the way, we saved this for last..."

Save that energy for the things that actually effect gameplay

...You mean like win conditions?

but the sheer vitriol being thrown at every single change is insane.

Because you're seeing it as though each change is an individual problem.

Here's a problem,
...and another one
...and another one
...and another one
...and another one

No-one was mad two weeks ago over the first changes. "We'll wait and see..." I believe, was the response that most people gave.
Hell, hordes were going to be competitive, remember?

Cool.
We've waited, and we've seen.

Finally, with the leaks out, we get a gate-keeping rule, given hard mechanics, tied to a win condition.
It's a rule that can only be used to exclude and ostracise people.

Yeah, and everyone ignored it.

No, they didn't. That was the problem. That's why GW had to backtrack on it. Because people were being gate-kept out of playing the armies they liked.
Not by you.
Not by me.
But, it happened to someone, somewhere...I'm assuming more than once.

a whole bunch of people have decided already to hate 9th edition, and so no meaningful analysis is possible here.

All we've been doing this entire time is analysis, and how it can affect the Codecies we already have, because the Codecies aren't changing.
The only thing that matters at this point (after the rulebook has been leaked) is points costs.

At a certain point, if you hate it so much... stop playing.

Maybe.

Maybe in 6 months, when GW releases CA'20, that rewrites rules and fixes bad mission design. Maybe Space Marines gets a new Codex that nerfs them significantly and rewrites the meta to the way it was before Space Marine Supplements.

Maybe anything can happen where the rules in the rulebook, aren't the basis of the game anymore and make it good.
(e.g; 2 years, 4 FAQs and 2 Chapter Approveds later and 'somebody' says that 8th Ed. is the best edition the game's ever had...And then a third Chapter Approved can come out and torpedo the game, but it's okay, because COVID happens so no-one actually gets a chance to use the latest update)

Nobody wants to quit.
GW listens to their consumers. Not all the time. But sometimes. That's how FAQs and Chapter Approved's happen in the first place.

Turns out, people always complain first. Maybe something changes? Maybe.
But if nobody says anything, then nothing changes. Guaranteed.

[LeSwordfish]

All we've been doing this entire time is analysis, and how it can affect the Codecies we already have, because the Codecies aren't changing.

All looks like whinging to me.

Turns out, people always complain first. Maybe something changes? Maybe.
But if nobody says anything, then nothing changes. Guaranteed.

Well, I hope you're saying it to them rather than just whinging to us.

[Requizen]

Imagine being so mad about having to paint miniatures that you think it's as equally damaging to the edition as the melee engagement changes OMEGALUL

[LeSwordfish]

Imagine being so mad about having to paint miniatures that you think it's as equally damaging to the edition as the melee engagement changes OMEGALUL

It's disgusting. It's idiocy. They're pretending to allow things. It encourages you not to buy models. It's brute forcing people, and kicking them to the kerb.

[Brookshw]

Welcome back Darius.

Back to the grumbling; I'm going to go ahead and say it, I'm not upset about this upcoming edition. Admittedly I'm not paying nearly as much attention as some are to the drip feed (in no small part because I have no idea when I'll see a game again), but from what I've seen people discuss it doesn't seem bad. New edition, new (or slightly modified) rules. I'm not sure I like the board size changes but that's such small beans I don't really care and acknowledge it's a good move for GW as it gives them more opportunity to expand their market footprint by appealing to stores that otherwise may not have carried their product. Changes to detachments and command points, okay, whatever, they're cutting down on some cheese. Sure, whatever.

[Turalisj]

It's disgusting. It's idiocy. They're pretending to allow things. It encourages you not to buy models. It's brute forcing people, and kicking them to the kerb.

How dare they punish people who pick up an army and dump them the next week!

[LeSwordfish]

How dare they punish people who pick up an army and dump them the next week!

I bet the rules prevent me from just using empty bases with cardboard cutouts on too, they are killing the game deliberately to spite us.

EDIT: To lay out my case more precisely: I like some of these changes and dislike some others. I can give feedback on that to the appropriate people, but fundamentally my choices are "roll with the punches" or "quit the game". If i'm not willing to do the latter then sure, I'll put up and shut up.