# dumbing down 40k



## ThunderBolt (May 30, 2007)

does it seem to anyone else that the 40k rules set is being deliberately dumbed down so all the little kids who are new to the hobby can play it?

i used to think that was bollocks, but with the releases of new codexs im not so sure. cant pick how many marines you want in your squad? well now you only have the option of 5 or 10 men. cant handle an armoury? well now have a plasma pistol and a power fist.

it would seem anything a seven year old cant handle is being hit with jervis nerf stick. overwatch anyone? 

im considering leaving 40k altogether to play fantasy. thats a crying shame.


----------



## rokassan (Jan 24, 2007)

i AGREE,ALTHOUGH THE 12 YEAR OLDS THAT GO TO MY HOBBY STORE REALLY ARENT THAT STUPID.i REALLY DONT SEE WHY GW FEELS THEY NEED TO DUMB THE GAME DOWN.MOST OF THE KIDS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THESE TYPES OF GAMES ARE USUALLY QUITE INTELLIGENT(NERDS).....AT LEAST THE ONES DOWN HERE IN MIAMI.AGAIN THOUGH I DO AGREE WITH YOU 100% ALTHOUGH I DONT THINK ILL HAVE THE STOMACH TO QUIT.....IVE PAINTED MY DEATHGUARD TOO WELL TO GIVE UP ON THEM.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Yep, you've hit the nail on the head, all you need to do is look at WD and comapare it to the WD's that were coming out about 1 and half years ago, completely different magazine.


----------



## kelvingreen (May 15, 2007)

And compare those to the *WD*s from ten years ago! :wink:


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

I think this has alot more truth to it than anyone wants to admit. Is it that 40K is getting dumber to make the game flow easier? Or is it getting dumber because kids today are getting dumber? 

I know which one i think is right.


----------



## black chaplain (May 14, 2007)

i have to agree with you there. i remember the time when 40k was a big boy (lol) game and the gw staff suggesting to wait till your about 13 but now we have god dam 7 year olds think they can field an army of fantasy orks and passing them off as space orks. also now the rules are simpler there are a lot more rule smart asses, whothink they know everything about the game :evil: :evil: :evil: :!: :!: :!:


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

God, as much as I hate to admit it, it seems you're right. I remember the first time I walked into a GW store, I was watching all of the guys playing games at the gaming tables. I was like 10, maybe 11, and I remember, when I expressed an interest in playing too, the store guy said I had to be 13 or older to play. Now I walk in to pick up paints or a model (Yeah, I buy from GW, sue me) and I'll see little ten year olds in the "Academy" class, all learning how to paint their space marines nice and shiny. Moneywise, it's smart, expanding their fanbase to include younger kids who, especially around where I live, have a lot of disposable income. But it also alienates the people who've been playing since the 80s. Now, I'm only sixteen, so I don't know if I'm included in your rant, but that's just my two cents.

EDIT: And, in the grand scheme of things, who takes marine squads of anything _but_ five or ten guys? Taking odd numbered squads is pointless.


----------



## Antioch (Dec 27, 2006)

Cadian81st said:


> EDIT: And, in the grand scheme of things, who takes marine squads of anything _but_ five or ten guys? Taking odd numbered squads is pointless.



I think you probably mean anything but five or ten, as last I checked, five was an odd number . Seriously though, taking 6 or 8 man squads is somewhat common. I don't play Marines, but what I do play the squads end up just shy of max. Better to split into two squads of smaller numbers for tactical advantage. 

And yes. I feel the same exact way about the game. I don't bother playing at my local game store because one, it's a total pain to get to, and two, the gamers that play there haven't hit puberty yet. Call me a hypocrite for complaining about kids and being only 17 myself, but I'll be damned if someone compares me to one of them. I consider myself far more intelligent than the majority of people around here. Age =/= intelligence.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Frankly, the game is more playable than Second. It was nice and all to have all the extra in-depth rules, but too many people gloss over the gaping flaws and laughable powergaming exploits with the Power of Nostalgia.

40K could do with a bit more detail, but not that much.


----------



## Antioch (Dec 27, 2006)

Further thought on the subject has led me in the direction of a Cityfight-type add-on to 40k. Keep the system as it is now, but add another codex (yeah, I know) that goes a bit more in-depth and makes the system a little more complicated and meaty for those of us who want it. 

Of course it'll never happen that way, but it would most certainly be a good thing. Perhaps I'll sit down with my regular gaming buddies and draft it up. I can already think of a couple things I would change, like the stream-lined AP system. Scrap that, add back in roll modifiers.

Edit: Simple isn't always bad, though. It only took me a month to memorize stat lines and weapon attributes, making play much smoother and letting the rulebook gather a little dust.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

But taking away the customizability is just wrong. I mean, sure most people only use five things from the 30 thing armory, and hardly anyone takes certain doctrines and traits, and there are certain units that don't get used very often, _but they're there!_ That's what's important. There are so many different styles of gaming, modeling and painting, that it would just be cruel on GW's part to streamline the rules to the point that it starts affecting those aspects as well.

And yeah, my bad, 5's an odd number.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

The dumbing down question has been around for a long while now and in general I agree.

But take in to account its enviroment changes over the years.

GW Target market has gone from 14+ down to about 11+.

40K now has to compete with computer games and the like where instant gratatification is the norm.

And of course its all about profits now, long gone are the days where hairy hobbyists made the game in a charming if not slightly bumbling way. Its big business and the bean counters rule.

2nd Edition lasted a long time so the players (well at least in my neck of the woods) worked over the gaps and flaws in reasonable manner through discussion and logic with no GW input. 
But now with instant communication GW reacts on a almost weekly basis to rule queries etc so its a real arse to keep up.

These and other factors have changed our hobby no end. I for the last few years have been ribbed by Fanasty players about the fact that 40k is now just a training game to get youngsters into the hobby.

With the new limitations the hobby has started to die for me a bit, no longer can I convert lots of minis to represent the weapons and options for my army just the very limited range of options that we have been reduced to.

But what can one do but to plod on or give up?

VV


----------



## kelvingreen (May 15, 2007)

From what I can tell so far, the streamlining of the basic rules system in 4th is a good thing (although I'm not sure about mixed armour), but I do think the army lists have been dumbed down. As Vash says, there's almost no room for conversions nowadays, the army choices are limited, and so on.

Apparently, this new *Apocalypse* add-on will open up the game a bit. We shall see if that's true, or if it's just a way to sell bigger toys to the kids.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I know what my money is on. Why else make a plastic Baneblade?


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

So what exactly is it that's stopping you from converting your weapons etc. If anything, the streamlined rules avoid confusion and make conversion opportunities even better without the risk of sufering at the hands of WYSIWYG.

New chaos lords for e.g. can have a daemon weapon. So you can feel free to convert any manner of nastiness that you can imagine and not have to worry about whether it looks like a dark blade, a dread axe, a whip, a powerfist, mutation etc, since it can only be a daemon weapon.

Stop being such a bunch of girls. :wink:


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i disagree i think they are being dumbed down so they are more simple to understand and interprit and so there aren't any arguements about the rules.


----------



## LongBeard (Dec 22, 2006)

> Stop being such a bunch of girls. :wink:


Just wait till Jervis gets hold of your Tau then we'll see who's a girl! :wink:


----------



## kelvingreen (May 15, 2007)

Yes, I heard that the new Tau Codex will be a beermat with "Tau: 3" written on the back in yellow crayon. :wink:


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm really confused? 

Why are people kicking up such a fuss over GW bringing the marine codex's in line with the fluff?

A chapter contains 10 companies:
1st Veteran Company,
2nd-5th Battle Companies
6th-9th Reserve Companies
10 Scout Company

Normally the 1st Co is portioned out as veterans/terminators in support of the 2nd-5th Co which bear the majority of the chapters fighting duties. The 6th-9th Co are used in a reserve/support role.
Individual marine squads are 10 strong. When they take casualties they are replaced from the 6th-9th reserve companies. This is why only in very rare cases would you find an under-strength squad (with the exception of veteran squads)

So only having 5/10 man squads is entierly consistent with fluff.


----------



## mattjgilbert (Feb 28, 2007)

I agree dakari-mane

Also, I don't think the game is "dumbed down". It's different that's all. That's because the goals of the game are different to the 1st and 2nd incarnations. Don't forget that Rogue Trader has its roots in Warhammer Fantasy which itself was far more "complex" because it was intended for skirmish level games and an extension of role-play games. Highly detailed rule-sets often do not make for fast-paced, larger scale games and so the 40K rule-set was given an overhaul to provide exactly this kind of experience.

If anything, streamlining a game in this way opens up more scope for experienced players to add more flavour back into their games by providing a good bedrock to layer their own house-rules on top of.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I stopped buying White Dwarf once I could reach the top shelf... :wink:


----------



## LongBeard (Dec 22, 2006)

I completely agree on the fluff side Dan and It Is cool and all but when you still have Codex SM, Templars and Wolves runnign amock with their random min/max squad sizes, cheap pods, cheap speeders etc etc until all other codex's are brought to a level playing field players will still have a valid reason to have a good old moan! :roll:


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I am another who doesn't mind the streamlining, especially as the plan is to put out more add ons like CoD and Apoc which will give us veteran players more to chew on while keeping the game simple and fast paced enough to bring in new players and hold on to those with less attention spans.

Look at the upcoming Chaos codex changes. They are going to be massive in effect but when you look at all the stuff we are getting, not just the stuff lost, it is actually a good thing. Yet forums are all overflowing with the condemnation of a book that no one has yet seen.

In the end I think that the streamlining is a needed step for the hobby.


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

At the end the day the game is yours to play as you want to if you don't like certain aspects of the rules then write house rules to fill the gaps you don't like. If you don't fancy doing that then use narrative campaigns to test yourself, write scenarios where the odds are against you, play the historic re-fights from the Imperial Armour books. If you are playing amongst friends or at a local club there is nothing stopping you from trying something new.

GW does need to market the game to get new players in the door to replace those that grow out of the hobby, and it must be a balancing act to keep the game appealing enough for new young players and at the same time challenging enough for the more experienced gamers amongst us. 

Personally I enjoying playing for the background and just having a good (fun) game, I am not a tournament player and have always been driven more by back story and roleplay than for the stats. I like playing those against the odds scenarios where you are clinging onto the game by your fingernails.

Yes there are some bits of the current rules set that I like and some that I don't, but I still *really* enjoy playing the game and collecting my armies.


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

LongBeard said:


> players will still have a valid reason to have a good old moan! :roll:


Players will always have a valid reason to moan. There is always something.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

True. very true.


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

LongBeard said:


> > Stop being such a bunch of girls. :wink:
> 
> 
> Just wait till Jervis gets hold of your Tau then we'll see who's a girl! :wink:


Hey, i remember the 3rd ed tau codex and did really very well with it. It was no picnic i can tell you.


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

LongBeard said:


> I completely agree on the fluff side Dan and It Is cool and all but when you still have Codex SM, Templars and Wolves runnign amock with their random min/max squad sizes, cheap pods, cheap speeders etc etc until all other codex's are brought to a level playing field players will still have a valid reason to have a good old moan! :roll:


Like having super death company/ rending death and lasplas squads everywhere that should add up to about 1650pts in a 1500pts game? :wink: 

BA, Eldar and chaos armies needed a bit of a decrease in power level in the same way that Tau and nids needed a bit of a boost. It's just the way it goes.

I can't believe you mentioned codex Black templars! Since when has that been broken? :? :wink:


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

BT is probably the weakest codex gamewise. its even lower than pure grey knights.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Really? We have a local player here who does extremely well with them.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

i would say so. but i would suppose they have some advantage now due to the jervisisation of the DA dex


----------



## Greyskullscrusade (Jan 24, 2007)

Ive been saying for awhile that we need to storm GW.
And if that doesnt work we should petition them.

and


> BT is probably the weakest codex gamewise. its even lower than pure grey knights.


My marshal told me to tell you to say that to his face....


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Black Templars have a codex that is generally quite weak. While there are some strong options and combinations, the majority of units are at best subpar either way. As such, the only way to play Black Templars is go balls-to-the-wall with your chosen strategy. Black Templars can make playable lists, and even some strong ones, but the codex means that it is difficult to produce such an army, and that only a few units are ever useful to you.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

The same can be said about Deamonhunters as well as most people know.


----------

