Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Saambell]

Cheesegear, are all the people you play with this toxic, to the point where they'll argue over terrain and factionalize instantly rather than just go "okay, cool"? Where they'll wheedle endlessly to get you to fight their min-maxed Crusade army and abuse power levels?

If so, how can I avoid these players?

Near as I can tell, play against people with lots of spare income where prices are low. The places with higher prices and lower incomes tend to lead to people trying to get the most out of their money and are like "I invested in this, I NEED to make good use of it". While places with lower prices and higher income are like "Sure I spent money on this, but I'm fine with it being meh or taking up shelf space". But that's demographics you cant change at all easily to find certain players. The places where a army is a major investment of income that could very much go to other more important things leads to a much more sports like mentality, you don't drop that much money on a sport without trying to get good at it. This isn't 12$ for a football you kick around at a park for a hour or two on a weekend, this is a couple hundred on hockey gear/hand egg armour. With that kind of investment you are obligated to put in the time and effort to get good at the game and go to practices several times a week.

So when scouting a place to play, try to figure if this is a hobby store or a sports store. And avoid a place where the guy who offers to play the new guy brings a 5th edition Dragostar to a 1000 point game, when the new guy brings foot guard and doesn't even combined squads them. Then the Drago guy agrees to the new guy saying Infiltrate off a warlord trait trait lets the Dragostar start in the guard's deployment zone. Seal Clubbing at its Finest.

[Cheesegear]

Cheesegear, are all the people you play with this toxic, to the point where they'll argue over terrain and factionalize instantly rather than just go "okay, cool"?

In my meta? We have a few people like that. However, my meta also happens to be large and varied enough that most people, most days, can simply find a different opponent. Those people learn pretty quickly that they don't get games. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them wanting to play the way they want to play, leading to an argument almost every game, even if that argument can be solved in 30 seconds - the fact is that the argument still takes place.

I've been playing this game long enough, and been online long enough, that those people are not exactly rare. And my fellow Australian, Drasius, had a meta that was full of them.
I also find it very, very common in younger players, who can't afford to have bad models that don't perform; "If I don't have a chance of winning, I wont play." Which is very understandable. If you can't win, what's the point?
(Certainly, the Australian ETC Team came 4th, despite not even being part of Europe)

Which ties into what Saambell says; Every player I've met, IRL, takes the game seriously. A not-small part of me believes that in Australia, in order to get into Warhammer-products, you have to throw down cash. If you throw down cash, whatever you buy with it, becomes that much more important. If you don't actually care about the game, spend your money and/or time on literally anything else. This ties directly into the sunk cost fallacy:
Just because you invested your time and money into something, doesn't make it good.
That being said, how 'bout before you invest your time and money into something, you make sure it's good?

(This is kind of the impetus behind 'Building on a Budget'. Spend your money on good stuff, not bad stuff. Because, at the end of the day, your opponents can spend money on good stuff without even meaning to [e.g; Hello Craftworlds players].)

Where they'll wheedle endlessly to get you to fight their min-maxed Crusade army and abuse power levels?

No. They wont wheedle. They'll just do it. But, they wont 'get people' to do anything.

If so, how can I avoid these players?

Depends on the size of your meta and how available other opponents are.
Sometimes, you can't avoid them (e.g; Ask Drasius, if he's still around).

[Forum Explorer]

This is the problem. You have someone tell you the rules, and both of you follow the same rules.
The instant you let people make their own rules, nobody will agree on anything and chaos ensues as people join Factions and no-one can play with anyone outside their 'group'. (insert real world example).

Do you have game Leagues where you are at, or is it all just PUGs and tournaments?

[LansXero]

Cheesegear, are all the people you play with this toxic, to the point where they'll argue over terrain and factionalize instantly rather than just go "okay, cool"? Where they'll wheedle endlessly to get you to fight their min-maxed Crusade army and abuse power levels?

If so, how can I avoid these players?

You see, I get that people CAN homebrew / restrict themselves / be honourable with the new terrain and crusade stuff.

What I dont see is how that is an strength of the rules themselves and their design, instead of the usual "this is good because homebrew can fix it".

GW is designing in this naive vacuum where people like watching their opponent do cool stuff to them and enjoy being in the receiving end of fun and interactive unbalanced rules. Which, Im sure those people exist, I dont think they're a large enough demographic to base a ruleset on. And that it caters to their whimsical carefree nature still doesnt make it a good ruleset.

[Avaris]

GW is designing in this naive vacuum where people like watching their opponent do cool stuff to them and enjoy being in the receiving end of fun and interactive unbalanced rules. Which, Im sure those people exist, I dont think they're a large enough demographic to base a ruleset on. And that it caters to their whimsical carefree nature still doesnt make it a good ruleset.

Thing is... that’s the entire background of GW and its game designers. The game has evolved from that as a basis.

It’s not wrong to want a solid, competitive wargame, or to come to 40k with that mindset. There will always be things that GW can (and will) do to improve it for that type of gameplay. But the CORE of their game design philosophy is derived from that ‘whimsical carefree nature’. And there are far more players of that type than you think. I suspect that worldwide there are more of them than not, but they are less vocal online, as they are arguably less passionate about things like rules interactions that lead into arguments. [Edit: and it’s definitely a valid point that the proportions will be different in local metas where an army represents a comparatively significant investment]

I’m NOT saying this is the right basis for the game, or the right way to design it, but it IS the reality. I’ve said before that I’m a strong believer in understanding what the design philosophy of a game is, and playing it and judging it on that basis. Apocalypse is a game of mass troop movements and devastating lords of war, where characters are less pivotal. Necromunda is a deep, customisable skirmish level game. Underworlds is a tight, competitive experience.

What is 40k? I’m fairly certain the design goal is something like “a thematic game where players can use their favourite models in a fun and roughly fair experience”. Does it suceed at that? Debatable: there are definitely areas that it fails, particularly given the common power creep afforded to new releases. But I judge it on that basis.

So, you’re right, GW is designing “where people like watching their opponent do cool stuff to them and enjoy being in the receiving end of fun and interactive unbalanced rules.” But that’s not a mistake, it’s what the game is intended to be. It’s not going to change from that. Again, I’M NOT SAYING IT’S WRONG TO WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO THIS. But it is not likely to change. It is irrelevant to talk about whether it is a good ruleset in a vacumn, it has to be judged over whether it is a good ruleset when this design goal is the basis.

Fundamentally, if 40k had a design origin other than this, it wouldn’t be 40k. And you wouldn’t design 40k if you wanted a game that isn’t focussed on that type of play.

[Cheesegear]

So, you’re right, GW is designing “where people like watching their opponent do cool stuff to them and enjoy being in the receiving end of fun and interactive unbalanced rules.” But that’s not a mistake, it’s what the game is intended to be.

GW: So we made a boomstick. We think you'll like it! BUY IT NOW.
Player who Bought Into Hype'd Power Creep: "This is my boomstick, it has 6 shots, it's S7, AP-4, and does 3 Damage per hit with Mortal Wounds on every 6. It's 40 Points. For 2CPs it can fire twice."
Player who doesn't play the new Hotness: "That's ****'d. Why doesn't my Codex do that? My Faction sucks. What I have, is trash. Time to change Factions...Especially to any Faction that contains Boomsticks."

This is GW's ideal world, and what it sounnds like, is GW's design goal is to sell models.

GW, six months later: So we nerfed Boomsticks. Turns out people were complaining about them. But we only nerfed them after you bought them, of course.

It is irrelevant to talk about whether it is a good ruleset in a vacumn, it has to be judged over whether it is a good ruleset when this design goal is the basis.

This is ****. But it's designed that way, so it's fine.

I can't even.

[Avaris]

GW: So we made a boomstick. We think you'll like it! BUY IT NOW.
Player who Bought Into Hype'd Power Creep: "This is my boomstick, it has 6 shots, it's S7, AP-4, and does 3 Damage per hit with Mortal Wounds on every 6. It's 40 Points. For 2CPs it can fire twice."
Player who doesn't play the new Hotness: "That's ****'d. Why doesn't my Codex do that? My Faction sucks. What I have, is trash. Time to change Factions...Especially to any Faction that contains Boomsticks."

This is GW's ideal world, and what it sounnds like, is GW's design goal is to sell models.

GW, six months later: So we nerfed Boomsticks. Turns out people were complaining about them. But we only nerfed them after you bought them, of course.



This is ****. But it's designed that way, so it's fine.

I can't even.

No. Listen to what I’m saying, not what you think I’m saying.

A design choice can be bad when designed with the philosophy I’m describing in mind. An overpowered rule that makes people think their current army is unplayable IS BAD, because it fails against the design goal of ‘people can play with their miniatures and have a fun and roughly balanced experience’. Obviously, examples like the one you give are bad.

But that’s an extreme example you invented for exaggeration. In the real world, there are rules that, while not the best choice for the type of game YOU want, are the best choice for the type of game GW is designing, which is much more casual than you think. Again, wanting a less casual game is fine, but 40k will never be a good game from that metric.

What is a ‘good game’? What metric should that be judged on? There isn’t a single metric that can be used: everyone’s needs are different. There will be some commonality, like wanting to not have the boomstick you describe above. But you can’t judge a game as good or bad without considering what its design goals are.

[LeSwordfish]

This is ****. But it's designed that way, so it's fine.

I can't even.

This isn't what Avaris was saying. Games are designed to achieve specific goals, some of which are not "be a taut competitive experience". Trust me, this is my job. If what you want from a game and what that game is trying to be are two different things, it's not a flaw in the game. Obviously we can discuss seperately whether or not they achieve those goals, but it feels like we have to explain to you every month that the overriding design principle for 40k - the criteria that GW designers try to meet and judge their success by - is not "What would Cheesegear enjoy?"

[Destro_Yersul]

"This game I'm playing sucks. It doesn't have any guns or chest-high-walls"

'It's SimCity'

"Yeah, but I want it to be CoD."

[LeSwordfish]

"This game I'm playing sucks. It doesn't have any guns or chest-high-walls"

'It's SimCity'

"Yeah, but I want it to be CoD."

"The buy mode only lets you buy houses, not weapons."

"Yes, that's as intended, it's a city builder."

"So you're saying they MEANT it to be ****?"

[Wraith]

I don't mean skirmish level. Basically what I'm picturing is you'd have your normal 40k army as is. Then you'd replace the warlord and a potentially a few other characters in it with customizable, advancement capable, heroes. With skills. Possibly crib off Necromunda, have a bunch of generic skills anyone can take. Then a set of faction skills to represent unique training.

The bulk of your army is static, like any normal 40k army. But the CHARACTERS advance, get injured, die. Etc. Obviously suffers from the same issue any growing narrative campaign does... but still seems fun.

Aha, I'm with you. Mordheim had his system, though it was a) skirmish sized and b) a fantasy setting, but I get what you mean. Mooks came in units who would level up once or maybe twice per campaign, whereas Heroes had extensive XP charts and a variety of options based on race, faction, role, etc.

There's elements of it in a fan-made mod called Hero-Hammer, which has come and gone a few times though I haven't heard much about it recently. The biggest problem with it is that some armies simply don't benefit from that style of game; However much time and effort you put into your Aeldari Farseer or Chaos Daemon Prince to craft their perfect backstory and get them levelled up, on the other side of the table there's a horde of Tyranids or an Imperial Guard gunline who really like it when their opponent spends a lot of points one a single expensive character that they can just drown with bodies and/or mortars.

Core 40k has flirted with the idea of powerful characters influencing the course of the battle - Second Edition was a lot like that, as were some armies in 6th edition (Aeldari Farseers again, in fact), and it always seemed to come down to those factions who had a really good character worth investing in, against those who didn't.
It generally wasn't a lot of fun for those who didn't unless they could also afford the real-world expense of playing a specific type of army tailored to breaking so-called DeathStars, which meant that the game polarised between armies with a powerful character/elite unit and those who were as abstract from that as possible.

The other problem with Hero-Hammer is that it's not the game that GW wants to sell. They make a living off selling plastic models, so they want you to buy Apocalypse and pick up enough stuff for a 3,000pt game - not a game where a 1-model hero unit is worth 20% of your army, and you have only two of them.

[LansXero]

Which is all very fine and dandy until you compare sales / players numbers from the tail end of 7th with them in the years that 8th lasted.

Wax poetical about game design and core philosophy all you want, it doesnt matter; 40k is a product, and a product's first, second and final goal is to be sold. There is an objective metric by which to measure a product, and that is: Are people buying it?

GW has made a conscious decision to move from core tenets that put the game back in the spotlight and turned the ship around. I feel this is a mistake, born of the naivety fostered by echo chambers and their usual delay in reading their market. However, I don't think the results of the mistake will be inmediately obvious, as it has a lot of momentum from 8th to burn. I do think it will hinder growth as the game was reaching a good stride, but given GW's willingness to adjust and correct lately I think that even if I'm right and its a mistake, steps can be taken to mitigate it if they feel the need to do so.

Even if I'm mistaken about the commercial viability of the changes though, I still dont see the necessity of 9th Edition's existence. Its not that its bad, its that its unnecessary. I dont think fostering the "this new book is a core book, not a supplement, so its more valid" mentality for things like Crusade to be taken 'more seriously' is a good thing. I don't think Terrain rules that depend heavily on houseruling and pre-game agreements are good. I get their goals, I dont think those goals will ultimately make for a better play experience or even one distinct enough that wouldn't be achieved by FAQs and a larger CA (maybe then it'd be worth the asking price).

Every time one wants to argue the merits of the mechanics themselves, people react like its an attack and go back to the "well this isnt for you" argument. But who is it for? Even when faced with the fact that these options have always existed and those mannequins that this is for never used them, people will just bunker in "lets be optimistic!" "lets wait and see!" mindsets. I guess thats allright, after all, better or worse Im not quitting so I just should stop whining and adapt. But I think being critic of what one enjoys isn't a bad thing; feeling invested in one's hobby enough to disagree with its direction isn't a bad thing. Enthusiasm for things gets harder to summon up as we get older and even if sometimes its expressed as criticism or a cynical attitude, I dont think its fair to always shot it down.

[Avaris]

With this in mind, what are the design goals for ninth, and how well is it doing against them? A few I can see are:

Reduce ‘gamey’ interactions
Eighth edition has quite a few corners of the rules where the ‘best’ play feels really unintuitive and is not obvious to some players. Stuff like consolidating into tanks to lock them in combat and blocking movement with/for flyers. There are also places where inexact or variable wording leads to strange interactions. Ninth ed seems to be tightening these up, both by reducing their impact (see the rules allowing vehicles to shoot in combat) and by having a more consistent language for rules drafting (such as increased use of keywords, and having a lot of thought going into the layout of rules, though obviously we can’t judge this until seeing the rulebook)

Make terrain, particularly GW terrain, more meaningful
The Eighth edition terrain rules were not meaningful enough, and do not fit well with the terrain kits GW produces. Typically terrain provided a bit of cover and little else, in particular rarely blocking line of sight, so there is little incentive to manoeuvre around it. Additionally, it led to some of the aforementioned ‘gamey’ interactions, particularly being able to protect yourself from assault by being on the top floor of a building. The new terrain rules look to improve in this regard, particularly by increasing the prevalence of LoS blocking terrain, but also by fixing engagements on multiple levels (though we haven’t seen the rules for that yet).

Make assault more viable
This largely flows from the terrain rules, but also the reduced table size; GW wants people to have more chance to get into assault if they want to. The terrain rules in particular should mean it is possible to avoid firing lines more, but this is a goal that will ultimately be tested in gameplay.

Give a similar level of structure to narrative play as to matched play
GW has long struggled with how to support narrative play: the missions being put out were typically focussed on the ‘historical recreation’ side of it, rather than the ‘my dudes’ narratives. Crusade seems to be aiming towards the latter.


These are just a few of the design goals I can see, and it looks like ninth is doing ok against them, though I’ll admit there are some pitfalls.

Edit: @LansXero - one of the big pitfalls is definitely ‘does this need a new edition’? I’m not convinced: you’ll recall that I was very much of the belief that there would not be a ninth. I’m not sure if the game wouldn’t have been better served by producing a newset of core rules that incorporated the chapter approved rules, and was badged as such. But some of the changes made here are things that go beyond CA level changes, so I can see why, once they’ve decided to go with a new edition, they made more changes like this.

Which core tenets do you feel are being moved away from?

[Forum Explorer]

Even if I'm mistaken about the commercial viability of the changes though, I still dont see the necessity of 9th Edition's existence. Its not that its bad, its that its unnecessary. I dont think fostering the "this new book is a core book, not a supplement, so its more valid" mentality for things like Crusade to be taken 'more seriously' is a good thing. I don't think Terrain rules that depend heavily on houseruling and pre-game agreements are good. I get their goals, I dont think those goals will ultimately make for a better play experience or even one distinct enough that wouldn't be achieved by FAQs and a larger CA (maybe then it'd be worth the asking price).

I do fully agree with that. I don't think 9th edition really fixes anything. I mean, it does put in some changes I really really like (set CP for everyone, a penalty to taking allies, and better terrain rules) but those changes are pretty small.

But 8th edition was mostly fine. They didn't need to change the table sizes, make a whole bunch of new missions that are all ITCish, or play with the vehicle rules. But GW needs an excuse to redo everyone's codex, so here we go again.

Make assault more viable
This largely flows from the terrain rules, but also the reduced table size; GW wants people to have more chance to get into assault if they want to. The terrain rules in particular should mean it is possible to avoid firing lines more, but this is a goal that will ultimately be tested in gameplay.


These are just a few of the design goals I can see, and it looks like ninth is doing ok against them, though I’ll admit there are some pitfalls.

I'd actually say they've been mostly failing on making Assault more viable. Their 'anti Fallback stratagem' is complete garbage. They've put several big nerfs on assaulting, most notably vehicles being able to shoot into melee, and just for insult, they added Hard Cover.

[LansXero]

With this in mind, what are the design goals for ninth, and how well is it doing against them? A few I can see are:

Reduce ‘gamey’ interactions
Eighth edition has quite a few corners of the rules where the ‘best’ play feels really unintuitive and is not obvious to some players. Stuff like consolidating into tanks to lock them in combat and blocking movement with/for flyers. There are also places where inexact or variable wording leads to strange interactions. Ninth ed seems to be tightening these up, both by reducing their impact (see the rules allowing vehicles to shoot in combat) and by having a more consistent language for rules drafting (such as increased use of keywords, and having a lot of thought going into the layout of rules, though obviously we can’t judge this until seeing the rulebook)

The thing is, what you call 'gamey interactions' is a core characteristic of why these games become popular: rewarding system mastery. If every mechanic and every scenario is obvious and intuitive, then the mystery gets eroded and the impact of player skill is diminished. Yes, the simpler you make the game the more accessible it becomes, but when there is no depth to be explored and no improvement to be had it falls flat and becomes unatractive. 'easy to learn, hard to master' is the key selling point of MTG for a reason.

Peppering keywords everywhere is good in theory, except that now changing one bit of it changes all models under it, and that leads to things like the Triumph being visible through Obscuring terrain while Riptides aren't. Its going to get wonky because its being pasted on, not worked into the system from the ground up.

Make terrain, particularly GW terrain, more meaningful
The Eighth edition terrain rules were not meaningful enough, and do not fit well with the terrain kits GW produces. Typically terrain provided a bit of cover and little else, in particular rarely blocking line of sight, so there is little incentive to manoeuvre around it. Additionally, it led to some of the aforementioned ‘gamey’ interactions, particularly being able to protect yourself from assault by being on the top floor of a building. The new terrain rules look to improve in this regard, particularly by increasing the prevalence of LoS blocking terrain, but also by fixing engagements on multiple levels (though we haven’t seen the rules for that yet).

What new effects from 9th edition make terrain 'more meaningful' though?
You have Cover, as always; you have 'melee cover if you survive one round' which is so situational it doesnt even rate. You have 'blocks line of sight even if there are very visible holes there', so Magic Boxes which already were an ITC thing in 8th. You have 'defensible' which is a mystery BUT can only go on buildings and ruins, and you have Escaleable which actually makes multi-story pieces less meaningful as they could be flat for all the difference it'll make regarding who can melee you. So what new mechanic or interaction comes with 9th that realizes this 'more meaningful' assertion? The fact that you can adhoc keywords from game to game? The fact that you can have 'magic woods' or 'magic statues' instead of just 'magic boxes'? Its not sarcasm, you seem convinced there is this huge difference between 8th and 9th terrain rules that Im just not seeing. Battlescape, craters, barricades, the ones that slowed down vehicles, all of them already offered a wide range of rules and could be represented with a varied assortment of pieces. And the 8th Edition rulebook goes with "just mix and match and add whatever rule you want to whatever piece you want, possibilities are endless!" right from the start. So what exactly is different?

Make assault more viable
This largely flows from the terrain rules, but also the reduced table size; GW wants people to have more chance to get into assault if they want to. The terrain rules in particular should mean it is possible to avoid firing lines more, but this is a goal that will ultimately be tested in gameplay.

You can't have "makes tying people up less impactful" and "assault is more impactful" at the same time. Here is the thing: while board sizes might help, walls are still walls, which means fly or get out, so mobility is still key; now that bodycount is being countered by blast and that non-infantry gunlines get more accurate, assault is still the same risky proposition as usual. Board control will be important, but assault units need to change position and leave their important areas to go affect enemy models, ranged units do not. From there alone, and the fact that the large majority of rules aren't changing, it should be clear Assault will remain niche and gimmicky as usual.

Give a similar level of structure to narrative play as to matched play
GW has long struggled with how to support narrative play: the missions being put out were typically focussed on the ‘historical recreation’ side of it, rather than the ‘my dudes’ narratives. Crusade seems to be aiming towards the latter.

And I sincerely hope it works. It pains me to see all te creativity and effort put in things like Konor or Vigilus be ignored, even by the very people it supposedly was designed for. But knowing people, its already too 'gamey' for the ubercasual aproach since it requires book keeping and constance, and too 'casual' for people who'd be lured by the mechanical advantages. I still dont see "its in the rulebook" as a positive, since people requiring that sort of validation before trying something are very strange to me.

Edit: @LansXero - one of the big pitfalls is definitely ‘does this need a new edition’? I’m not convinced: you’ll recall that I was very much of the belief that there would not be a ninth. I’m not sure if the game wouldn’t have been better served by producing a newset of core rules that incorporated the chapter approved rules, and was badged as such. But some of the changes made here are things that go beyond CA level changes, so I can see why, once they’ve decided to go with a new edition, they made more changes like this.

Which core tenets do you feel are being moved away from?

What do you feel goes beyond CA changes? Rule of three is huge and its a FAQ change. Same with the CP adjustment. Terrain rules are in CA already, campaign sub systems ditto. So far I haven't seen anything thats larger in scope than what the FAQs + CAs have already done to the launch version of 8th.

As for what I feel is being moved on from, I still dislike the fact that the new edition is focusing on a Limited Edition product instead of an Starter line. Its trying to capitalize on the invested players coming in from 8th, at a time where new blood should be being welcomed into a mature, estable game that has 3 years behind it, not the newest GW experiment. I think the focus is back on enfranchised, invested players, instead of gaining market reach which should never stop being the focus. I dislike how much organizing power is being given over to third party fan organizations due to GW's refusal to handle their own OP, and how the perceptions of one subset of competitive people are coloring mission and game design. Regardless of my own preference (Schemes), the fact that regular Maelstrom existed and that they still printed missions for Eternal War kept things varied and open for more people; going from that to AoS Style missions with ITC flavoring feels bad.

I think there is a bit of emotional attachment as well. 8h was such an impactful revival of the game here that we really hoped there would never be a new edition, just a continued refinement of the same awesome game, adding new things but also trimming the fat when it got too bloated. I guess that was a pipe dream, huh? Because apparently people can only stomach cuts when you wrap them in a new package and slap a new number on it.

[Avaris]

The thing is, what you call 'gamey interactions' is a core characteristic of why these games become popular: rewarding system mastery. If every mechanic and every scenario is obvious and intuitive, then the mystery gets eroded and the impact of player skill is diminished. Yes, the simpler you make the game the more accessible it becomes, but when there is no depth to be explored and no improvement to be had it falls flat and becomes unatractive. 'easy to learn, hard to master' is the key selling point of MTG for a reason.

Peppering keywords everywhere is good in theory, except that now changing one bit of it changes all models under it, and that leads to things like the Triumph being visible through Obscuring terrain while Riptides aren't. Its going to get wonky because its being pasted on, not worked into the system from the ground up.

I certainly agree that things need to be baked in; tying the obscuring rules to wounds rather than a keyword feels like a misstep for exactly the reason you give.

As for ‘easy to learn but difficult to master’ though, I dispute that the type of ‘gamey’ interactions that are being modified are the only way of doing this, and they certainly aren’t intentional. ‘The easy to learn, difficult to master’ in 40k should, IMO, come from list optimisation and knowing when to use limited resources like CP, not from exploiting the complexities of game interactions that are an inevitable part of a physical wargame.

What new effects from 9th edition make terrain 'more meaningful' though?
You have Cover, as always; you have 'melee cover if you survive one round' which is so situational it doesnt even rate. You have 'blocks line of sight even if there are very visible holes there', so Magic Boxes which already were an ITC thing in 8th. You have 'defensible' which is a mystery BUT can only go on buildings and ruins, and you have Escaleable which actually makes multi-story pieces less meaningful as they could be flat for all the difference it'll make regarding who can melee you. So what new mechanic or interaction comes with 9th that realizes this 'more meaningful' assertion? The fact that you can adhoc keywords from game to game? The fact that you can have 'magic woods' or 'magic statues' instead of just 'magic boxes'? Its not sarcasm, you seem convinced there is this huge difference between 8th and 9th terrain rules that Im just not seeing. Battlescape, craters, barricades, the ones that slowed down vehicles, all of them already offered a wide range of rules and could be represented with a varied assortment of pieces. And the 8th Edition rulebook goes with "just mix and match and add whatever rule you want to whatever piece you want, possibilities are endless!" right from the start. So what exactly is different?

Honestly, it’s psychological as much as anything. As an actual improvement, having the ‘magic boxes’ like ITC does is an improvement in my book: abstracting LoS feels necessary. But beyond that, I’ll accept there isn’t much difference in how the rules play out.

The difference though, is having it explicitly in the MAIN rules. Looking in my 8th ed rulebook, the detailed terrain rules are buried towards the back of the ‘advanced rules’ section. Honestly, as a more casual player, having things like battlescapes presented alongside things like Imperial statues makes it feel like a low value optional extra. What 9th sounds like it’s doing is moving them front and centre, particularly through having a ‘define terrain’ step in every battle. Presentation, and psychology, is important.

Does this justify 9th? No; as said, I’m unsure on the overall need for it. New terrain rules could have come in through CA and then been incorporated into a revised rulebook (which IS necessary). All this presentational and psychological stuff could have been done with 8.5. But, given that GW has decided to brand it as 9th, I’m not going to get hung up on whether it should be a ‘new edition’ or not.

Though I suspect there are some changes GW, for whatever reason, wouldn’t have been willing to put in CA. Completely overhauling the CP economy for example. CA tends to add on to the core rulebook, not overwrite.

As for what I feel is being moved on from, I still dislike the fact that the new edition is focusing on a Limited Edition product instead of an Starter line. Its trying to capitalize on the invested players coming in from 8th, at a time where new blood should be being welcomed into a mature, estable game that has 3 years behind it, not the newest GW experiment. I think the focus is back on enfranchised, invested players, instead of gaining market reach which should never stop being the focus.

Definitely agree there, though I think it’s more of a messaging thing. I don’t doubt there will be a new starter product, but the enfranchised players are the targets for the current round of marketing, so I’m not surprised it’s not been mentioned yet.

[snowblizz]

If so, how can I avoid these players?

Joke answer: Avoid Australia. Or if they are still like they were when I played with them, avoid Finland.


Actual answer: Create a tournament that kicks their playstyle in the nuts repeatedly, but is so fun they can't avoid showing up anyway. Eventually you wear them down. It's not a big win to make them accept that ok this place does things differently. But I'll take the small win.
And yes a friend and me did this IRL. We never like the hardcore tournament mindset so we created our own by copying an example from the US. We leveraged our geographical location so the the comeptitive players wanted to show up and prove that they were better than other places. And then we kept ramming our casual fun tournament style down their throats. It took acouple of years but we got them to grudgingly admit to mellowing out. We woudl literally not announce battlepoints until painting, sportsmanship and Overall had been announced (you wouldn't believe how frustrated they'd get when we rated winning the game on points as the least important thing), we didn't give them ranking lists. We made whacky scenarios where straight up killing wasn't enough. Everything and anything to aggravate the classic powergaming gamer. And they kept showing up, heck there was a whole meta game trying to outfox us. Eventually they started appreciating the fact the tournament was so different from their normal WAAC way.

And then we inspired others to do what we had done.

Aha, I'm with you. Mordheim had his system, though it was a) skirmish sized and b) a fantasy setting, but I get what you mean. Mooks came in units who would level up once or maybe twice per campaign, whereas Heroes had extensive XP charts and a variety of options based on race, faction, role, etc.

There's elements of it in a fan-made mod called Hero-Hammer, which has come and gone a few times though I haven't heard much about it recently. The biggest problem with it is that some armies simply don't benefit from that style of game; However much time and effort you put into your Aeldari Farseer or Chaos Daemon Prince to craft their perfect backstory and get them levelled up, on the other side of the table there's a horde of Tyranids or an Imperial Guard gunline who really like it when their opponent spends a lot of points one a single expensive character that they can just drown with bodies and/or mortars.

3rd edition had a back of the book campaign system with promotions for units and characters. IIRC fairly minor but useful additions (and some less so) to show "veteran" status.

Thing is... that’s the entire background of GW and its game designers. The game has evolved from that as a basis.

But the CORE of their game design philosophy is derived from that ‘whimsical carefree nature’.

What is 40k? I’m fairly certain the design goal is something like “a thematic game where players can use their favourite models in a fun and roughly fair experience”. Does it suceed at that? Debatable: there are definitely areas that it fails, particularly given the common power creep afforded to new releases. But I judge it on that basis.

So, you’re right, GW is designing “where people like watching their opponent do cool stuff to them and enjoy being in the receiving end of fun and interactive unbalanced rules.” But that’s not a mistake, it’s what the game is intended to be.

Fundamentally, if 40k had a design origin other than this, it wouldn’t be 40k. And you wouldn’t design 40k if you wanted a game that isn’t focussed on that type of play.

Yup. Definitely. It's been this way for as long as I've played and as I've had access to the earlier material, basically since it was created as an kind-of RPG. As someone who indentifies as a "casual gamer" even for me the somewhat haphazard nature to the rules writing was occasionally frustrating. But they clearly intended it to be played by people who would amicably agree to any rules adjusting without fuss. Almost no one I've met is capable of that in the heat of battle though. Warhammer had exactly the same issues for exactly the same reasons. For a long time firebased and magical attacks were never defined despite having mechanical meaning and referenced as such in rules. And in 8 editions of the game they never really defined what a "lightning attack" meant in relation to Dragon Ogres who were supposed to be "power up" by such. It was always loosely interpreted and FAQed as and when other "lightning" stuff was introduced.

[Avaris]

Yup. Definitely. It's been this way for as long as I've played and as I've had access to the earlier material, basically since it was created as an kind-of RPG. As someone who indentifies as a "casual gamer" even for me the somewhat haphazard nature to the rules writing was occasionally frustrating. But they clearly intended it to be played by people who would amicably agree to any rules adjusting without fuss. Almost no one I've met is capable of that in the heat of battle though. Warhammer had exactly the same issues for exactly the same reasons. For a long time firebased and magical attacks were never defined despite having mechanical meaning and referenced as such in rules. And in 8 editions of the game they never really defined what a "lightning attack" meant in relation to Dragon Ogres who were supposed to be "power up" by such. It was always loosely interpreted and FAQed as and when other "lightning" stuff was introduced.

Yup: this is why honestly, the thing I’m most keen for is what appears to be a clearer and more definitive approach to rules writing. We’ve seen this evolving over the last few years: if you compare early 8th ed codexes to late, there are definitely changes in approach to wording there (for example, look at the wording on the Primaris Lieutenants tactical precision ability: the wording has changed significantly between SM codexes, making a lot of what used to be an obvious assumption specific. It’s the same ability, but applying that mindset across the rules is valuable), and this is an opportunity to apply that same mindset to the core rules. That is why I view things like the terrain keywords as important: it’s splitting things down into a clear ruling.

[Lord Torath]

I don't mean skirmish level. Basically what I'm picturing is you'd have your normal 40k army as is. Then you'd replace the warlord and a potentially a few other characters in it with customizable, advancement capable, heroes. With skills. Possibly crib off Necromunda, have a bunch of generic skills anyone can take. Then a set of faction skills to represent unique training.

The bulk of your army is static, like any normal 40k army. But the CHARACTERS advance, get injured, die. Etc. Obviously suffers from the same issue any growing narrative campaign does... but still seems fun.

That could be interesting... I could see leaving all the troops and vehicles as is. I would probably allow Sergeants and Squad Leaders to gain XP. You could steal the XP system from either Mordheim, Necrominda, or Kill team for the characters, no problem. The casualty rules would be applied to anyone who can gain XP, and could also probably be used from Necro/Mordheim. If your character goes down, you have a 1/6 chance of losing them, a 1/3 chance of them getting a temporary or permanent injury, a 1/3 chance of coming back just fine, and a 1/6 chance of coming back just a little bit better.

The tricky part is determining how you gain points to spend on upgrading your gear for your characters. Maybe you get a certain amount of points for every misson-objective VP you achieve?

You could rebuild your army between battles, paying the base point cost for your Characters (keyword: Characters are any model subject to XP/casualty rules). If your squad leaders are Characters, though, it might be harder to swap out squads, so maybe only independent characters are Characters.

[druid91]

That could be interesting... I could see leaving all the troops and vehicles as is. I would probably allow Sergeants and Squad Leaders to gain XP. You could steal the XP system from either Mordheim, Necrominda, or Kill team for the characters, no problem. The casualty rules would be applied to anyone who can gain XP, and could also probably be used from Necro/Mordheim. If your character goes down, you have a 1/6 chance of losing them, a 1/3 chance of them getting a temporary or permanent injury, a 1/3 chance of coming back just fine, and a 1/6 chance of coming back just a little bit better.

The tricky part is determining how you gain points to spend on upgrading your gear for your characters. Maybe you get a certain amount of points for every misson-objective VP you achieve?

You could rebuild your army between battles, paying the base point cost for your Characters (keyword: Characters are any model subject to XP/casualty rules). If your squad leaders are Characters, though, it might be harder to swap out squads, so maybe only independent characters are Characters.

I don't really like the idea of sergeants or squad leaders gaining XP. It... Gets too granular at that point. The reason I thought it would be best to divide between 'Main Characters' and 'Bulk of the Army' is you don't want to do book keeping for every squad of conscripts or tank you field.

I do however think maybe making a leadership skill that allows a character to train/customize a single unit, to a limited degree, would be interesting. So you could have honor guards. Or specialists that open new strategic doors, but nothing too nuts, and nothing army wide.

[LeSwordfish]

So hey! Overwatch is a stratagem now.

[Fable Wright]

So hey! Overwatch is a stratagem now.

Freaking called it.

The interesting thing to me is the disengage stratagem. I get the hunch, as part of their goal of 'strengthening melee' despite, you know, tanks and such no longer being able to have their guns turned off by melee, and the fact that they've stated that they're reworking overwatch, that overwatch likewise might be converted into a similar stratagem. Which would be a very interesting change if true...

[Requizen]

So hey! Overwatch is a stratagem now.

The Overwatch box below the Stratagem makes it sound like certain units will have rules that let them shoot Overwatch without the Stratagem. Curious if it'll be an updated list like Blast, or just stuff added in future supplements/codices.

[JNAProductions]

Overwatch being a Strat helps melee.

But I don't think it really helps the core issues melee has.

[druid91]

It also kind of screws shooting though.

[Avaris]

So hey! Overwatch is a stratagem now.

I think this is a bad move (shocking I know!). In principle, moving overwatch to be a stratagem is ok, but it really shouldn’t have the only hit on 6s thing in that case. Maybe be at -1 to hit, but when command points are still relatively limited a strategem with a reasonable chance of doing nothing at all isn’t good to use much.

(I similarly have a massive problem with strats that are ‘roll a d6, on a 4+, cancel the psychic power’ or simila, or that give you an attack with a chance to hit. Too high a chance of a feel bad moment from wasting a command point)

[JNAProductions]

It also kind of screws shooting though.

Not really. It hurts shooting, but not significantly. Most units don't have good Overwatch, and if you have a unit that DOES, then... Use the strat.

I think this is a bad move (shocking I know!). In principle, moving overwatch to be a stratagem is ok, but it really shouldn’t have the only hit on 6s thing in that case. Maybe be at -1 to hit, but when command points are still relatively limited a strategem with a reasonable chance of doing nothing at all isn’t good to use much.

(I similarly have a massive problem with strats that are ‘roll a d6, on a 4+, cancel the psychic power’ or simila, or that give you an attack with a chance to hit. Too high a chance of a feel bad moment from wasting a command point)

Sorta like Cut Them Down? :P

[Avaris]

Sorta like Cut Them Down? :P

Indeed! That is also bad (though a little more reasonable, as it scales to the number of units you have in combat with the unit falling back, and causes mortal wounds straight off, so you have an easier time working out if it’s worth it).

It ties into the same problem as relics and warlord traits: CP are so limited that every use of one has to be weighted against every other possible use. Weaker relics never get a look in, even if they are thematic to a list.

[Tome]

I wonder how it will work for Tau?

[Fable Wright]

I wonder how it will work for Tau?

The article said that The Greater Good lets everything fire overwatch on one use of the stratagem. So your Second Shooting Phase^TM can only delete one attacking unit.