# Dumbing Down 40k



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Is it just me, or does it seem like Games Workshop has been dumbing down 40k lately? Codexes are increasingly "streamlined" to the point where you've got only cosmetic choice in the army selection, and that's really where it's striking me the most, but there are other things too. 

I think I started to notice it when they released Codex: Eldar. Beautiful book, don't get me wrong. Great new models, too. But rather than focus on the options that they had previously presented, they've made a hybrid army list which supposedly leaves all the previous army lists valid, only they kind of make you completely reorganize everything so that it's not truly the same army anymore? Dark Angels are the same way. Removing the armoury kills a lot of conversions people have done, and in particular, the list is so rigid that you pretty much have to play it one or two different ways. 

Having heard a great deal about the Chaos Space Marine codex, which is perhaps what I'm most concerned about since Chaos has been my love for many years now, it looks like we're walking further down the path of simplification for the sake of keeping things simple and ignoring the old models people have made, the fluff that exists to justify certain armies, etc.

Also, there is the somewhat recent GW move, albeit a rather quiet one, to make Warhammer 40,000 more "Warhammer junior," if you will, and Warhammer Fantasy the more "adult" game. Every time I talk to a distributor, they mention how GW wants to market 40k to a younger audience, and they're adjusting the rules accordingly. Go to a convention, and watch the red shirts. See what they show different people. It's sad, really, that GW would walk that route. I don't want to see the game I've loved for 8 years head the way of Pokemon. 

Has anyone else noticed any of this?

I don't mean for this to have been...I'm not sure what the right word is. Hostile, for lack of a better... or violating any of the forums' rules. If it does, please feel free to delete it.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

http://www.heresy-online.net/viewtopic.php?t=1958&highlight=dumbing
someone already started a thread like this. 

but yeah, imo GW is dumbing down.


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> But rather than focus on the options that they had previously presented, they've made a hybrid army list which supposedly leaves all the previous army lists valid, only they kind of make you completely reorganize everything so that it's not truly the same army anymore?



Like I've said elsewhere, you can still make every craftworld list of old, just that they're not broken any more. No Seer Village, Disruption hell, 18 starcannon vyper spam etc. You can make every single one, but you have to do it in a fluffy way this time. Saim-hann needs jetbikes, Ulthwe warlocks must take weapons, Biel-tan must take Avengers, Pathfinders are still great but no disruption. So your point is wrong, quite frankly. Its the same army if you followed fluff and its not been dumbed down.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

40k is being 'streamlined' down so more kiddies can understand it.
But I don't think much of this is due to Codex's, it's the core rules, a lot of things are abstracted and standardised for no reason other than to dumb it down.

Armour Save modifiers replaced with AP. This just created a gulf, you either had 3+ or better save, or you had none, maybe 4+ in some circumstances.
They had to invent the Choppa, with incredibly poor fluff reasoning, just to help Orks overcome the lack of Armour Save modifiers.
Conversely, they had to invent the Terminator Invulnerable Save to help the Termies survive the all or nothin AP system.


Movement stats replace with everyone moving 6". But this prevented the faster creatures like Eldar and Tyranids using their speed to get into better positions, rush, etc.
So the Fleet random roll was invented, pushing more towards dice rolling luck rather than using a known better movement stat to your advantage.

They're the best examples of where GW has removed rules for simplicity, then have needed to add 'patches' to compensate for their absence.

My favourite is Cover, apparently a Marine sitting in a bunker might as well be sat in a field for all it's worth, but his IG buddy suddenly develops power armour within it. 
The all or nothing approach again.

The contrast is stark when looking at the Warhammer rules (that retain many of those removed from 40k), or even Necromunda. In those games I can visualise and grasp many of the actions- sitting behind cover does make your a smaller target hence harder to hit, troops are able to move faster (March/Run) if they aren't stopping to let off a few shots, etc.


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

Having played since RT I've seen that over the years the size of armies increased as did the complexity of the rules.

Then along came third Ed where they made radical changes to the game & effectively created a new system. Yes its been smoothlined, this is a good thing. It plays better & quicker. Its was a breath of fresh air after 2nd Ed.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I'm not saying 2nd Ed was perfect, the Assault phase was tedious and complicated.

But a lot of the stuff removed was simple, intuitive, 'realistic', and basically taught in Reception classes at Primary School.

E.g. how hard was it to add or subtract 1 or 2 from your To Hit rolls? It was intuitive that sitting behind some cover made you harder to hit, so less shots actually succeeded in the To Hit roll. Rather than getting some miraculous tree save that only worked if you weren't already wearing good armour.

Similary, how hard would it be to replace the AP number of a weapon with the Armour Modifier -X and then do extremely basic maths to add or deduct from your Armour Save?
Again, it was intuitive that the stronger the shot the less effective armour would be to you, rather than the absurd circumstances where Krak rockets bounce of Termies, but Plasma instantly fries them.

It even allowed for anomalous weapons like the Warp Spider gun that are high strength but low AP by giving it a low Armour Modifer.
I support this rule knowing full well that it would mean my Marines taking poorer saves a lot of the time.



> Yes its been smoothlined, this is a good thing. It plays better & quicker. Its was a breath of fresh air after 2nd Ed.


Opinion, one man's 'streamlined' is another's dumbed down.

Consider the rules we have now, but with a Movement Stat instead of Fleet, e.g. 8" for Eldar, Cover affecting To Hit, weapons having Armour Modifiers instead of AP (including Close Combat weapons, yet another all or nothing with power weapons or ccw's, Rending and Choppa's thrown in to try to compensate).


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

As long as it doesnt end up like Candyland im ok.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

From what I understand everything is being levelled, codex-wise, across the board and then from there you will see things start to go back to the whole codex creep we are used to. Personally I don't mind the way things are going as it will definitely cut down on the cheese armies and level the playing field among gamers so that it will rely more on skill of the gamer than on the list build.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

I dont think 40k is being dumbed down. It doesn't take intelegence to spot the killer combo's in some of the codex's. Perhaps by limiting the wargear and options it will force players to use tactics instead of speed daemons etc!

So im with Wraithlord. Perhaps not a bad thing. Maybe i might even win some games against the edam out there with my themed fun armies!


MarzM :mrgreen:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

The codex template has been changed, and streamlined. While this irritates me because I like the layout of the old codices, it isn't a sign of GW becoming more childish. All they've done here is present the rules exactly as they would have been otherwise, but in a different fashion.

The rules you are talking about have been here for close on a _decade_. If you wanted to complain, you've missed the boat by just a little.

That said, 3rd and 4th are simpler than 2nd. This is, despite the loss of some nice rules, a good thing. Now, 40K isn't just 'giant characters kill everything while the most borken units paty around and we ignore any hint of realistic military structure'. Now, 40K doesn't take entire weekends to play a decent-sized game. I liked some of the stuff in 2nd, but damned if it wasn't the slowest quagmire of a boring game ever printed. Some rules could do with coming back, but the vast majority need to stay way back in the past.


----------



## Flam (Feb 7, 2007)

2nd Edition was great, but the rules were indeed sprawling. I can't recall playing a single game of 2nd Ed. that didn't end with at least one of the players complaining about how the game would have swung differently if only they'd remembered to take (rule x) into consideration.


----------



## pathwinder14 (Dec 27, 2006)

The Wraithlord said:


> From what I understand everything is being levelled, codex-wise, across the board and then from there you will see things start to go back to the whole codex creep we are used to. Personally I don't mind the way things are going as it will definitely cut down on the cheese armies and level the playing field among gamers so that it will rely more on skill of the gamer than on the list build.


Amen to that.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

if it is leveled, what are they going to do to the Black Templars, a lot of people seem to say they are the best army in the game, but I simply don't see it. I didn't start with them as my first army because I thought they were powerful, I just liked their style


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Jeridian said:


> My favourite is Cover, apparently a Marine sitting in a bunker might as well be sat in a field for all it's worth, but his IG buddy suddenly develops power armour within it.


Not true. The marine is still better off because he has a +3 _cover save_ and a +3 _armor save_. If his armor gets pierced, he still gets to use the bunker to protect himself. Just cause he's a space marine, doesn't mean he should get a _better_ cover save than a guardsman.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

nah, I disagree in some ways.

as a space marine player, I never actually had an appretiation for how good the cover saves are, because its not better than the armor save, I personally feel it would make more sense to have them be more difficult to hit or to wound then have a better save.

seriously, it annoys me soooooo much when I drop multiple demolisher cannons on some eldar snipers, turn after turn and it continuously does nothing. cause they have a 2+ cover save.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

oh man I know, my friend uses them all the time, and they're just so damn hard to kill!!!


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Not true. The marine is still better off because he has a +3 cover save and a +3 armor save. If his armor gets pierced, he still gets to use the bunker to protect himself. Just cause he's a space marine, doesn't mean he should get a better cover save than a guardsman.


Simply not true, TBH.

The extreme example- a squad of Marines in a bunker, a squad of Guardsmen in a bunker.

The enemy pours bolter rounds, heavy bolters, etc, etc into the bunker.
Barring To Wound rolls, the Marine unit is as equally protected as a Guard unit, despite the fact they are also wearing plates of powered armour within the bunker.

The Marines might as well be stood out in the open against most weapons, as they will be just as protected as when sat within metre's thick concrete bunkers...

That's not 'realistic' in any sense of the word.

Most cover should make a unit harder to hit, with extreme cover like bunkers giving something like an additional Ward Save after the armour save.

It's not because he's a SM that he should be better protected, it's that he's wearing heavy plate armour instead of a flak vest that he should be better protected.

Yes, there was a lot wrong with 2nd Ed, but I think the Armour Modifiers, Cover To Hit Modifiers, etc where plausible, realisitic, intuitive and effective.
There replacements in 3rd/4th are counter-intuitive, abstract and simple for simples sake.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Yes, there are no weapons that offer no cover save in the game, and they certainly aren't an option for the basic squads of almost every Imperial army available.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

um? Flamers? I thought they offered no cover save.

wait. thats it.

Hellhound here I come!


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Cadian81st said:


> Jeridian said:
> 
> 
> > My favourite is Cover, apparently a Marine sitting in a bunker might as well be sat in a field for all it's worth, but his IG buddy suddenly develops power armour within it.
> ...


It's always bothered me too.
But the thing is...you get one save, or the other...not both.

I WISH you got both. But it's not so.
Either/or.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Engelus said:


> um? Flamers? I thought they offered no cover save.
> 
> wait. thats it.
> 
> Hellhound here I come!


he was being sarcastic. but yeah, infiltrating a unit of flamer wielding marines near his ubereldarscouts always seems to get my opponents attention...


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

That's a heck of a smart idea actually.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Thanks.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

yeah, being a space marine in cover only does you any good against probably about 5% of the saves you need to make.

space marines die just as much in cover as they do on open ground.

and to my knowledge, no space marines have anything that allows them to add anything to a cover save.


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

Because, quite simply it would unbalance the game. 3+, then a 3+ for marines in a bunker, or -2 to hit (Guard would need 6s!, Orks a 7!) would make marines in cover, pretty damned imposible to move.

It's abstract for the sake of ease of play and balance, get over it. The fact that you can advance out in the open and recieve the same save as a guardsman cowering in a bunker is a boon.
Then there's also the fact that you're going to wound many more guardsmen in said bunker and thus force more saves which means more dead, due to their lower toughness.

Think of it this way, who's going to be able to hide best, the 5ft 10 guardsman in flak armour, or the 7-8 ft man mountain in full plate? It's never going to be truly realistic unless you go down the road of -2 to hit guardsman in cover, -1 for a space marine because thy're bigger, -3 for ripper swarms etc because they're tiny.....

See where i'm going with this?


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

I think Marines in cover should be harder than a coffin nail to dig out [I think Astartes in 40k are great big creampuffs in comparison to CSM. I wish they were the gods they are depicted to be, but they aren't.) I think armies that don't care about their troops should be able to fire in to CC (chaos, orks, etc). I think some CoD Strategems should be universal: barricades, plunging fire, infiltration, etc.

What can you do about it?

House rules.
Deal with it.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

I agree with you about the armies that don't care being able to fire into CC. That would make a good guard doctrine IMO. (trap them in CC with conscripts, and let loose the heavy bolters of war!!!) Sorta like skaven.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

...or the Russians at Stalingrad.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I agree that you shouldn't be able to fire into close combat, I have however intentionally (through a bit of luck though) scattered an earth shaker into a CC to kill off some kroot.
and amazingly didn't take a casualty.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

baring in mind if you had both the points values for everything in the game would change dramatically. like when marines were 30pts each for example


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Because, quite simply it would unbalance the game. 3+, then a 3+ for marines in a bunker, or -2 to hit (Guard would need 6s!, Orks a 7!) would make marines in cover, pretty damned imposible to move.


Of course a radical rework of the 40k rules as proposed would require a radical rework of unit points costs and abilities. 
That is the reason it won't happen, but it's a piss poor excuse for why it shouldn't happen.



> It's abstract for the sake of ease of play and balance, get over it.


It's abstract for the sake of getting as many 12yr olds with ADD to take the game up and throw dice at each other. Of course I could go and play better games (and often do), but 40k has a special place for me as the background story and the models are very well done, and deserve something more than what it is now- a kiddy draw to wean them onto other games.



> The fact that you can advance out in the open and recieve the same save as a guardsman cowering in a bunker is a boon.
> Then there's also the fact that you're going to wound many more guardsmen in said bunker and thus force more saves which means more dead, due to their lower toughness.


This example wasn't given to determine who was stronger/more resilient Marines or Guardsmen, that's self evident.
It was given to show the absurdity of Cover Saves.

Put it another way- Marines naked in a Bunker, Marines in full power armour in a bunker....
...might as well crack out the hot coals and water because that armours gonna do jack all.

Again, that's an extreme example- I'm not whining that SM's should be 'du awezomer !!!11'.
Other examples- Storm Troopers in a building, might as well be wearing their Sunday best, rather than sweating under all that body armour.



> Think of it this way, who's going to be able to hide best, the 5ft 10 guardsman in flak armour, or the 7-8 ft man mountain in full plate? It's never going to be truly realistic unless you go down the road of -2 to hit guardsman in cover, -1 for a space marine because thy're bigger, -3 for ripper swarms etc because they're tiny.....


This argument does have merit- where do we draw the line at the complexity, it's a personal preference.

Personally I find 40k to be very simple compared to other games, with a lot of flawed, abstracted rules, silly loopholes and brutally obvious and predictable tactics and army lists- where the outcome of many games can be determined before the first dice roll based on armies. Its appeal wearing very thin.

I proposed an 'Advanced 40k' with ASM, Cover To Hit modifiers, Running, etc all the good bits from 2nd Ed, combined with the good bits from 3/4th Ed- the Assault phase, much of the vehicle rules (with additional tweaking), etc.

This isn't a 2nd Ed vs 4th Ed fight, it's a simple vs advanced fight.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

That's not a bad idea at all
I'd like to see the BS be modified for range, cover and then armor.
Actually, I'd do a lot of things to make it more detailed and accurate, but this would most certainly bog down the game.

Combat Patrols and Kill Team missions would play out like full 1850 point games.

Not necissarily a bad thing per se, but not one everyone would dig.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Sorry for the DP.



Jeridian said:


> Personally I find 40k to be very simple compared to other games, with a lot of flawed, abstracted rules, silly loopholes and brutally obvious and predictable tactics and army lists- *where the outcome of many games can be determined before the first dice roll based on armies*. Its appeal wearing very thin.



THAT is the one thing I personally have a beef with.


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

I'd be quite interested in a Necromunda style version of kill team.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

> Personally I find 40k to be very simple compared to other games, with a lot of flawed, abstracted rules, silly loopholes and brutally obvious and predictable tactics and army lists- where the outcome of many games can be determined before the first dice roll based on armies. Its appeal wearing very thin.


I very rarely think this is true though, the ways things are going there are alot less "power" armies out there, and the only time it would hold true would be if your playing an extreme army vs an extreme army. However if youv'e taken one of these forces then that really is your own fault as you should realise if you take something so far on one end of the spetrum then its going to have its nemesis army. Now compared to say warhammer where you have what i think is a more advanced rule system i think it is much more likely that you can see two armies line up and predict the winner before any dice are rolled


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Actually, I'd do a lot of things to make it more detailed and accurate, but this would most certainly bog down the game.


See this is always the counter-argument to adding more realisitic/complex rules to a system. It will bog down the game, it will take several hours to play.

If you read the current 4th Ed rulebook, a 1500pts game should take a couple of hours. This may be true between beginners, kids and idiots but most of the time games don't take that long.

I don't think adding or subtracting 1 or 2 from a number is suddenly going to slow the game down (unless the current state of education the media potrays is true).

Frankly how is memorising that a Bolter is -2 ASM any different from memorising that it is AP 5.



> Now compared to say warhammer where you have what i think is a more advanced rule system i think it is much more likely that you can see two armies line up and predict the winner before any dice are rolled


We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. In 40k it can be a Rock/Paper/Scissors on an army level- Necrons>Tau, Tau & Eldar> Marines, etc, etc.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

No, it can't, unless the people you play are outright imbeciles. There is more than enough variability in even the horrifically constrained Necron list to allow for changes extensive enough to completely alter the strategic paradigm.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Somebody owns a thesaurus.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Jeridian said:


> > Actually, I'd do a lot of things to make it more detailed and accurate, but this would most certainly bog down the game.
> 
> 
> See this is always the counter-argument to adding more realisitic/complex rules to a system. It will bog down the game, it will take several hours to play.


Usually, in the league I'm currently in, we play out 1500-1750 points in about 3 hours, with table setup, etc.



> If you read the current 4th Ed rulebook, a 1500pts game should take a couple of hours. This may be true between beginners, kids and idiots but most of the time games don't take that long.


 I dunno about kids and idiots, but folks with less experience, or who haven't memorized the 270 page hardback book may take a bit longer. I can't speak for everyone, but i forget things and occasionally have to look em up. I don't *think* I'm an idiot.



> I don't think adding or subtracting 1 or 2 from a number is suddenly going to slow the game down (unless the current state of education the media potrays is true).


Well...considering I'm thinking of several more additions to the system, it could very well add more time.



> Frankly how is memorising that a Bolter is -2 ASM any different from memorising that it is AP 5.


I don't memorize all that stuff, I use a cheat-sheet. I have five 40k Armies and 4 WFB armies, and many more important things to remember than game statistics. Either way, I understand what you're saying. 

While you may be some sort of super-genius or savant for memorizing 40k rules and stats, not everyone else is, and while making one change may be simple, it'll add at least a little time, and of course while that time may be miniscule per roll of the dice, it adds up, and invariably people will (rightfully) say it adds time to the game (more for some than others).



> Now compared to say warhammer where you have what i think is a more advanced rule system i think it is much more likely that you can see two armies line up and predict the winner before any dice are rolled





> We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. In 40k it can be a Rock/Paper/Scissors on an army level- Necrons>Tau, Tau & Eldar> Marines, etc, etc.


I'm perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree.


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> If you read the current 4th Ed rulebook, a 1500pts game should take a couple of hours. This may be true between beginners, kids and idiots but most of the time games don't take that long.


Erm, they often do. Once you allow thinking time, setting up time and the full 6+ turns of an evenly fought game its often 2 hours. Quite a few games at tournaments don't get finished within the time limit as you know.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Jeridian said:


> Somebody owns a thesaurus.


Funnily enough, I don't. I just have a vast vocabulary. I once beat an entire year twelve english class at Synonym Wars. I have yet to decide whether it was a good or a bad thing.


----------



## Bloodhound (Feb 8, 2007)

Who in the living hell gets rid of the armoury in the Dark Angles codex. 

THAT SUCKS!

Now all the characters have preset weapons and armor. 

YOU CAN'T EVEN GET TERMINATOR HONOURS ON ANY MODEL BUT ONES THAT ARE ALREADY TERMIS.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH. :x :evil:


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

thats because they come with vet sarges in the price


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Perhaps my previous posts where too harsh, but I find most of my games at 1500pts take around 1hr30 at the most. I generally do my thinking time whilst my opponent takes his turn, or more precisely have a very short thinking time acting on impulse- hence the loss record.



> I don't memorize all that stuff, I use a cheat-sheet. I have five 40k Armies and 4 WFB armies, and many more important things to remember than game statistics. Either way, I understand what you're saying.
> 
> While you may be some sort of super-genius or savant for memorizing 40k rules and stats, not everyone else is, and while making one change may be simple, it'll add at least a little time, and of course while that time may be miniscule per roll of the dice, it adds up, and invariably people will (rightfully) say it adds time to the game (more for some than others).


I understand it's not viable to memorise every piece of wargear from every army list, etc.
But the games core rules should be pretty embedded.

Remembering that troops in a forest are -1 to hit them is no harder to remember or write on a cheat sheet than giving them a 5+ Cover save.
Neither is -2 to hit in buildings, harder to remember than 4+ Cover save.

Etc, etc. Most of the proposed rules changes are not additions, they are changes- that are less abstract, more intuitive.



> Erm, they often do. Once you allow thinking time, setting up time and the full 6+ turns of an evenly fought game its often 2 hours. Quite a few games at tournaments don't get finished within the time limit as you know.


Most of the times I've heard a game hasn't finished in a tournament is because:

1) It's higher than 1500pts, 1850pts for example.
2) One opponent is slowing the game down so his opponent doesn't get the last turn...



> Funnily enough, I don't. I just have a vast vocabulary. I once beat an entire year twelve english class at Synonym Wars. I have yet to decide whether it was a good or a bad thing.


It's just that I'd like to respond to your previous post but I haven't a clue what your saying.

As far as I can translate your saying even Necrons have the variety to make for different styles of gaming. I have to disagree- Monolith Warrior Phalanx or Destroyer Spam- that is all they have, they are very boring.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

You can always have different styles of gaming for almost every army, the big question is whether you can win a game with them or not.


----------

