Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[LansXero]

On the contrary, right now is the worst time to start an army. Buy a soon to be obsolete codex, buy soon to be nerfed / overcosted models, buy a soon to be forgotten PA, rush-paint or lose 10 vps, and then get hit with nerfs and errata all the way during the early stage of your learning curve.

If anyone wanted to start right now I'd lead them to play casualmode 8th and wait a year for the dust to settle. Or you end up like the people who got razorbacks at the start of 8th and all those Ynnari shelf decorations. or Celestine.

[Gauntlet]

It's interesting that Patrol detachments are a viable choice for a large army now, since there are no downsides if you don't need the slots. So if you're planning on taking a relatively small number of elite units across different FOC slots, and only two HQ choices, you can run a Patrol, still have 12 CP, and only need to take a single troops choice.

[Avaris]

Another couple of good articles from Goonhammer today, one explaining the changes to the core rules in detail (doesn't include stuff like overwatch though, that'll come later: this gives a good explainer of how concepts like modifiers have changed) and another giving an overview of their views on the new rules. Primarily though, I'm sharing for this bit, which I think speaks to the disagreements we always have here:

A huge tension festered at the heart of the previous edition in a way that would make Papa Nurgle proud – it basically contained two games. One, enjoyed by the vast majority of the world’s players, took advantage of the immense simplification drive that went into launching 8th to play quicker and easier games of 40k than ever before. The other, more commonly seen on tournament tables, found all the places where 8th’s rules let you squeeze the highest performance out of your units while shutting down as much of your opponent’s agency as possible to play some incredibly cut-throat games using tactics almost unrecognizable to players from the first group.

Now I realise that a decent chunk of our audience is in the second group there and hey, so am I. I have enjoyed 8th edition immensely, pile-in tricks, daisy chains, wraps and all – but I’m not about to pretend it was either how the game was intended to be played nor especially healthy in the long run, for three key reasons.

• New rules were squarely aimed at the first style of game, and would very often introduce terrible, exploitable gaps for players pushing the limits.
• The experience for newer players trying to break into competitive play or a more casual player coming up against a competitive one was often horrific – losing a game to poor strategy is one thing, but getting dumpstered in a way that barely even matches your prior understanding of how the game works isn’t fun.
• A lot of the high-end strategies focused on shutting down the opponent’s agency, which had a knock on effect on design space.

The last point is really the key one, and the first two at least partially flow from it. Have a think about the stuff that’s really iconic from high-end 8th edition, and a common thread is using the rules to shut down your opponent’s ability to do anything. Armies full of powerful characters sitting behind a few impregnable screens. Rolling wraps that stop your opponent ever getting a chance to shoot. Daisy-chained hordes occupying two thirds of the board while still enjoying the benefits of three auras. Armies that are basically all planes denying melee forces a chance to play.

All of this created some interesting strategic and metagame tensions for the players who bought into it (and goodness knows it was fertile ground for producing strategy articles), and made the skill ceiling of the edition pretty high, but it could also make losing games a pretty dismal experience, and created massive gatekeeping effects both in terms of players getting into it and on what proportion of units and rules were truly viable at the top end. For the very best lists, it wasn’t enough for a unit to be pretty decent at its job – it had to be fantastic, because the goal was either to smash through whatever wall of nope your opponent was going to throw up or implement your own strategies to seize the reins of the game.

Often enough, people’s nonsense cancelled out sufficiently that you got some great games, and competitive 8th was great fun – but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say that it was kind of accidental.

Tl:dr, in Eighth there were two very different games being played, and I think it's fair to say that here players of both types of game have a tendency to either think the other doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

[LeSwordfish]

That's a really good article! I've often felt similar things about Age Of Sigmar actually, in that once you start playing on competitive tables, half of what you're doing is reading the rules that aren't there.

[Adrastos42]

I kind of love the rediculous drop-pod bunker as an idea. Yes, Marines don't like to sit and hold territory, but they do like to drop in on top of you and go "Oh, this territory you were holding? It's ours now." Dropping bunkers down with them just feels like a reinforcement of that.

[LansXero]

That's a really good article! I've often felt similar things about Age Of Sigmar actually, in that once you start playing on competitive tables, half of what you're doing is reading the rules that aren't there.

{Scrubbed}

[Mystic Muse]

Coming back for a bit from my self-imposed exile to at least say that I'm looking forward to some of the new models, and that I'm eager to at least try out 9th edition. There are bits I'm not expecting to like, and I do wish Games Workshop would be better at Game design, but I'm overall looking forward to it.

I really want to try Crusade, with some people who I know won't abuse any of the potential issues in there.

The Silent King and C'Tan Shard of the Void Dragon almost make me want to start a Necron army.

[Avaris]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

"The majority of players in the world don't matter"

Really? That's what you're going with? Players playing the rules 'as intended', the first group above, are the vast majority of players worldwide, which also makes them the majority of GW's customers.

Don't believe me? Right now, there are 4664 players listed on the ITC leaderboard as having played in a tournament this year. Given Coronavirus, this is likely a lower number than normal, but seemingly not much lower: in 2016 there were 5575 players across the year (I can't find figures for 2019). So, given the increase in game popularity since 2016, and that ITC isn't the only tournament format, I'd estimate that there are between 10,000 and 20,000 tournament players in the world. In fact, let's be generous, and call it 40,000, just because. That way, we also include the people who feel they want to play to a tournament level/style but don't manage to make it to any tournaments.

Also right now, there are 189,189 people following the official GW Warhammer 40,000 facebook page. That will of course include some of the 40,000 mentioned above, but even if all of those players were included you still have 150,000 people interested in the game who don't care about tournaments. 150,000 people you are saying don't matter because they are 'scrubs'. Oh, maybe some of those people don't actually play... sure, lets say half of them don't. 75,000. That's still almost twice the estimate of 'tournament' players.

Like it or not, GW has two options when designing rules. Two groups that they can decide 'matter'. The players playing 'as intended' or the players playing at the bleeding edge.

There is a problem when the rules as intended are unclear, which as you say leads to different local interpretations. Which is why 9th exists: it is closing the gap between the rules as written and the rules as intended, so that the rules written are closer than that planned by the designers and desired by the vast majority of players in the world. Getting rid of all these high level play exploits, detailed in the Goonhammer article, is an intentional and welcome part of the edition shift because maybe, just maybe, it will stop people saying people playing the game the way it is meant to be played are 'scrubs'.

Edit: oh yeah, I forgot. The majority of ‘scrubs’ probably don’t follow GW on fb. So lets double the count back up to 150,000. With the 40,000 tournament players, lets estimate 200,000 players worldwide. Players who play like you seem to think they should are maybe 20% of the worldwide playerbase, at most. But yeah, everyone else is a scrub, so they don’t matter.

Edit 2: to sense check my figures, I compared them to GW's accounts. They had revenue £256m in the FY 2018-19. At 200,000 customers, that's £1,280 per customer. So my figure of 200,000 players worldwide is in the right ballpark, probably on the low side, given that even though this is an expensive hobby I don't expect the average player is likely to spend that much in a year (US$1600), but equally this is not the only game GW makes, so if we assume the 200,000 is 2/3 of GW's customer base (not unreasonable given it is the most popular game), we're definitely in the right ballpark, probably still an underestimate of 'scrubs'.

[LeSwordfish]

{Scrubbed}

[LansXero]

"The majority of players in the world don't matter"

Correct. Rules, once the base functionality is laid out, are meant to curtail unlikely behaviour from a minority of edge cases. People who will not seek nor exploit said cases do not matter when designing or testing the upper ceilings of said rules, as their own natures (lack of interest, lack of system mastery, concerns over fairness, etc.) will keep them from pursuing 'disruptive' uses of the rules.

Really? That's what you're going with? Players playing the rules 'as intended', the first group above, are the vast majority of players worldwide, which also makes them the majority of GW's customers

As intended according to whom? Do casuals all over the world receive dream visions of GW 'true' intentions? No, its simply subjective interpretations that different scenes settle on due to their own profiles / interests. Thats the whole points of rulebooks (which aren't cheap either) to adjudicate things without depending on common ground between players; to exist without the need for interpretation or guessing intent.

Also right now, there are 189,189 people following the official GW Warhammer 40,000 facebook page. That will of course include some of the 40,000 mentioned above, but even if all of those players were included you still have 150,000 people interested in the game who don't care about tournaments. 150,000 people you are saying don't matter because they are 'scrubs'. Oh, maybe some of those people don't actually play... sure, lets say half of them don't. 75,000. That's still almost twice the estimate of 'tournament' players.

This is the same false dicotomy everyone spouts. You either grind the ITC or cant understand conga lines or Heroic Intervention charge priority or that substracting AP adds to the stat (it goes up? but says minus!) and other such 9th edition 'improvements'. It doesn't work like that; plenty of scrubs grind tournaments, plenty of competitively minded people play seldomly due to schedule. Much like any other hobby or game, 'casual competitive' players are a huge section of the community; how many MOBA players do you think will ever be streamers or play on pro teams? But then, how many actually know lane roles, itemization, skill order, etc.? You paint 2 extremes as if they were the only two choices. They are not.

There is a problem when the rules as intended are unclear, which as you say leads to different local interpretations. Which is why 9th exists: it is closing the gap between the rules as written and the rules as intended, so that the rules written are closer than that planned by the designers and desired by the vast majority of players in the world.

There are two different axis there. The objective quality of the system, and how well it enbodies the vision of the designers. Both arent concurrent; you can have the most true to developer vision edition ever, and it can also be a steaming turd of unplayability. Just because its 'written as intended' it doesnt mean whats intended is automatically better.

Take a look at all the 'this cant be right, I'm sure it'll get FAQd day 1' bits of 9th for how well they actually improved on writing better rules.

Getting rid of all these high level play exploits, detailed in the Goonhammer article, is an intentional and welcome part of the edition shift because maybe, just maybe, it will stop people saying people playing the game the way it is meant to be played are 'scrubs'.

Its not about playing the game one way or another. Its about imposing your own lack of ability to adapt as the 'normal' and shaming or whining about those who do manage to adapt to it. Its about complaining instead of losing gracefully. It'd be like if Soccer 2.0 made goals 1.5x bigger so 'casual players can also score'.

Edit 2: to sense check my figures, I compared them to GW's accounts. They had revenue £256m in the FY 2018-19. At 200,000 customers, that's £1,280 per customer. So my figure of 200,000 players worldwide is in the right ballpark

Not even close. Their revenue has so many channels and elements between distributors, stockists, their webstore, licensing, etc that making any sort of assumption about it without a detailed finantial report is hopeless.

[Thragka]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

{Scrubbed}

[LeSwordfish]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

Hey, I think i'm being very reserved not engaging with "everyone's scrubs but me!"

[Brookshw]

As intended according to whom? Do casuals all over the world receive dream visions of GW 'true' intentions? No, its simply subjective interpretations that different scenes settle on due to their own profiles / interests. Thats the whole points of rulebooks (which aren't cheap either) to adjudicate things without depending on common ground between players; to exist without the need for interpretation or guessing intent.

Do you really think conga lines stretching back several feet to get an aura buff is within the intentional game design? Really? If your answer is "no" then you agree there is some baseline of true intentions even if such is undefined.

Not even close. Their revenue has so many channels and elements between distributors, stockists, their webstore, licensing, etc that making any sort of assumption about it without a detailed finantial report is hopeless.

Otoh, the number of people who attend tournaments =/= the number of people who are highly competitive or are looking at nuianced rules, many people show up with fluffy lists, show off painting, be part of a community, etc., so the numbers Avaris is using are inflated on both sides. However, doing what you can with the data you have available is all you can do, no need to dismiss it out of hand.

[LansXero]

However, doing what you can with the data you have available is all you can do, no need to dismiss it out of hand.

Of course there is a baseline of intended interactions but then thats not whats written; therefore it falls to intentional interpretation. Lets stick to your example: Are auras supposed to be wholly within? Is AoS style coherence the intended behaviour? is the smaller coherence distance? The thing is, just agreeing something is unintended does little to reveal what the intended version looks like. Paying for a ruleset to then play based on guesswork seems like a bad idea.

As for the data, its not dismissive of the mental exercise. Its just pointing out the flaw with the source data. Revenue for a company like GW comes from way too many different sources and audiences that its very hard to draw conclussions one way or the other.

I think 9th's changes go too far in a direction I dont feel was needed. If anything, the strong numbers quoted speak louder for the success of 8th, confusing twin-headed game that it was and all, than for any sudden need to take what built those numbers and flip it upside down on its head.

[Cheesegear]

Tl:dr, in Eighth there were two very different games being played, and I think it's fair to say that here players of both types of game have a tendency to either think the other doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

Let's take a look at what I said, three days ago (unfortunately, I don't have a website, so I was wrong)...

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.

Turning 4 pages, into 40 pages, is the correct choice...For competitive play.
But, the casual scene evaporates, because now, with 40 pages of rules, what you can and can't do is very clearly defined, so that the casual scene gets very competitive, 'cause now with everyone playing by the same, expansive ruleset, no-one has room to make **** up in their heads (i.e; 40 pages of rules of explicit dos and don'ts absolutely limits player choices). Because the rules are so exact, you either get good, or you're going to quit, because you can't comprehend how all the rules interact, even though it's all written down fairly clearly and concisely.

What's the point in running 10+ models in a Melee unit when you know you can only fight in two ranks? What's the point in running 10+ models in any unit when you know Blast exists and unit coherency rules limit your tactical flexibility to be worse than if you have multiple x5 man units?
Khorne Berzerkers bad.
Assault Centurions, not even affected...Well, now they run five-man units, not six. I guess.

This is why 8th Ed. excelled. There wasn't 40 pages of rules. There was 4. This gave non-invested players the impression that they could play the game, because they only had to remember 4 pages of rules, plus whatever they had on the board (the vast majority of rules are actually found in your Codecies). Now? Not so much. I expect the casual scene to now how a high turnover rate, because 8th Ed.'s simplicity of rules - which were such a huge selling point, to new and casual players - is the opposite of how 9th Ed. can sell itself.

This is why people can make judgements based on rules that aren't even technically out yet. They know how the rules interact with the other rules.
Whilst other people take each rule in a vaccuum, take a 'wait and see' approach because they aren't seeing the bigger picture - and perhaps never will.
The divide between these two types of players will never, ever go away. But, now, they're just playing the same game, which is going to cause the latter group, to quit.

I will be fine.
It's my meta, and my playerbase, that I'm worried about.
If you can't get games, what's the point?

ION:
No Space Marine HQs on Bikes allowed.
...Here's a Space Marine HQ on a Bike.

[Avaris]

Let's take a look at what I said, three days ago (unfortunately, I don't have a website, so I was wrong)...

Turning 4 pages, into 40 pages, is the correct choice...For competitive play.
But, the casual scene evaporates, because now, with 40 pages of rules, what you can and can't do is very clearly defined, so that the casual scene gets very competitive, 'cause now with everyone playing by the same, expansive ruleset, no-one has room to make **** up in their heads (i.e; 40 pages of rules of explicit dos and don'ts absolutely limits player choices). Because the rules are so exact, you either get good, or you're going to quit, because you can't comprehend how all the rules interact, even though it's all written down fairly clearly and concisely.

What's the point in running 10+ models in a Melee unit when you know you can only fight in two ranks? What's the point in running 10+ models in any unit when you know Blast exists and unit coherency rules limit your tactical flexibility to be worse than if you have multiple x5 man units?
Khorne Berzerkers bad.
Assault Centurions, not even affected...Well, now they run five-man units, not six. I guess.

This is why 8th Ed. excelled. There wasn't 40 pages of rules. There was 4. This gave non-invested players the impression that they could play the game, because they only had to remember 4 pages of rules, plus whatever they had on the board (the vast majority of rules are actually found in your Codecies). Now? Not so much. I expect the casual scene to now how a high turnover rate, because 8th Ed.'s simplicity of rules - which were such a huge selling point, to new and casual players - is the opposite of how 9th Ed. can sell itself.

This is why people can make judgements based on rules that aren't even technically out yet. They know how the rules interact with the other rules.
Whilst other people take each rule in a vaccuum, take a 'wait and see' approach because they aren't seeing the bigger picture - and perhaps never will.
The divide between these two types of players will never, ever go away. But, now, they're just playing the same game, which is going to cause the latter group, to quit.

I will be fine.
It's my meta, and my playerbase, that I'm worried about.
If you can't get games, what's the point?

ION:
No Space Marine HQs on Bikes allowed.
...Here's a Space Marine HQ on a Bike.

You’re equating length with complexity. It’s not an unreasonable approach, but flawed in your interpretation of what it means for more casual gamers.

Casual gamers aren’t put off by length of rules, they’re put off by experienced complexity, i.e. how complex it is when they play. If they were put off by length of rules, they’d never pick the game up at all, given the need to have multiple books (codex and main rules at least).

And we know that 9th is, overall, similar complexity to 8th; it’s the same basic ruleset, enough so that some people have been complaining that not enough has changed to warrant a new edition. By comparison, earlier editions had significant up front complexity: my standard example is the use of tables to determine rolls necessary to hit and wound: there is a consistent logic to them, it’s possible to learn the rules (my brother did), but they definitely give a complexity barrier. Looking at the rules summary for fifth edition, you also needed to remember that different unit types had different rules for how they could move, and that vehicles worked considerably different to anything else. You still have some of that, given flyers, rules for characters, and exceptions for vehicles in places, but this remains similar complexity to 8th.

Why are the rules so much longer then? Clarity. It takes many words to be specific about the rules, more than were used in 8th. But most of those words won’t matter to most games, and it is now very clear WHICH words matter, given the use of bullet points. If you read the bullet points, which could probably all be written on just a few pages, you can play the game.

Clarity helps both the tournament player and the casual player: the tournament player can learn all the rules so they have mastery, the casual player can identify and learn the basic rules and be confident that, if a situation arises that seems odd, they can refer back to the rules and find their issue clearly resolved. House rules and interpretations arise only where the rules are unclear or inaccessible: if you can’t understand what the rule means, and the explanation around it doesn’t obviously cover your case, you’ll make something up, which is what happens in 8th and has led to the impression of two very different games being played. All the extra specificity of rules means there are less places for this to occur.

If the rules were written to be specific without work put in to make them accessible, you’d be right; the length of rules would be a barrier to casual players. But 9th has bullet points, and a glossary: it is easy to refer to and find the rule you need, so you don’t need to learn it by rote. Clarity = specificity + accessibility.

It’s not that your concerns are unreasonable: it’s a good thing to be concerned about, particularly by comparison to 5th. But I don’t think they’ll be borne out in reality, given where the extra length of rules comes from. Also remember, 8th has a 15 page errata and faq document, much of the learning from which is now incorporated into the actual rulebook.

9th has flaws: I think there are genuine concerns to be had around mission design and how that impacts on tournament play in particular, but that is patchable through Chapter Approved etc, and can you honestly say the missions in the base rulebook of 8th were especially better? 8th reached a stage of having good missions as a result of Chapter Approved, and it is disappointing there are things that had been fixed returning, but it’s not an unsolvable problem. I’ve also expressed frustration with morale changes. But these aren’t things that will drive away casual players, like you are concerned over.

[Cheesegear]

Casual gamers aren’t put off by length of rules

Yes they are. That's why the bullet points are so important.

If they were put off by length of rules, they’d never pick the game up at all

If they were put off by rules, then 8th Ed. should've been the best selling game that GW has ever produced...Wait a second...!

And we know that 9th is, overall, similar complexity to 8th

Similar in complexity to 8th Ed...At the end, after four FAQs and three Chapter Approveds.
You will have noticed that with each and every FAQ and Chapter Approved, complaints about complexity and 'not being able to keep up' became more and more common.

It’s not that your concerns are unreasonable: it’s a good thing to be concerned about, particularly by comparison to 5th. But I don’t think they’ll be borne out in reality, given where the extra length of rules comes from. Also remember, 8th has a 15 page errata and faq document, much of the learning from which is now incorporated into the actual rulebook.

But we already know that 9th Ed.'s FAQs and Errata is going to be huge.
On Day 1.

9th has flaws: I think there are genuine concerns to be had around mission design and how that impacts on tournament play in particular, but that is patchable through Chapter Approved etc, and can you honestly say the missions in the base rulebook of 8th were especially better?

8th Ed. Missions in the rulebook were flawed, yes. But also, yes, they were better than the Missions in the 9th Ed. rulebook.
I know for a fact that Maelstrom Missions were good. Eternal War had flaws and it's own meta, but it wasn't "Whoever goes first, wins." it was more like "Whoever goes last, wins."

But these aren’t things that will drive away casual players, like you are concerned over.

As I said, what will drive players away is length of rules, and thus, perceived complexity:
"You can do this, but you can't do this, but also not this."

Complexity in 8th Ed. came after people had a basic understanding of the rules. It wasn't baked into the game at the casual end.

[Misery Esquire]

Similar in complexity to 8th Ed...At the end, after four FAQs and three Chapter Approveds.
You will have noticed that with each and every FAQ and Chapter Approved, complaints about complexity and 'not being able to keep up' became more and more common.

Could be that I'm too oldschool, but I want to play the game that I bought the book for. I'm not interested in ever-changing FAQs, internet releases, Chapter Approved or specialized books for 4-6 out of 16 armies. I want the Big Black (Or RED for that matter) Book and an Codex/Army Book, and I would want them to apply where ever I go. Maybe the same thing applies for other people.

But hey, I'm long out of the game* and haven't liked the direction since 5th, so I guess I'm not the target audience even if I still do enjoy their fiction and non-tabletop releases.


*Aside from a couple of test games near the end of 7th. Despised it.

[Cheesegear]

Could be that I'm too oldschool, but I want to play the game that I bought the book for...

The problem is, that the reason there has to be Errata and FAQs, is because the book you bought, is actually faulty.
When GW releases an Errata, you could potentially ask for your money back, as the product you bought is defective.

[Destro_Yersul]

Could be that I'm too oldschool, but I want to play the game that I bought the book for. I'm not interested in ever-changing FAQs, internet releases, Chapter Approved or specialized books for 4-6 out of 16 armies. I want the Big Black (Or RED for that matter) Book and an Codex/Army Book, and I would want them to apply where ever I go. Maybe the same thing applies for other people.

But hey, I'm long out of the game* and haven't liked the direction since 5th, so I guess I'm not the target audience even if I still do enjoy their fiction and non-tabletop releases.


*Aside from a couple of test games near the end of 7th. Despised it.

Applies to me, that's for sure. Do some playtesting, release a solid product that doesn't need day 1 errata, and then don't bloody touch it. It's fine. Just because this is the internet age, and you can tweak it endlessly, with new changes every couple months, doesn't mean you should.

[LansXero]

Do some playtesting, release a solid product

Yes and no. Core rules, the baseline of how the game is played, should indeed be a rock and not move unless very seldomly. Add-on content, balance changes et all have to keep growing by necessity of keeping a steady stream of new releases and fitting them into the existing range. Its not 100-0.

However, the quoted bit is the more important one. Because while its a good idea, having the proper angle for it is also very important; playtesting with a biased crew who also cant vocalize vitriol and criticism out of basic human decency / fear of being kicked out from the cool kids club, you end up with a resonant echo chamber that, like most online reviews, have to find or even repeat two good things for every negative they let slip by.

What I think would've served us all best would've been to release the core rules a month ago and have anyone who wants it take a go at it. Let the world be the playtester, let the neckbeards, hardcores, hard-to-the-cores and teh hardcorez break it apart and lay it all out. If you want clarity in text to the point of lawyerspeak, a closed beta test isn't going to be enough. The problem being of course that GW is very used to selling paid betas to people who eagerly lap them up.

[Misery Esquire]

The problem is, that the reason there has to be Errata and FAQs, is because the book you bought, is actually faulty.
When GW releases an Errata, you could potentially ask for your money back, as the product you bought is defective.

It's weird how their old products weren't immediately defective, then. Or that the defects were acceptable* enough for people to wait the cycle for the next go-around to fix it. Rather than having a legion of post-it notes and having to constantly check the internet to make sure that you're using the newest new rules.

Yes and no. Core rules, the baseline of how the game is played, should indeed be a rock and not move unless very seldomly. Add-on content, balance changes et all have to keep growing by necessity of keeping a steady stream of new releases and fitting them into the existing range. Its not 100-0.

Roll new Codexs (Codexes? Codii? Codapodes?) out with the new things in them. If you only have 1-2 new things, wait. Cycle through more of the other army Codex books first.

Although, I guess that's kind of broken with 8th, since everyone has (had?) a equally contemporary codex for the first time since... Rogue Trader, First Edition? Release more of the side-factions, I guess. Lost and the Damned, Space Marine [Wolf, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, etc], an extra Eldar [Craftworld X, Y, Z] book like they did before, Tau Mercenaries... And then go back and do Space Marines again. Or it's new edition time. (And still do the Space Marines again. )

And a second thought occurred to me that there used to be a rolling release of outlier units in Forgeworld. So, I guess it's not really new just the constant releases being part of the main line is.

However, the quoted bit is the more important one. Because while its a good idea, having the proper angle for it is also very important; playtesting with a biased crew who also cant vocalize vitriol and criticism out of basic human decency / fear of being kicked out from the cool kids club, you end up with a resonant echo chamber that, like most online reviews, have to find or even repeat two good things for every negative they let slip by.

What I think would've served us all best would've been to release the core rules a month ago and have anyone who wants it take a go at it. Let the world be the playtester, let the neckbeards, hardcores, hard-to-the-cores and teh hardcorez break it apart and lay it all out. If you want clarity in text to the point of lawyerspeak, a closed beta test isn't going to be enough. The problem being of course that GW is very used to selling paid betas to people who eagerly lap them up.

I feel like GW has this weird half-in-the-door problem running, where it's still functioning on the "wargamers get together, play the game, argue out the rules for what's happening and write them down", except they've inhaled the new corporate design where no one can be wrong and nothing is anyone's fault as long as they don't put their head up, so be positive! Happy happy joy joy, moneymoneymoney. May also just be my personal bias. /shrug?



*I think I remember there being essentially one proclamation from on high while I was playing in the 3 - 5 era. (Technically including early 6, but that's when I stopped.) Also for a given value of "acceptable", I suppose.

[Forum Explorer]

It's weird how their old products weren't immediately defective, then. Or that the defects were acceptable* enough for people to wait the cycle for the next go-around to fix it. Rather than having a legion of post-it notes and having to constantly check the internet to make sure that you're using the newest new rules.

Acceptable in the stance of 'this is what you've got, and you either accept it or don't play.' 6th, and 7th were basically broken from day 1. Those rulesets put Eldar on top basically immediately, and for the entire run of 7th, you had to accept that, cause GW never revised the rules or the point values.

And lots of people hated that. These days there is always the expectation that GW will fix something that is broken. Yes, GW should know better for a lot of these complaints (like the whole Doctrine system) and there is a sort of cynical expectation that GW will deliberatly release something broken to bait people into buying it, and then fix it in about six months.

But it is so much better then having something just be broken for years at end. I agree that it is frustrating that your rulebook will basically be irrelevant after the first month, but that's why I feel like GW should release an app with the rules, and you just pay a subscription to get all the rules in the game for every faction, and get access through that app.

[Renegade Paladin]

But it is so much better then having something just be broken for years at end. I agree that it is frustrating that your rulebook will basically be irrelevant after the first month, but that's why I feel like GW should release an app with the rules, and you just pay a subscription to get all the rules in the game for every faction, and get access through that app.

Allegedly this is what they're doing at the launch of 9th. At least, we know that buying a physical codex gets you a key for the digital codex through the app.

[Forum Explorer]

Allegedly this is what they're doing at the launch of 9th. At least, we know that buying a physical codex gets you a key for the digital codex through the app.

You still have to buy every codex individually. More importantly, there's no indication that they are actually going to edit the digital copies with the FAQs as they happen.

[Misery Esquire]

Acceptable in the stance of 'this is what you've got, and you either accept it or don't play.' 6th, and 7th were basically broken from day 1. Those rulesets put Eldar on top basically immediately, and for the entire run of 7th, you had to accept that, cause GW never revised the rules or the point values.

I don't really know anything about those two editions (or 8th beyond having read through the rulebook and the AdMech codex, for that matter) - I'm fully willing to believe you, and working toward actual balance would be good; but Cheesegear's original point that I wanted to address is that rules complexity turns people away as shown (in his example) by the people distressed by ever-growing releases of Chapter Approved et cetra. My argument is less, "Broken game fine, what problem?" and more about that constant change is more of a problem (for me) than any amount of extra rule length.

Releasing Codexes more than once an edition to pound the game into shape is fine. It makes sense, even! Just posting a change, and then another change a week later, and then a new paragraph or two next month, the keyword is no longer the same keyword despite working the same, or working differently and keeping the name... And expecting me to have had kept track of all this and all the FAQs and built my own book inside the book or otherwise I'm accidentally cheating by playing a different game. Not a fan.

[Renegade Paladin]

You still have to buy every codex individually. More importantly, there's no indication that they are actually going to edit the digital copies with the FAQs as they happen.

I'm under the impression that they as a rule do update the digital codices. I've never bought one, so I don't have personal knowledge of that.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't really know anything about those two editions (or 8th beyond having read through the rulebook and the AdMech codex, for that matter) - I'm fully willing to believe you, and working toward actual balance would be good; but Cheesegear's original point that I wanted to address is that rules complexity turns people away as shown (in his example) by the people distressed by ever-growing releases of Chapter Approved et cetra. My argument is less, "Broken game fine, what problem?" and more about that constant change is more of a problem (for me) than any amount of extra rule length.

Rereleasing Codexes more than once an edition to pound the game into shape is fine. It makes sense, even! Just posting a change, and then another change a week later, and then a new paragraph or two next month, the keyword is no longer the same keyword despite working the same, or working differently and keeping the name... And expecting me to have had kept track of all this and all the FAQs and built my own book inside the book or otherwise I'm accidentally cheating by playing a different game. Not a fan.

I feel the bigger problem with that was that the releases were in multiple different books. I've got the same problem with Psychic Awakening for that matter. The rules were more or less fine, but it's annoying to have to look through multiple books to find them.

That's why I want them to put the updates and erratas directly into the digital copies of the books.

[Avaris]

You still have to buy every codex individually. More importantly, there's no indication that they are actually going to edit the digital copies with the FAQs as they happen.

We don't know much about the app yet, but I would be very surprised if it didn't include updates to rules as errata/faq come out. That's a major part of the functionality, and I believe is already the case when you get a digital codex (not 100% sure on that though)

[LansXero]

I'm under the impression that they as a rule do update the digital codices. I've never bought one, so I don't have personal knowledge of that.

Depends on platform; they do for iOS, not so much for the others (as far as I know up to SM supplements). It could change with the new release.

And then there is the issue of having to pay monthly to make proper use of the physical copies you have. While the app isn't a bad idea, it being both paid content AND a subscription model is definitively less than ideal and not exactly a solution for all casuals.