Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
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).
 

·
Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
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:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
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.
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.
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.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top