PDA

View Full Version : Tones of rules for no depth?



rickyard
23-04-2012, 01:25
Hello, what i'd like to comment is that sometimes I get frustrated when some persons get to my tabletop, look at my wonderful wh40k and my beautiful armies, and agree to have a try.

Then the rules begin, our rules. When i explain movement phase, distances, shooting, assault, everything is nice. Then special rules appear, the saving throws, the distances assaulting, the rules that lets you or not to assault, how to disembark, when can i move and when i dan't in the assault phase, how do i allocate the wounds... and then they don't want to try to play another day :(

I am talking about persons that ARE wargaming veterans and that have enough experience in tabletop and boardgames to be taken into account.

My uncle (65 years old) owns about 300 boardgame and tabletop game titles. A collector.

My father (70 years old) chess champion that began to play with me role playing games and themed boardgames 25 years ago. Has tried EVERY game i have offered him (Space Marine -epic-, Star wars battle miniatures, Blood bowl, Space Hulk, Lotr...)

My cousin (40 years old) the one that introduced me to tabletop and roleplaying gaming when we were children. His actual job is to analyze videogames in broadcast television here in Spain and so is an expert in entertainment.

They all agree, the game is complicated considering the factors taken into account in the game.

I'll explain: Another old games where way complicated too, according to my uncle, but the strategic factors that were covered where enormous. He remembers an old wargame that had direction of wind as a clue factor to determine where a volley of arrows would land. And leadership was a factor to give orders too, as it was distance to the general that gave the orders, as was distance to "intendency" to calculate if the troops were ready or had enough ammo, as was shooting modified by distance, morale, climatic conditions as fog, fire, even how wind afected the way fire was spreading. You can do a game as complicated as you want, but in a game as wh40k where most of these factors don't exist, the amount of rules that you have to have in mind is too much for so little real depth. somewhat unbalanced.

My opinion:
Of course I love the hobby, never seen figures like GW, but regarding the rules, I think we GW players are used to the game, and most of the times we have no external feedback. From the point of view of older (even venerable) veteran players, the game is boring because there are lesser turns that most wargames they remember and all of them take longer to finish, so the rythm, the way you interact and how much time you have to wait to interact, is horrible and makes slow the action. In one game you only have 5-6 shooting phases, so, as my uncle said, with most units that hit with 4+, you'll only hit 2-3 times in whole game. So randomness is WAY higher than other titles. he talked to me how much of his wargames had dices that ONLY had 3 or 4 (not 1-2 nor 5-6) to avoid excessive randomness.
They say that in general the game is terribly overruled with dozens of minirules that make exceptions that you have to continuously remember. That said without talking about codex rules (I only own Marines, Tau and IG, and of course they always use marines, more suited for newbies). They though Lotr (strategic battles) was way better and straight.
Sometimes rules even "distract" from overall strategy, sometimes they do things that are against every common sense just because "it works" in actual rules. And they only agree to play because they like my wonderful table filled with figures, but they all say the game rules S**KS. They don't understand why after having thrown a dice to compare my weapon "power" against their miniature "toughness" they get to have a "save roll????" Why? wasn't already used a "defense vs attack" roll to see if the miniature was hurt? You got a better armour, so up 1 point your defense. You got a better weapon? so 1 point up your "power" why don't you include simple factors as the armour your soldier has in its "toughness" and the penetration of the weapon in its "power"? Why we need more stats to define our soldiers than most wargames? Why we have a BS and then throw a dice and then add to get to seven??? Why don't we have a stat that already tell us what we need in the dice, like Lotr (4+, 5+, easy to explain)??? Why is SO complicated assaulting and why it is SO easy in Lotr and anyway IT WORKS??
Wound alocation... in Star wars Miniatures Battles (west end games, 1991) WAS completely random and it worked perfectly...
We are used to move, measure, see LOS, throw dices to hit, alocate wounds (omg, wound alocation, how difficult to explain!!) throw to save, retire deads... it is SLOW... it is ABSTRACT, SO abstract that the results of the rules are strange abuses that we all know and things that don't work as intended, and with every edition some rules have changed (to be more strange) to avoid abuse of older rules that already were abstract. The game needs a whole renewal, even changing basics, even actual STATS, everything is SO old (25 years) that has become a monster we can't control.

So, what's your opinion? :)

de Selby
23-04-2012, 01:45
I tend to agree with you (although it took me a while to parse the title: tonnes of rules for no depth?).

Many players agree that the rules are un-necessarily complicated considering the complexity of the game. I do have a few things to say in 40k's defence

1)Although I think they go to far, many players like having special rules to go with their troops. The idea is to add some character to the actions of the troopers rather than adding any particular tactical depth.

2)40k has a legacy of development from 1st edition (where a lot of ideas were imported from warhammer fantasy) onward. They actually did step back and simplify in 3rd edition and lots of people complained! They also have a specific routine of development whereby the basic rules stay the same (rolling to hit, to wound and to save, for example) to keep the game familiar, the rest of the rules get tweaked and sometimes expanded every edition, and the faction-specific rules get revisited intermittently as each codex comes out. SO the design team is continually removing and adding elements to a fairly simple game to keep it fresh and the end result is more complex than a static system that only has to be learned once.

3)ON the specific issue of rolling to hit, wound and save, I don't have a problem with it. Requiring three dice rolls enables a fair degree of variety in outcome without incremental differences being too huge.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 01:52
I think the problem is exactly in point 2) the legacy the perhaps we have to get rid of.


And yes, trying to EDIT title to say depth. I haven't been able :(


EDIT: Ok, now it is fine, it was in ADVANCED editing :)

Born Again
23-04-2012, 03:37
I don't think 40k is too complicated for it's depth at all. This is coming from someone who remembers 2nd edition... that was a nightmare when you tried to take things beyond skirmishes.

As far as the whole roll to hit, wound, save thing goes, it can be pointed out that it's odd as you penetrate armour before hitting flesh (the equivalent would be rolling on the vehicle damage table, then checking armour penetration), but I think it may come down to something as simple as who is the person rolling? Otherwise player A would roll to hit, player B would take saves, player A would roll to wound... the way it is, it stays on player A for longer, which means less changes in who's doing what. I think that speeds things up, if only slightly. In any case I don't really see a problem with it, it's not destroying any sort of illusion of reality through a mis-order of the dice rolls.

As for simply adding +1 toughness to your model for wearing better armour, that's an over simplification I don't like. The two separate characteristics represent very different things. One is a creatures natural tolerance to pain, the other how strong it's armour is. So, for an extreme example, if it were possible to put a gretchin in mega armour, he would be T2 with a 2+. That is not the same as, say, a model which is T6 with a 6+ save, or even just T8 with no save. Likewise, a weapon's strength and AP represent different things, how much potential damage it inflicts against it's target, and how good it is at blowing open armour. Compare a bolter to a frag missile - both are Str 4, as they will equally damage their target. However, the missile has lower AP as it's damage is inflicted through a shrapnel blast and concussive waves, which are not as good at penetrating armour as a bullet with an armour-piercing tip.

althathir
23-04-2012, 04:04
I don't really think thats the case at all tbh. There are some rules that need to be streamlined a bit (wound allocation comes to mind), but they don't effect the depth of the game at all. IMO having a stat for T, and an armour save allows for more depth because you can have a more frail army have durability through their armour and if something has a way to ignore it than they are in trouble. Same for vehicles using av instead of toughness which makes list building more important.

Out of curiosity how are you trying to bring them into the game? I ask because if you start them at too high of a point level, it is overwhelming whereas a smaller point levels with some restrictions is a lot easier for most people to get a handle on.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 04:10
I know the point about saving, and perhaps is one of the things that i really feel is not a bad idea, as it allows the "injured" player to rely in its armour before dying. Anyway most games only need one chart, a "power" and a "defense" Perhaps what is more obscure is the way wounds are alocated. When unit A receives the order to fire to unit B, every single person of unit A can be firing to ONE soldier from unit B, so randomness, in my opinion, is more realistic that this one to one alocation mode that always allows to save the flamer if there are fewer impacts than miniatures in a unit. And about different penetrations for different armours, then why it is exactly the same for a vehicle to ignore AP if it is not 1??? The way vehicles have different armour values and how it is resolved ignoring AP is one of the things that are abstract. So, power is needed to pierce the armour of a chimera? but AP is necessary to pierce the armour of a termie? A plasma gun has the same oportunities to destroy a chimera than an autocannon, as none of them is AP1 and they both got power 7, but one of them pierces through terminator armour and the other don't??

Egaeus
23-04-2012, 04:29
My opinion is that different games are written differently. If you don't like the system you can always use the models with another system that you like better...no one is forcing you to use GW's system, it's just that if you use their system then when you meet other players who also use that system you have a common ground to play the game.

Although I have bemoaned the quality of the 40K system for years...as it seems that if they wanted to write a good system they could. At times it seems like some of the tweaks they make each edition aren't really meant to improve the game as to change it so they can sell new rulebooks and redo codexes to push models (as GW is fundamentally a model company and not a game company). I've felt like 5th edition was in many ways as much a step sideways as a step forward as some of the issues from 4th got addressed while they created new issues by changing other rules.

Probably the biggest issue I have is that at its core it really is a simple game. And there are only so many permutations of this simplicity. So they start adding in "special rules" which simply bloat the game and make things needlessly complicated. I would point out that 4th edition introduced "Universal Special Rules" because there were so many different versions of what was essentially the same rule created under 3rd edition. I have made the argument before that there really doesn't even need to be a "USR" section (well, perhaps a few), that all these "special" rules could easily become "special case" rules presented in the appropriate section of the rulebook. They could still be indexed and keyworded, they just wouldn't be separate from the rules they modify. And while this would make the game a bit more "complicated" from the get-go it wouldn't be the odd "every rule has an exception somewhere" mess that it is now.

althathir
23-04-2012, 04:43
I know the point about saving, and perhaps is one of the things that i really feel is not a bad idea, as it allows the "injured" player to rely in its armour before dying. Anyway most games only need one chart, a "power" and a "defense" Perhaps what is more obscure is the way wounds are alocated. When unit A receives the order to fire to unit B, every single person of unit A can be firing to ONE soldier from unit B, so randomness, in my opinion, is more realistic that this one to one alocation mode that always allows to save the flamer if there are fewer impacts than miniatures in a unit. And about different penetrations for different armours, then why it is exactly the same for a vehicle to ignore AP if it is not 1??? The way vehicles have different armour values and how it is resolved ignoring AP is one of the things that are abstract. So, power is needed to pierce the armour of a chimera? but AP is necessary to pierce the armour of a termie? A plasma gun has the same oportunities to destroy a chimera than an autocannon, as none of them is AP1 and they both got power 7, but one of them pierces through terminator armour and the other don't??

The justification i've heard for wound allocation regarding weapons was that it represents the ability for someone else in the squad to pick it up and use it, if the model carrying it takes the wound then the equipment is damaged. It also makes the game a bit quicker, with most armies having the ability to have several special weapons in units, I think its faster to do it the way the current rules work then a system that randomly assigns wounds.

As far the autocannon and plasma cannon example, I think thats more for game balance then anything. The autocannon is mainly for use againist light vehicles, and the plasma cannon is more expensive point wise because its more effective againist infantry making it a more balanced choice. If you streamline it so they're the same then a lot of existing weapons become redundant which I think takes some of the depth away from the game (granted if one option is underpriced this happens but thats more a codex problem than with the core rules)

SideshowLucifer
23-04-2012, 06:02
I still miss 2nd edition (except vehicle rules). I certainly don't want it slimmed down anymore; if anything I miss the psychic phase.

Born Again
23-04-2012, 07:10
I know the point about saving, and perhaps is one of the things that i really feel is not a bad idea, as it allows the "injured" player to rely in its armour before dying. Anyway most games only need one chart, a "power" and a "defense" Perhaps what is more obscure is the way wounds are alocated. When unit A receives the order to fire to unit B, every single person of unit A can be firing to ONE soldier from unit B, so randomness, in my opinion, is more realistic that this one to one alocation mode that always allows to save the flamer if there are fewer impacts than miniatures in a unit. And about different penetrations for different armours, then why it is exactly the same for a vehicle to ignore AP if it is not 1??? The way vehicles have different armour values and how it is resolved ignoring AP is one of the things that are abstract. So, power is needed to pierce the armour of a chimera? but AP is necessary to pierce the armour of a termie? A plasma gun has the same oportunities to destroy a chimera than an autocannon, as none of them is AP1 and they both got power 7, but one of them pierces through terminator armour and the other don't??

AP does come in to play against vehicles, as weapons which are AP1 and AP- get a +1 and -1 to their damage rolls respectively. Strength is used to roll against vehicles rather than AP as their is a bigger variable (10 rather than 6), and even a lightly armoured vehicle is probably still better protected than a heavy suit of armour. When you take in to consideration that you need a penetrating, not glancing hit to destroy a vehicle, you realize that a weapon which stands only the slightest chance of destroying a light vehicle would still likely turn a regular human in to red paste (you need Str 5 to penetrate a AV 10 vehicle, so a guardsman would be wounded on a 2+). So I think the way vehicles are handled is fine, especially when things which are excellent at tearing through armour (AP1, Rending etc) get bonuses in their own way.

Again though, over simplification leads to redundancy, as has been said. The ultimate conclusion is that when models move within range of each other, you just immediately remove the one with the lowest points cost as a casualty.

Finally, as someone mentioned, if someone isn't taking to the rules well you may be trying to introduce them at the wrong points bracket. When I was teaching my now regular opponent, we started with a single squad aside. Once they had a grasp of the basics, we went to 500 points with no vehicles and no overly complicated special rules, then added vehicles, then went up to full games with everything. You might have better luck that way, throwing someone in to the deep end isn't a great way to go about teaching them.

Deadnight
23-04-2012, 07:30
I agree withe the OP. essentially, 40k is a fun, "beer and pretzels" game, but is one with very limited interactions, and little overall strategy or tactics (it leans towards strategy ie list building than tactics IMO - "the list" is what wins the game moreso than how you use the army, as armies tend to play themselves on the board - you as the commander point them in the right direction). I've played a few other wargames in my time (40k, starship troopers, infinity, warmachine/hordes), and have read through or are familiar with the rules of others (flames of war, AT43, kings of war, bushido etc). 40k as a whole is an OK game, but it is let down by its legacy - its carrying an awful lot of weight around with it thats unneccessary.

As the OP points out, the 3-roll system. Think about it. it doesnt add a variety to the outcome as one poster suggested. All it does is force the attacker through another hurdle. It reduces the killing potential of weapons, and puts the emphasis on the game firmly on survival. as a further consequence, weapons that bypass this save, like powerfists, power weapons and plasmas have a overly huge impact, and all the emphasis gets put on them for an offensive punch. the guywith the power fist on his own typically kills as many people as the rest of his squad. which makes the game about the guy with the big cc weapon, and every one else is a wound counter. look at warmachine or infinity, where effectively everyone has a power weapon, and an AP1 rifle. the emphasis isnt on the big toys any more, and a basic guy with a gun can kill stuff just fine.

IMO, 2 rolls is fine. every other game i know uses it. why 3? why, after i've hit you, must i roll 3 times to kill you (did i wound you, did my shot that wounded you bounce off the armour. OK, so you're wounded. can you ignore the wound?) the reason goes back to GW wanting the opponent to be able to do something in the other guys turn. well, game theoryhas moved on since the early 80s, the "its always your turn" ethos still exists, and is better represented by various reaction mechanics than you rolling armour saves.

Other examples. Str, and AP. why do i use STR to determine whether i go through vehicle armour, but AP to go through infantry armour? why this dichotomy? 2 layers are not needed here.

And movement. Look at Warmachine, or other games (even 2nd ed 40k) with an "M" stat. you move Xinches a turn. covers everything in the game. have "flight" and "move through cover abilities". Look at 40k. you've got your movement rules, and tacked on rules for infantry, jetbikes, jetpacks, cavalry, vehicles, fast vehicles, bikes and so on. its all excess mechanics that, while you can see whythey're used, do not necessarily add to the experience.

DOnt get me wrong. I like 40k. i do. but being objective about it, the game mechanics could use a radical overhaul. but for all that, i can understand GWs approach in sticking with the core mechanics of this system, as it allows for backwards compatibility (even if balance might be hopelessly skewed as a result) with codices that havent been brought up to date with a current codex.

scapegoatboy69
23-04-2012, 08:28
I'll hop on the OP's bandwagon too. The game is carrying around a fair number of unnecessary rules due to its age.

Here's hoping 6th edition is a good 'un.

Tarax
23-04-2012, 09:20
Hello, what i'd like to comment is that sometimes I get frustrated when some persons get to my tabletop, look at my wonderful wh40k and my beautiful armies, and agree to have a try.

Then the rules begin, our rules. When i explain movement phase, distances, shooting, assault, everything is nice. Then special rules appear, the saving throws, the distances assaulting, the rules that lets you or not to assault, how to disembark, when can i move and when i dan't in the assault phase, how do i allocate the wounds... and then they don't want to try to play another day :(
...
So, what's your opinion? :)

Apart from all the reasons why we have the rules we have, I think that you've started wrong. No offence.
People who are new to the game will be overwhelmed with all the small, special and contradictory rules. That's why it is better to start a game with simple rules. Only use Movement (no special terrain), Shooting (simple rolls to Hit, Wound and Save) and Assault (again simple rolls to Hit, Wound and Save). And for the armies used, only use basic models, no or few special weapons. That is why you always see a Tactical Squad with Missile Launcher and Flamer and a Sergeant with a Chainsword in the starter boxes.

If people like the way it's played at a simple level, they will slowly become accustomed to the more intricate rules.

AGC
23-04-2012, 10:39
So, what's your opinion? :)

Really interesting post, sincere thanks for that.

I've never played Warhammer 40,000 but been aware of it since 2nd edition. But for what it's worth:- 2 things really strike me as an outsider.

Firstly Games workshop seem to want to have their cake and eat it as far as the scale of the game is concerned. Most games choose what the smallest indivisible unit is and the rules work on that. (eg. squad, division, soldier) Since 3rd edition GW has chosen the squad as the smallest unit for shooting and moving but they still want the individual soldiers and their personal equipment to matter so wounds are worked out at the soldier level. It's this dichotomy that requires the bodging needed to make the game work.

The second issue is the lack of tactics. Provocative I know, but take a look at the tactics sub-forum and see how long it takes you to find an actual tactic. There is page after page of "What unit should I take?" but almost nothing about how they should be used. Again from the outside, it appears that this is because despite all the special powers/equipment there really isn't all that much you can do with the units in the game. They can deploy, move, shoot or assault, and which you choose entirely depends on what targets your opponent presents. I haven't read a battle report in a while where a player describes being able to shape the game after deployment, it all just seems to be "He took this so I sent that against it".

carlisimo
23-04-2012, 11:24
The rules aren't poorly written - they're written specifically to be that way. Games targeted at younger audiences tend to have more special rules. That's where the complexity is, because that's how younger players seem to like it. All the successful games for teens have rules that are complex when it comes to the little stuff.

Games written for - and more successful among - older players tend to be more simple, more abstract, and allow more complicated outcomes. The very same guys who wrote 40k have proven that they're capable of writing both types of games. Just take a look at Epic: Armageddon. Steer your relatives in that direction.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 11:35
Apart from all the reasons why we have the rules we have, I think that you've started wrong. No offence.[...]
If people like the way it's played at a simple level, they will slowly become accustomed to the more intricate rules.

I think you are right, it takes too much time to learn all the basics if you use every unit in a normal match. People that I try to take into the game wanted to see the GREAT army in action (1500 points minimum), and perhaps it's been too much. Anyway got a friend of mine that still keeps playing, and he enjoys (as I do, of course) but i feel like every time we play I loose more time giving him suggestions to let clear some aspects of the rules that actually playing. Most of the time i am warning: "take care of that unit, you can run if you want", "if you fire with that weapon you won't be able to assault", "you still remember that with that unit you can't hold an objective?" or "remember? you can fire one weapon with the land raider and remember? In THIS case you can assault the same turn you disembark".

Anyway I really love this game, that's why I showed it to my respectable and venerable loved ones :)

Not everything is wrong, my uncle told me that "the feeling and the universe is very rich" and that he enjoys the "role playing game aspect" of interpretation of dice results, and anyway, fun is first priority.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 11:56
AP does come in to play against vehicles, as weapons which are AP1 and AP- get a +1 and -1 to their damage rolls respectively. [...] a weapon which stands only the slightest chance of destroying a light vehicle would still likely turn a regular human in to red paste (you need Str 5 to penetrate a AV 10 vehicle, so a guardsman would be wounded on a 2+).

I know that AP gives a new dimension to weapons that would be exactly the same if we only use one stat, but the different use of these stats in case of vehicles and units is extremely abstract, I insist. As you say, a weapon that has slightest chance of destroying a vehicle would turn a human to red paste, but then is when it is not understood that a weapon that is able to pierce through the most hard known armour (Terminator Armour) isn't capable of scratching a vehicle's hull, as it is the case of Tau plasma rifle (st6 ap2) Anyway, balance apart, i feel like having weapon with a label POWER 8 and another one labeled POWER 3 should be enough.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 12:14
The justification i've heard for wound allocation regarding weapons was that it represents the ability for someone else in the squad to pick it up and use it, if the model carrying it takes the wound then the equipment is damaged. It also makes the game a bit quicker, with most armies having the ability to have several special weapons in units, I think its faster to do it the way the current rules work then a system that randomly assigns wounds.

But with every edition things have changed, I remember GW designers telling you "no, it represent another one taking the weapon" to justify not losing the big gun, and then in another edition justify "it is considered that the weapon is damaged or broken" to justify the reverse rule. I have heard "no, you can only choose to alocate wounds only to miniatures that are visible and in range" and also "yes, you can alocate wounds to every miniature in the unit AS WE ASUME they are always moving". We all have seen this kind of justifications for abstract rules throughout the books throughout editions. Just like "it is suposed that" or "we asume that" when a rule is out of any logical explanation. Most of the times it is because the rule is only intended to mend something that was really ugly or abuse in older rules. Something like: "the skyray is overpowered, let's say their missiles are unique so now it is less valuable" and then "oops, now the whirlwind should have unique missiles? mmm, nope, we ASUME they have a great stock in the inside or somewhat".
Like that older abstract rules with dimension of units:
"Now infantry can cover a monster" and we see chaos marines jumping through the battle line to absorb hits from that daemon.
And then things change to avoid that abuse and so in a regular match: "you pretend that I can't hurt that 10 inches monster from over your gretchins?"
And then true LOS appears, and some guys still complaint it is not "fair", but it is only a matter that their beloved army won't be able to do that abstract thing that was totally legal.

As someone said around here, the inheritage of older rules doesn't allow to have a great set of clear rules, in my opinion

rickyard
23-04-2012, 12:22
[...] Most games choose what the smallest indivisible unit is and the rules work on that. (eg. squad, division, soldier) Since 3rd edition GW has chosen the squad as the smallest unit for shooting and moving but they still want the individual soldiers and their personal equipment to matter so wounds are worked out at the soldier level. It's this dichotomy that requires the bodging needed to make the game work.

The second issue is the lack of tactics. Provocative I know, but take a look at the tactics sub-forum and see how long it takes you to find an actual tactic. There is page after page of "What unit should I take?"

Totally agree, the maximal expression of that is wound alocation, abstract to allow to save the big guy, and how independent characters work with units, another strange and abstract decisions have to be made to solve things. (now you use average WS, next case you use higher WS, then lower, and use different dices to represent differents ws in your unit... so much complication, and i am afraid you have exactly told us why: it is units (to make huge armies) vs heroes (that have to be taken int account).

zoggin-eck
23-04-2012, 12:25
Do I count if I know the game has tons of rules, supposedly little depth, but simply don't care because I know I personally just enjoy the game? I just get that it's a game, and enjoy it. Other games I've played, I eith do enjoy them, and keep playing, or dont, so stop playing them!

(Actually the "hated" edition of Epic, Epic 40k, is my favourite game. So I probably totally don't count!)

Born Again
23-04-2012, 12:26
Because while Terminator armour is among the greatest personal armour in the galaxy, it is nowhere near as thick or protective as the armour plating on a Land Raider. In the example, you gave, a Tau plasma rifle will wound a terminator on a 2+, and penetrate his armour (although in his case, leaving him with his 5++). Against an AV 10 vehicle like, say, the back armour on a Rhino, it will penetrate on a 5+, glancing on a 4... still a 50% chance of doing something. Bear in mind though that even this weakest of vehicle armour is still likely thicker than any part of the terminator suit. That's the key here, that essentially a weapon relies on brute force to destroy a vehicle rather than it's armour piercing ability, and this is better shown through strength. If a weapon has excellent armour penetration properties, but no real hitting power, it could put a hole through the vehicle but cause no real damage other than leaving it with some holes. It not only has to get through the armour, but do it with enough force to tear off a weapon, track, tear apart the engine etc. Against infantry, however, that small hole can do a lot more damage if it's placed through a creature's brain. Through the troop compartment of a vehicle, not so much.

Reducing the stats down to a single number would also not only make certain weapons redundant, but have the roll on effect of making less diffence between troops which are low T, high Sv, and high T, low Sv.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 12:36
Just as a suggestion, for curious ones, this set of rules was really great, it had a great level of depth, with normal and advanced modes, a random system of wound alocation, a d6 easy and intuitive system and even had an expansion with rules for vehicles that even stated what kind of "special maneuvers" a vehicle could use. And the use of "heroes" is really interesting (the only ones capable of "choosing" ONE model from within the unit to be shot at, and only being shot at if nearest to unit). Even different distances taken into account in "to HIT" but with a smart method that always uses a 6 in a d6, so you don't have to continuously see what you need to obtain to hit. Perhaps deeper, but it is a set of rules surprisingly FAST to play FOR ITS DEPTH.

http://es.scribd.com/doc/6384992/weg40090-star-wars-miniatures-battles

rickyard
23-04-2012, 13:08
I know what you mean, and i personally like how it is done, becuse in fact the diference between st and ap add details to the weapon we are using, I only stated that continuously using three rolls to see if someone is hurted is, in my opinion, too much. Some examples of how it is done in other games:

Lord Of the rings: The miniature has a defense stat, let's say of 4. You give him (paying points) a shield. Now his def is 5. In the chart, you use 5 instead of 4. Straight, easy, understandable. You give him a heavy armour? now his def stat is 6. Enough, and it is a great game. The weapon? It is a bow, so st3. It is an elven bow? Well, st4. It is an orc bow? st2 and less distance.

Star Wars Miniatures (see link) I REALLY LOVE THIS: Your weapon has a damage MODIFIER and your unit an armour MODIFIER, attacking player throw dices and add their global modifier for the weapon they are using, and then defending players "saves" every soldier with a confronted roll ading his modifier. If the damage is higher than the armour, the soldier is wounded, if it DOUBLES the result, it is instantly killed. No charts. Easy and still taking into acount different power and armour. You want that weapon to be better against troops or against vehicles? give him TWO modifiers, one against troops, the other against vehicles, but you'll use the SAME system in both cases. If damage is higher than "vehicle armour" aply a "glancing hit", if it doubles, vehicle destroyed.

I am not telling I don't like rules, but only saying that taking a look at other ideas, even OLD ideas, wouldn't hurt the game.

The bearded one
23-04-2012, 13:10
As far as I am aware the idea of armoursaves also has to do with giving the player the feeling he can "save" his models, instead of merely being a bystander while his opponent roles dice and kills his models.

shadekiller
23-04-2012, 13:11
I find the record sheet thing overly complicated
I'm not a fan of the 90 degree sight arc
They have an AWFULL lot of roll modification, in the assault section for example there is 11 way to modify your roll rangin from +4 to minus 2. I much prefer the 40k system, it's more intuitive. So what does my lightsaber does? you roll at +4, okay but in the event I have a cool lightsaber? you roll at +4. Ha...
Thats the problem, why 4+, why not 3? because it must be better than the +2 one. Okay but... thats so counter intuitive :P i much prefer to have power weapons and double strength power weapons its much more simple and intuitive IMHO especially on the 40k scale.
Honestly I dont really like it its seem like they wanted to be as simple as possible but then you have little variations between models they just behave all the same with one different value. Okay its simpler granted, but totally uncool :P

rickyard
23-04-2012, 13:15
As far as I am aware the idea of armoursaves also has to do with giving the player the feeling he can "save" his models, instead of merely being a bystander while his opponent roles dice and kills his models.

Then you'll like this (taken from the reply just before yours:


Star Wars Miniatures (see link) I REALLY LOVE THIS: Your weapon has a damage MODIFIER and your unit an armour MODIFIER, attacking player throw dices and add their global modifier for the weapon they are using, and then defending players "saves" every soldier with a confronted roll ading his modifier. If the damage is higher than the armour, the soldier is wounded, if it DOUBLES the result, it is instantly killed. No charts. Easy and still taking into acount different power and armour. (Added: And still gives the defending player the option to roll for his soldiers)

shadekiller
23-04-2012, 13:23
Yea but... what if I think overly simple is unfun :P see that game skirmish game, so on that scale its kind of cool to have those tons of modifiers and calculations but on the 40k scale you have a lots of models. so having to remember to ad those 2 modifiers to your movement and then those 3 for close combat and that one to shoot and etc. migth not be the best solution. I know a lot of people dont think 40k is intuitive at all but I do think that on the whole, the game makes sense and is quite fun to play even if it's not rulelawyers proof.

de Selby
23-04-2012, 13:35
I wouldn't mind seeing armour save modifiers come back into 40k. I think the 4th ed. wound allocation system (torrents of fire etc.) was better too. I can't remember, how does wound allocation work in LOTR?

Since the AP stat exists, I think it should make more of a difference to vehicle armour. Instead of the current glancing/penetrating system, roll for it. A hit penetrates if you can roll greater than or equal to your AP on a D6, otherwise it glances. So AP1 still autopenetrates and AP- still autoglances, but the other AP values actually do something.

ANyway I could suggest tweaks and streamlining for 40k all day, we all could. 6th ed will be out soon and we can see what the actual dsign team have tweaked. I'm afraid it won't be the kind of total re-design you'd like.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 14:30
I wouldn't mind seeing armour save modifiers come back into 40k. I think the 4th ed. wound allocation system (torrents of fire etc.) was better too. I can't remember, how does wound allocation work in LOTR?

Since the AP stat exists, I think it should make more of a difference to vehicle armour. Instead of the current glancing/penetrating system, roll for it. A hit penetrates if you can roll greater than or equal to your AP on a D6, otherwise it glances. So AP1 still autopenetrates and AP- still autoglances, but the other AP values actually do something.

ANyway I could suggest tweaks and streamlining for 40k all day, we all could. 6th ed will be out soon and we can see what the actual dsign team have tweaked. I'm afraid it won't be the kind of total re-design you'd like.

LOTR (strategy battles) has no allocation, most of the times you say "I shoot this one", and see if it hits, that's all. Everything "in the line" of the shot gets hit half the times (1-3 on a d6) and you throw the dice for everything on course, so hiting a miniature through a tree and through an enemy is difficult. AND if you hit other unit instead of the one you chose, he is now the one hit.

When you use volleys, (most similar to shooting a whole "unit") you choose the miniature where the volley is centered, try to damage, then the oponent chooses a different one within a 3 inches radius, try to damage, then you choose another, then he, until every hit is solved. Monstruous creatures (larger than 2 inches bases) can be chosen once for each wound he has in its stats.

Your idea of using AP for vehicles sounds good.

rickyard
23-04-2012, 14:55
Of course I don't mean that this is what i'd like for 40k, there are some ideas that now a days look old (as you'll see, the game was designed to fit star wars RPG, with stats such as DEXterity and STRenght being the only ones needed, and others such as KNOwledge being there for role playing) I don't think sight arcs are practical, not even the idea or just being able to turn your miniatures only 90 degrees if you run, and of course i think half the rules are there to add unnecesary depth (or the needed for someone else's tastes). But this system has some good ideas.

What do you need to hit a unit? Always a six, modified by DEXterity. Exactly the same as 40k, the only difference is we use a SEVEN as final result, and so they include a "distance mod": short range the six, medium range an eight, long range a 10, perhaps it is not needed, but ads depth to weapons. I'd like something like that.

Example for 40k:
-Short range: 0-12 inches
-Medium range: 12-24 inches
-Long range: more than 24 inches

And modify the result needed considering what is short, medium and long range for every weapon. What it is short for a rifle would be long for a pistol.

You don't want to care about distance? no problem, I think it is better as 40k has it, but armour and cover saves could be managed this way of mods:

Enemy unit is in cover?: +1
Hevy cover? +2
Prone in the ground? +1
Shooting unit has moved? +1

I think wouldn't be difficult and you can get rid of cover saves.

And, as the hit is solved with oposed rolls of your weapon damage MODIFIER and your unit armour MODIFIER, you allow the defending player to take active part in the result (as a saving throw). With just one oposed throw of dice you get rid of an armour chart (unnecesary with this system) and an armour save.

And consider that modifications of the result of a dice CONTRIBUTES to avoid excessive luck. We all know the shooting in 40k is genius, you hardly fail with your BS5, because, in fact it is a +5 modifier.

SideshowLucifer
23-04-2012, 17:04
The more complex you make shooting, the more you will see entirely assault based armies. My biggest peeve with 40k is that in fantasy even a stupid goblin with a bow knows how to shoot someone running at him with a sword, but in 40k highly trained soldiers can't figure that out.

CaptainGallas
23-04-2012, 20:55
I agree to some level with the OP.

But IMO, it's natural to have this kind of discussion right now, we are in the last months of 5th ed, the game needs to be rebooted.
There have been tons onf errata/FAQ and a bunch of new codexes since 5th ed was released, and some expansions.
The rules in the BRB can't manage to keep the game in control any longer.

I think GW listens a lot, and I think that their game testers are true nerds hanging on the forums and giving all the feedback needed,
but GW keeps everything under wrap until the release.

Soon the 6th ed will be here, and we will all be happy. For a while. Until a few more years have passed and we've outgrown another edition.
It's the circle of a 40k players life, just like getting a new codex for your fav army.
You are King of the world when it's released, but not when you have the oldest codex out there, even if it's exactly the same book. :)

------------------------
As far as the weapon modifiers for long range, save etc, thats 2nd edition.
Example: A lascannon had a save modifier of -6. Terminator armour save was 3+ on 2D6. So if hit by a lascannon, it was a 9+ on 2D6.
Quite different from todays save or no save. Never have there been more lascannons on the battlefields than in those days.

Gargantuan
23-04-2012, 21:11
40k rules are needlessly convoluted and stupid.
I hate, for example, that movement is the way it is now run in shooting phase and charge in assault phase stupidity. Why do I have to move 20 ork boys four times (normal, Waaagh run, charge, consolidation) in one turn when two is enough if they just put charging in the MOVEMENT phase and made Waaagh a +move ability. There's so much stupid **** in 40k.

I hope that 6th edition is a complete reboot but I doubt it.

Lord Inquisitor
23-04-2012, 21:13
I completely agree with everything you've said. 40K is dripping in rules.

The basic 5th edition rule-set isn't too terrible. Yes, it's clunky in many areas, it has a high degree of learning required. Many areas could be simplified with a ground-up system, starting by having one system of inflicting damage, not one for fleshy things and one for vehicles. But it works alright.

The point where 40K breaks down is with the number of rules added by the codecies. Layer upon layer of special rules drag the game down into overcomplication. The number of rules per codex is just staggering these days. It was managable in the waning days of 4th, incidentally the golden age of 40k for me.

Flames of War or Epic Armageddon to name but two are very similar rulesets and they have their flaws and they're really very similar to the core 40K rules in terms of complication. The difference is that the rules for units and armies are extremely simple with very few unique special rules. Once you've got the rulebook, you've got basically everything.

I lost interest in 40K at the start of 5th when they moved away from the simple and elegant army books like daemons and orks and moved onto horrendously bloated messes like Tyranids. I haven't played 40K in ages. Interestingly, Fantasy has been moving in the other direction, with (in general), simpler rules in the army books.


And yes, trying to EDIT title to say depth. I haven't been able :(
EDIT: Ok, now it is fine, it was in ADVANCED editing :)
Incidentally, you still have "tones". It's either "tons" or "tonnes". "Tones" it the plural of "tone". I think that's what de Selby was saying.

althathir
23-04-2012, 21:42
Really interesting post, sincere thanks for that.

I've never played Warhammer 40,000 but been aware of it since 2nd edition. But for what it's worth:- 2 things really strike me as an outsider.

Firstly Games workshop seem to want to have their cake and eat it as far as the scale of the game is concerned. Most games choose what the smallest indivisible unit is and the rules work on that. (eg. squad, division, soldier) Since 3rd edition GW has chosen the squad as the smallest unit for shooting and moving but they still want the individual soldiers and their personal equipment to matter so wounds are worked out at the soldier level. It's this dichotomy that requires the bodging needed to make the game work.

The second issue is the lack of tactics. Provocative I know, but take a look at the tactics sub-forum and see how long it takes you to find an actual tactic. There is page after page of "What unit should I take?" but almost nothing about how they should be used. Again from the outside, it appears that this is because despite all the special powers/equipment there really isn't all that much you can do with the units in the game. They can deploy, move, shoot or assault, and which you choose entirely depends on what targets your opponent presents. I haven't read a battle report in a while where a player describes being able to shape the game after deployment, it all just seems to be "He took this so I sent that against it".

The thing about the tactics section is one its really hard to explain actual tactics online because the terrain, enemies deployment, how mobile they are, how mobile your force is, what weapons you have available, mission objectives, etc. all have an effect on what the right thing to do is. Its a lot easier to suggest changes in someones list that gives them a brute force solution to a problem, moreso when most tactical questions basically ask for that. Same for battle reports, the amount of depth you would have to go into is more than some people want to attempt (granted some armies do just sit and shoot) but for the most part its a lot easier to just say I moved these units here and then say what you shot at then it is to explain the reasoning behind it. GW doesn't help because they're BRs are horrible and they're really isn't alot of good sources for detailed reports.


I completely agree with everything you've said. 40K is dripping in rules.

The basic 5th edition rule-set isn't too terrible. Yes, it's clunky in many areas, it has a high degree of learning required. Many areas could be simplified with a ground-up system, starting by having one system of inflicting damage, not one for fleshy things and one for vehicles. But it works alright.

The point where 40K breaks down is with the number of rules added by the codecies. Layer upon layer of special rules drag the game down into overcomplication. The number of rules per codex is just staggering these days. It was managable in the waning days of 4th, incidentally the golden age of 40k for me.

Flames of War or Epic Armageddon to name but two are very similar rulesets and they have their flaws and they're really very similar to the core 40K rules in terms of complication. The difference is that the rules for units and armies are extremely simple with very few unique special rules. Once you've got the rulebook, you've got basically everything.

I lost interest in 40K at the start of 5th when they moved away from the simple and elegant army books like daemons and orks and moved onto horrendously bloated messes like Tyranids. I haven't played 40K in ages. Interestingly, Fantasy has been moving in the other direction, with (in general), simpler rules in the army books.

Incidentally, you still have "tones". It's either "tons" or "tonnes". "Tones" it the plural of "tone". I think that's what de Selby was saying.

I actually don't think the 5th edition books really have that many special rules tbh. Some books do, but thats the same for fantasy I actually think most of 40k's problem is that the faqs seem a bit random.

samiens
23-04-2012, 22:00
I agree to some extent, although I actually really like how 40k plays- and indeed 5th ed removed a decent amount of the positional micro management that made 4th of a rules contest.

On the shooting point- 3 stages allows the designers to manipulate the limited probabilities of a 6 sided die to create a greater range of prbabilities- sadly when everything is strength 8 vs toughness 4 and everything has 4+ cover save you don't really utilise that.

Then there's the vehicle rules which are horrible and clunky. But ultimately, 40k is a rules heavy game but its not terribly complex to play- so the experience isn't awful. Its the legacy of a very detailed skirmish game being applied to an army level game- but in many ways that's what provides its charm over other games- every model matters.

what really doesn't help is the current meta- its makes a very homogeneous game which maximises the worst part of the ruleset in vehicles.

That said, I taught my wife to play- kept it simple and added new elements in and she picked it up just fine- so I think the OPs comment is, as many have said, coloured by a poorly run intro game

D.B.
23-04-2012, 22:30
OP has things about right I'd say - for the amount of rules one needs to learn the end result isn't that deep.

Earlier comments about the game not being sure whether it was a skirmish or squad level game hit the nail on the head - we end up with the wargame equivalent of a spork. But then on top of that they try to maintain backwards compatibility with older codexes, supplements, etc, and when they did attempt to simplify things people complained. Throw in inconsistency with the quality of codex writing (internal and external balance both) and were it not for the great background and models I think I would have moved on long ago :P

Beppo1234
24-04-2012, 00:12
I think the problem is exactly in point 2) the legacy the perhaps we have to get rid of.


And yes, trying to EDIT title to say depth. I haven't been able :(


EDIT: Ok, now it is fine, it was in ADVANCED editing :)

deep makes more sense than tones, I would have edited that first

rickyard
24-04-2012, 08:23
deep makes more sense than tones, I would have edited that first

Thanks! you are right, i am really sorry, as you all see, english is not my first language, not even my third, hehe
Really sorry, edited.

rickyard
24-04-2012, 08:49
I see that it has been said around here that part of the problem is the way it is needed a learning "curve" with new players. I agree, it is not easy to understand everything in one afternoon, but even being an average player you find yourself looking for answers in your book from time to time. As others suggested, the core rules are not specially easy, but if you add to that factor how many different rules you need to know when you use, let's say, your Tau army, and then swithching to your IG, everything becomes a challenge. As I said, people enjoy the game, but if it wasn't for the vision of a fully painted army they wouldn't have even finished first match. I love the game, I understand the core and the rules of my own armies, but in a game system where you sure can find more than 400 different units divided in eight codexes plus some wd extras plus your forgeworld beauties, there should be enough with some different stats, or even some special rules, but not that much. The way they tryed to unify them in "universal" was great, but I see that for the designers they are not enough, and add new ones that could have been easily changed by the universal ones. I know that i love my Land Raider machine spirit rule, but if we got a rule that ALREADY allows to fire MORE weapons as an exception, why not just use this one?????? Yes, they are not exactly the same, SO that's why it is a mess, for really slightly differences, you make a whole new rule.

And another thing that is not nedessarily a problem of the rules, but needs to be mended at least in some countries.

inches vs cms.

We got all the values in cms, well, this wouldn't be a problem, 12 inches=30 cms. and so on.

BUT then we got some of the rules telling to throw a dice with an explanation like that, as in the rules don't say inches are used (translated from the real corebook):

AREA weapons scattering: 2D6 with next guide: 1=3cms, 2=5cms; 3=8cms..... and so on until 12=30 cms

SO we got to have that rule IN FRONT OF US to translate, OR (what we do) USE INCHES in that particular moment of the game. But wonder what happens to us...

Now I got move, use cms, then if I run, or enter terrain, switch to inches, then shooting, switch to cms. BUT in any weapon scatters, use inches, if my unit fails morale, 2d6...inches?

You'll understand that at least in our countrywe need a core that simply give us everything in ONE system.

Born Again
24-04-2012, 16:22
Just as a suggestion, for curious ones, this set of rules was really great, it had a great level of depth, with normal and advanced modes, a random system of wound alocation, a d6 easy and intuitive system and even had an expansion with rules for vehicles that even stated what kind of "special maneuvers" a vehicle could use. And the use of "heroes" is really interesting (the only ones capable of "choosing" ONE model from within the unit to be shot at, and only being shot at if nearest to unit). Even different distances taken into account in "to HIT" but with a smart method that always uses a 6 in a d6, so you don't have to continuously see what you need to obtain to hit. Perhaps deeper, but it is a set of rules surprisingly FAST to play FOR ITS DEPTH.

http://es.scribd.com/doc/6384992/weg40090-star-wars-miniatures-battles

I've only had a quick look over those rules, but I have to disagree with you. While they certainly have a lot of depth in terms of complexity, I don't see how they make the game any more tactically challenging. To begin with, models move a distance equal to their move characteristic divided by 2 plus their dexterity characteristic. Isn't this just unnecessarily complicated maths every time you want to move? Why not just give them a move distance that you intend for them to move in the first place? Doing it in this way has no added tactical complexity in the first place, it truly is a case of adding in complex rules for little pay-off in tactical depth.

The same applies to shooting. I would hardly call this "easy and intuitive" at all. After checking line of sight (which involves being able to see different distances through different types of terrain - not just buildings vs. trees, but light, medium and heavy woods), we have to measure range and figure out what one of three range bands the target falls in to. You then use this to work out the Difficulty of the shot. However, this is not final as the Difficulty is then modified based on a variety of factors involving cover, movement and morale status. Once this is done, you take a skill test with your weapon, to determine the number of hits on the target squad. At this point the rules tell you to determine what models in a target squad are hit, by saying that "hits are determined randomly", but doesn't say how to work this out. Easy to do if there are 2, 3 or 6 models in question, but what if there are 5? I suddenly need a 5 sided dice or some complex system that isn't described in the rules. Once that is done you and your opponent roll off and add your strength, plus modifiers for armour, and use a table to see if the shot kills or not.

Now, that all seems very difficult to me. It seems a very convoluted way of going about the same process we have in 40k: roll to hit, wound, save. It's one extra dice roll but a whole lot less modifiers and, in my mind at least, makes much more sense logically (Did I hit them? Is it in a critical area like the chest, or just their hand? Now will their armour stop it?), and for all the extra process the Star Wars rules add in, I fail to see what extra tactical depth, complexity and flexibility it adds to the game.

Just my thoughts, but I fail to see why any game dealing with things at this level of detail should be as complicated as those rules made it. If things are going to get that complex, I want detailed damage rules, with different results for hitting a chest, leg or arm, weapon knockbacks and so on, like you get in Necromunda.

rickyard
24-04-2012, 22:12
First i'd like to say that i put that link simply to have other references (for example an old 1991 game like this one). In fact there are a lot of things that were extremely acurate in this game, but i'll insist, ALL this accuracy is explained in about 50 pages, while our core book is about 90. SO my point is not that this game is easier, i mean that covers a lot more stuff than 40k and still it is fun to play (I swear). But as I said, this rules were only intended as a COMPANION to the main Star Wars Role Playing Game, and so the characters and vehicles were able to be "translated" from the role playing game. Why? because THERE WERE ABOUT EIGHT EXPANSIONS of the roleplaying game that already had the stats of the Star Wars world, so you could instantly know where the stats of Darth Vader were in the battle miniatures, you only had to translate from the role playing game.

Si I'll explain, point by point.


I don't see how they make the game any more tactically challenging.

Well, distances are very important while positioning your troops if they fire the closer the better, AND i don't know if you have noticed that:

A- Movement phase of player 1, THEN movement phase of player 2. Why? It is easier to move without taking care of where you move if your fire turn is immediately after. If you move first place AND fire before your oponent has the chance to react to your movement, the strategy game is poor. If you move, then your oponent gets out of your sight, your firing turn is not as devastating. SO first turn wouldn't be so important. (remember how many people say that in 40k the best way to win is by deployment? that is for the LACK of possibilities after deployment)

B- Oportunity fire, If you don't move your squad, you can fire in your oponent's movement turn if a unit enters your vision or range. It is called "reaction" (just like Space Hulk) Think about it, it is really GREAT. It is more realistic in shooting battles to "wait for the enemy to appear" and then shoot, rather than going directly against the enemy, and while you move, you fire. Feels like the enemy didn't do nothing while you approached 30 meters and shoot them.

C-Asaulting is decided in movement phase, if you want to assault, just move your unit in contact with another in your MOVEMENT phase. Why CREATE a whole phase to let people move 12 inches more?? And then, some units move too much compared to others so they invented the "run" rule. (another random dice).


To begin with, models move a distance equal to their move characteristic divided by 2 plus their dexterity characteristic. Isn't this just unnecessarily complicated maths every time you want to move? Why not just give them a move distance that you intend for them to move in the first place?

As I said before, it was so great that they told you how to transform stats from the role playing game to the miniatures battle game. Of course there's no need to calculate any movement while you play, it is a tool they gave you instead of selling codexes. In fact every unit moved 10, except wookies, moved 11 and ewoks, moved 7. Anyway, the funny thing was to adapt your character from the roleplaying game and see what he was able to do in battle. SO they even didn't need special character or heroes, they only told you how to create them and so, the maths,were only for heroes and of course you didn't had to do it in middle of the game. It was just similar to the process of doing a list.



The same applies to shooting. I would hardly call this "easy and intuitive" at all. After checking line of sight (which involves being able to see different distances through different types of terrain - not just buildings vs. trees, but light, medium and heavy woods), we have to measure range and figure out what one of three range bands the target falls in to. You then use this to work out the Difficulty of the shot.

As you said you haven't read it. They only take units that are visible and look for the cover that have the majority of them. That's all. And if you want to have only ONE kind of cover it is up to you, in fact, in 40k you have a COVER CHART:
It says:

Fortifications: 3+
Units, trenches, sandbags, tubes, boxes... and a large list (that appears in the core book):4+
Tall grass, bushes...:5+
wires...: 6+

And you complain that with this system there are THREE kind of cover? just LIGHT, MEDIUM and HEAVY. And as we had ANYTHING (from a pencil to a notebook to a bottle) to act as scenery, of course you determined before playing if that forest was light, that ruins were heavy or that barbed wire was medium. And yes, there were three different ranges. Perhaps you don't have a range that determines that you can not shoot with a pistol longer than 12"? And you instantly remember what you have to obtain in 40k, a SEVEN. Well it's been 14-15 years since last time i played that star wars and still can remember the three basic numbers: 6 short range, 8 medium, 10 long. But I insist, it doesn't have to be this way, i prefer just ONE range, I swear.


However, this is not final as the Difficulty is then modified based on a variety of factors involving cover, movement and morale status. Once this is done, you take a skill test with your weapon, to determine the number of hits on the target squad. At this point the rules tell you to determine what models in a target squad are hit, by saying that "hits are determined randomly", but doesn't say how to work this out. Easy to do if there are 2, 3 or 6 models in question, but what if there are 5? I suddenly need a 5 sided dice or some complex system that isn't described in the rules.

This is where i have to say you are right, the majority of modificators were overwhelming, but if you see the whole book, you'll find that MORALE rules were OPTIONAL. So the only modifications to roll were cover (light +1, medium +2, heavy +3, easier than remembering if barbed wire had a 4+ or 5+) AND if you were prone, +1, and if you had moved, +1. But lets say you don't want modifications for moving or being prone, don't worry, the system still could be nice if you don't use such modifications in 40k.

And they don't say exactly how to random because you use common sense. You got, let's say, 17 hits, and got to "allocate" to 5 minis. No problem, Throw all the "hit" dices and place every 1 obtained in mini to the left, every 2 in second one, every three in the next.. it is easier than what you think!!! Oh, you'll say me you can obtain six... ok, REROLL the six!! That's all, until you obtain something from 1 to 5!
And when you got 15 minis and seven hits? Again common sense, every 1-2 you obtain goes to first five minis, every 3-4 to next five, and every 5-6 to last five. In fact, there's an introductory game with examples in the game that covers EVERY rule, and they decide randomness this way. In 40k we could even be smarter and place every mini "one" hit and do random with the rest or only when there are less hits than minis. So only random when there are plenty :)


Once that is done you and your opponent roll off and add your strength, plus modifiers for armour, and use a table to see if the shot kills or not.

Again no. You shoot your dices and add them the strenght of your weapon, ok, but then i simply ROLL and add my armour (someone will feel more comfortable if I say that i SAVE? against your dice? It's exactly the same). There is no table, or it is as easy as if I obtain more than you my miniature is saved. If you obtain more, then my mini is wounded (killed if it is not a hero). If you DOUBLE my result my miniature is completely killed forever (remember a mini-rule in 40k, instant death?)
Some games (lotr strategic battles) have a table. You got a "power" I got an "armour" compare and this is your needed result. If obtained killed (1 dice roll and a table needed)
Others (star wars) make oposed rolls, you throw dice, and add "power" i roll a dice and add "armour" and compare results. (2 simultaneous rolls needed)

AND then there's Warhammer 40k, that does a mix of BOTH things (2 rolls and a table needed)
It compares damage against armour in a table and then against "another armour value" (save) that only was a bad solution to allow the defender player to take part in the "saving".


Just my thoughts, but I fail to see why any game dealing with things at this level of detail should be as complicated as those rules made it. If things are going to get that complex, I want detailed damage rules, with different results for hitting a chest, leg or arm, weapon knockbacks and so on, like you get in Necromunda.

We agree here! I don't want a game so complicated, in fact, i used the link to show a game that, in fact, takes a LARGE amount of considerations BUT i think the idea I had in mind is to give some ideas to make the game less complex but as deep as it is now. If you take out half the complex modifications of the game i showed, take out the stupid limitations of movement in degrees, take out morale and leave it similar to what we got (you can or can't), instead of 50 pages it would be a core book of 20!!!! Please understand that what i'd like is a PERFECT MIX, and though i know it is impossible, i wanted to give ideas.

Lord Inquisitor
24-04-2012, 22:31
I actually don't think the 5th edition books really have that many special rules tbh. Some books do, but thats the same for fantasy I actually think most of 40k's problem is that the faqs seem a bit random.
Look now at the special rules in your average codex. I actually had a look at the Tyranid book and it averages at around two unique special rules per unit. Imperial Guard is of a similar number of special rules per unit. Contrast this to Imperial Guard in Epic - there are TWO units with unique special rules, both a single line. Yet there are so much more tactical depth to Epic Armageddon! Similarly, in Flames of War, my late war polish have exactly one army-wide unique special rule and one unit with unique special rules (Wojtek the Bear!).

It's pretty easy to fall into the trap of thinking 40K "needs" all these special rules. The 4th edition books did all the flavour of the codecies with much less special rules verbage than the 5th edition ones. In many cases the special rules are added for the sake of it! Take Space Marines for example. Ward added an army-wide rule that boils down to "RUN AWAY!" - yeah, they shall know no fear but they run away at a drop of a hat, huh? Space Marines have the ability to seed minefields and fortify cover - which the Imperial guard can't. Clearly hiding behind cover and minefields and running away are particularly Space Marine traits, eh? As for Imperial Guard, why don't we add a bunch of special rules that make Imperial Guard achieve superhuman feats - braver than space marines, run faster than eldar, shoot better than tau. Wow, that really makes them seem human. Never mind all the completely pointless special rules. Gargoyles have a unique special rule that gives them poisoned attacks when the rulebook already contained a poisoned weapon rule! Not like gargoyles were poisonous before, in the fluff or rules!

Chapters Unwritten
24-04-2012, 22:32
You aren't really supposed to start throwing all of the intricacies of the game at people right away. If your first demo game even had an assault phase or a vehicle I'm not surprised.

The game is fine as it is; the extra rules are a clever way of keeping a simple game fresh for the past 20 years.

gLOBS
25-04-2012, 13:52
Id rather a good game system that can last ages over being "fresh".

rickyard
25-04-2012, 23:41
Look now at the special rules in your average codex. I actually had a look at the Tyranid book and it averages at around two unique special rules per unit. Imperial Guard is of a similar number of special rules per unit. Contrast this to Imperial Guard in Epic - there are TWO units with unique special rules, both a single line. Yet there are so much more tactical depth to Epic Armageddon! Similarly, in Flames of War, my late war polish have exactly one army-wide unique special rule and one unit with unique special rules (Wojtek the Bear!).

It's pretty easy to fall into the trap of thinking 40K "needs" all these special rules. The 4th edition books did all the flavour of the codecies with much less special rules verbage than the 5th edition ones. In many cases the special rules are added for the sake of it! Take Space Marines for example. Ward added an army-wide rule that boils down to "RUN AWAY!" - yeah, they shall know no fear but they run away at a drop of a hat, huh? Space Marines have the ability to seed minefields and fortify cover - which the Imperial guard can't. Clearly hiding behind cover and minefields and running away are particularly Space Marine traits, eh? As for Imperial Guard, why don't we add a bunch of special rules that make Imperial Guard achieve superhuman feats - braver than space marines, run faster than eldar, shoot better than tau. Wow, that really makes them seem human. Never mind all the completely pointless special rules. Gargoyles have a unique special rule that gives them poisoned attacks when the rulebook already contained a poisoned weapon rule! Not like gargoyles were poisonous before, in the fluff or rules!


totally agree:

Got three armies (1.500 pts. each), ultramarine, IG and Tau.

With every army, got added to our average army list a list of things "different" in the army so I can see it quickly instead of having to read through the codex while i play. In only my Space Marine list -and only 1500 points- it is written, in the same page of weapon and units summary, just in case I need to refresh mind:

1- A quick chart I made to reflect movement and shooting of my Land raider, so i don't need to see which weapons are defensive and reflect the machine spirit rule. (something like stationary:all, till 12" that weapon and that another, etc.)
2- A list of weapon special characteristics: rules for thunderhammer, stormshield, chainfist, lightning claws, assault cannon and frag and krak grenades penetration to vehicles. All of them got specifics that are not in their main stats and so you have to remember.
3- A list of equipment and its effects: company standard (to remember i can use it to morale and pinning, and to have clear differences with chapter banner), Terminator armour (to remember its invulnerable 5+ and that they can't sweep advance and that they are relentless), rules for narthecium (to remember "feel no pain" is not usable against fp1 and fp2 weapons or instant death, searchlight (to remember owning unit CAN'T use it)... more specifics
4- Some special rules:
"they shall know no fear": Explanation of how and what. Got some specifics about criteria I need to have clear.
"orbital assault" to make clear marines CAN'T assault when that 5 enormous doors open, VS "assault ramp" to make clear my SIX termies DO CAN assault exiting through that tiny door in single file. Perhaps still make a mess because I can't believe such an abstract thing. Sure a rule that was PUT because 10 tactical marines appearing ANYWHERE without scatter and FIRING all their weapons and then ASSAULTING was odd.

And I swear, this list is shorter than TAU equipment (TEN entries only for equipment specifics) and of course than Imperial guard (about 10 rules and the list of "orders" and its specifics).

EVERY match I got to look for something I don't remember. Today playing with my cousin we have wondered (searching for another specific in the core book) that we have been retreating 2d6 inches using THE HIGHER, as when you move through cover, and not adding them. Sure we have done this thing bad FOR MONTHS. And sure we will be doing other things bad, and by the time we manage to find anything that was done wrong, they'll be a lot more things still being wrong. I wonder what could happen if i ever play against someone that has not one of the three codexes I own... just pray for him to be honest. Remembering EVERY rule has nothing to do with strategic, is an exercise that, in my opinion, makes the game last longer... because you spend time READING and REMEMBERING abstracts, not thinking strategies. At the beginning of every game, with the exceptions of deep striking units and some reserves outflanking, you know exactly where your units are going and what they'll do, no surprises.

althathir
26-04-2012, 00:28
Look now at the special rules in your average codex. I actually had a look at the Tyranid book and it averages at around two unique special rules per unit. Imperial Guard is of a similar number of special rules per unit. Contrast this to Imperial Guard in Epic - there are TWO units with unique special rules, both a single line. Yet there are so much more tactical depth to Epic Armageddon! Similarly, in Flames of War, my late war polish have exactly one army-wide unique special rule and one unit with unique special rules (Wojtek the Bear!).

It's pretty easy to fall into the trap of thinking 40K "needs" all these special rules. The 4th edition books did all the flavour of the codecies with much less special rules verbage than the 5th edition ones. In many cases the special rules are added for the sake of it! Take Space Marines for example. Ward added an army-wide rule that boils down to "RUN AWAY!" - yeah, they shall know no fear but they run away at a drop of a hat, huh? Space Marines have the ability to seed minefields and fortify cover - which the Imperial guard can't. Clearly hiding behind cover and minefields and running away are particularly Space Marine traits, eh? As for Imperial Guard, why don't we add a bunch of special rules that make Imperial Guard achieve superhuman feats - braver than space marines, run faster than eldar, shoot better than tau. Wow, that really makes them seem human. Never mind all the completely pointless special rules. Gargoyles have a unique special rule that gives them poisoned attacks when the rulebook already contained a poisoned weapon rule! Not like gargoyles were poisonous before, in the fluff or rules!

Epic and flames of war are systems i'm not very familiar with to be honest, so I can't really comment on them one way or another. That said I still don't think 40k books are that complicated compared to fantasy, I just don't see it. Some of it may be that i'm newer to fantasy since I'm just getting into but looking through the current armybooks I don't see that much of difference. Take nids for example they do have a lot of special rules, but so do tomb kings.

Also if you don't want a lot of rules why complain that marines can lay mines, and imp guard can't? It seems like your problem is more that the rules don't fit the fluff than that they exist.

de Selby
26-04-2012, 03:09
I'm not so sure about the 'randomly assign hits' thing. How do you randomly assign say 13 hits to 7 models? Maybe it's just too late for me but it seems like prime numbers should make this problem hard to resolve with D6's.


Gargoyles have a unique special rule that gives them poisoned attacks when the rulebook already contained a poisoned weapon rule! Not like gargoyles were poisonous before, in the fluff or rules!

Heh, this is just part of the general clusterspawning that is the 5th ed. codex. They're supposd to have bio plasma (and modelled with it) but Cruddace's rules don't even match up with the model range in a few places.

orkmiester
26-04-2012, 10:42
this argument is always interesting i find, as it hinges around that thorny issue of 'depth' yet different wargames give different approaches.

i'll take the old argument 'Fantasy is more tactical than 40k'...

in my view- they represent two different styles of warfare so they are going to be tactically different. It still dosen't excuse the anecdote i've heard many times 'fantasy player does 40k to prove that its not tactical yet gets thrashed and has to eat his words:p'

WHFB, works on the medieval interplay between cavalry (heavy and light) and infantry (light and heavy) and it creates a system where things have an effective counter, which results in armies changing dependign upon what is the most effective unit type. So on that count it is more tactical, yet more difficult to get right wehn you take tournaments into account (my honest thoughts as i'm mostly a 40k player:angel:).

Yet 40k has a more 'stable' system, which currently has gone down the 'modern warfare' route on the account of the mass mechanisation we are now seeing. Barring the odd exceptions in terms of the army, all armies now have to develop 'tactics' and 'strategies' to deal with all this armour, it may boil down to 'kill vehicle then kill what is inside' but there are many ways to do it. Which is why list building becomes very important, and everyone has differing views on this hence we all develop 'tactics' depending upon our unit choices. Some may not be considered the most efficient but at the end of the day, experience helps a lot, especially when it coems down to fighting battles. As the old adage goes, they may have a good army on paper at least, yet they can't beat the trusty old warrior who knows his army/list inside and out:eyebrows:

onto the rules side...

40k could do with 'cleaning up' i'm sure anybody could write up a quick reference sheet so that someone wouldn't need to look at the rule book, if you are teaching them to play. Vehicles need the tweaking really, the infantry part works fine- when they jump out of their transports that is:rolleyes:. Vehicles need a rework because, alongside army specific special rules, some just don't work right. SM predators are an example, BA ones can move and shoot everything yet all the others are lame ducks as moving reduces their firepower too much, and you have to use them as bunkers in an army that is designed for mobility yet on that count landraiders are better:wtf: (even if they are no that well favoured). Special rules i'm 'neutral' on, they do help create 'distinctions' but thats where space marines fall over... though they do casue some aggro.

i have looked at flames of war, and from seeing battle reports quite a few specific units have their own rules, to represent how certain units acted upon the real battlefields, similar to 40k really

but messing around with historical stuff require restrictions, whereas 'fantasy' stuff can be what ever you like...

just my humble view:angel:;)

Omniassiah
26-04-2012, 11:46
The real problem that 40k has is its "scale confusion" the rule set would work better playing with 10-15mm models on group bases similiar to FoW, or a massive scale back of army size. When you add to it the fact that there are really no "soft" tactical counters for anything in the game. By "soft" I mean you can't smoke a tank or gun team, no real effective pinning mechanic, no advantage to really maneuver, basically very little of what you do matters. units move so fast that assaults are expected to happen on turn 2 at the latest, if not turn 1. Units are ablative wounds to the weapon carriers because god forbid that Lascannon shoots at the tank while the basic troopers hose down the infantry around it or vice versa. I find it really amusing anymore when a 40k player complains about Warmahordes because its all about "combos", yet every tactic thread is pretty much on what combos you need to do in a particular army.

rickyard
26-04-2012, 12:32
40k could do with 'cleaning up' i'm sure anybody could write up a quick reference sheet so that someone wouldn't need to look at the rule book, if you are teaching them to play...]

I don't knonw if it is allowed as there are some stats here, but look at the reference sheets i have needed to do to allow my fellow players to have EVERY clarification needed so we don't have to go through books.

138876138877138878
138879

As we are spanish, you sure wouldn't understand what it says, but as you can see the VOLUME of pages to have in mind is too much. AND sometimes we got to refer to the rulebook anyway because "normal" rules are not explained here.

Phaeron Setek
26-04-2012, 22:43
The concept of hit, wound, save is pretty simple....
1) Roll to hit. How good is your guy/gal/robot/alien/warp-spawned monstrosity at putting rounds on target?
2) Roll to wound. Based on the strength of the weapon vs. toughness.
3) Roll for saves vs. the weapon AP, if allowed.

The simple analogy is if you get shot in the chest while wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bullet may not penetrate and kill you (saved), but you're still going to feel like someone took a sledgehammer to your ribcage (wounded).

As for tanks, they are actually a lot like infantry. they have a toughness value (AV) that reflects how damage-resistant they are. But, as stated before, they generally have much thicker armor, and so the difference between AP 5 and AP 3 means nothing to a tank. AP 1, however, is specifically held above all others in that it does increased damage to vehicles despite their armor.

The rules as a whole have become far more streamlined since the dark ages of 2nd edition, and people who play regularly seem to just memorize the USRs and army specifics. I play 4 different armies, and rarely have to crack open a rule book for anything beyond list creation.

GrogDaTyrant
27-04-2012, 00:42
Epic and flames of war are systems i'm not very familiar with to be honest, so I can't really comment on them one way or another.

I am very familiar with both systems, and they are solid of examples of how to build a tight, enjoyable, and diverse ruleset. Individual units are indeed *very* streamlined in both games, without so much as a single special unique rule. They both make utilize the USR idea to it's fullest, with the entirety of a unit consisting of it's statline, weaponry, name, points (if that), and any USRs the unit has. For example, in Flames of War a T34/85 is a Standard Tank (unit/movement type), with FA7, SA5, TA1 (Front, Side, Top armor), 32" range main gun at AT 12 (anti-tank), Firepower 3+. It also has a hull-mount MG, a Co-Axle MG, and has the USRs: Limited Vision, and Hen and Chicks. It's upgrades include giving it a Cupola (removes Limited Vision), and giving it Tank Escorts. The entirety of it's statline is in one comprehensive list of statlines, and Gvuardeskiy Tankovy Company unit entry consists of a point-listing for running a company of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 of the tanks, with the point costs for upgrading them with Cupolas and/or Tank Escorts. The whole unit-entry takes up about 1/3rd of a page with fluff. Most units (like ISU-122s, PZ4s, etc.) take up even less than that.

Even the way they handle variant army lists is well thought out. Instead of having separate books for each minor variant, an entire army list fits on one page in an easy-to-use spreadsheet of what you must field for that particular list, and the optional units. To keep with the previous example, a Guards Tank Batallion requires 1 HQ tank, and 2 Companies (soviet platoons) of T34/85s. Each company can be 5 to 10 tanks in size. From there, you can add Anti-Aircraft, Tank Riding companies, Sappers, Armored Cars (reconnaissance), Heavy Tanks (IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152, etc), Air-Support, and more.

Lord Inquisitor
29-04-2012, 18:16
Epic and flames of war are systems i'm not very familiar with to be honest, so I can't really comment on them one way or another. That said I still don't think 40k books are that complicated compared to fantasy, I just don't see it. Some of it may be that i'm newer to fantasy since I'm just getting into but looking through the current armybooks I don't see that much of difference. Take nids for example they do have a lot of special rules, but so do tomb kings.
I'm not sure 40K is necessarily more complicated. But fantasy has always been more simulationist if that's a word, than 40K, at least since 3rd ed 40k make a deliberately simple and streamlined rule-set and 5th ed still aspires to those ideals. WFB army books got really rather convoluted by 6th and 7th edition and there's been a marked drive to simplify rules in WFB recently. There are still a lot of unique rules particularly for complicated monsters or characters, but the bulk of units are relatively simple. For example, gorgers went from having a page of rules to a set of universal rules. 40K however, have taken the 3rd ed design principles the game was built around and thrown them out the window. Which wouldn't be a problem if we were dealing with a small skirmish sized game with a small number of models (like Necromunda), rather than a squad-level game.


Also if you don't want a lot of rules why complain that marines can lay mines, and imp guard can't? It seems like your problem is more that the rules don't fit the fluff than that they exist.
No, it's a case of them adding special rules that weren't needed. Fluff should drive rules, if a unit NEEDS a special rule to provide a particular fluff then fair enough. Tech marines need to repair vehicles, apothecaries heal units. Although in both cases these could be universal special rules since most armies have medics and techs. If you look at Codex Daemons, every special rule there has a specific point, illustrating a specific aspect of the fluff or mechanically required. Space Marines had so many extra pointless special rules added that were just not needed. It's easy to pick on the ones that were not just not needed but not fluffy either. On what planet was a special rule that allowed space marines to run away required?


Heh, this is just part of the general clusterspawning that is the 5th ed. codex. They're supposd to have bio plasma (and modelled with it) but Cruddace's rules don't even match up with the model range in a few places.
Yeah. It's not the only example though but it is the example that really made my brain hurt.


The concept of hit, wound, save is pretty simple....
1) Roll to hit. How good is your guy/gal/robot/alien/warp-spawned monstrosity at putting rounds on target?
2) Roll to wound. Based on the strength of the weapon vs. toughness.
3) Roll for saves vs. the weapon AP, if allowed.

The simple analogy is if you get shot in the chest while wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bullet may not penetrate and kill you (saved), but you're still going to feel like someone took a sledgehammer to your ribcage (wounded).
It also allows you to run a 10-point scale with a dice with only 6 numbers. You could do it all with one dice if it were a D20 and D&D does exactly that. However D6s have their own advantages (cheap!) so by breaking the attack roll into two or more numbers makes sense. Three is perhaps a bit more than you need, you can combine toughness and armour, as in LotR or Epic or FoW (although FoW does have a potential 3rd roll in cover).

The core principles are not at fault in 40K though. While there are a few I'd like to see changed, they're generally sound. It's all the extra ... faff ... layed over the core rules that annoy me.


As for tanks, they are actually a lot like infantry. they have a toughness value (AV) that reflects how damage-resistant they are. But, as stated before, they generally have much thicker armor, and so the difference between AP 5 and AP 3 means nothing to a tank. AP 1, however, is specifically held above all others in that it does increased damage to vehicles despite their armor.
So why not give them a Toughness value and an armour save of 2+? The whole damage table could still be incorporated and indeed applied to multi-wound models too. Why do we even need a distinction between armour and biological? Really a dreadnought and a carnefix are pretty similar.


The rules as a whole have become far more streamlined since the dark ages of 2nd edition, and people who play regularly seem to just memorize the USRs and army specifics.
Yeah, it's the army specifics that gets difficult. When each army has hundreds of unique special rules on top of all the profile/USR/wargear combinations, we're talking about hundreds of pages of rules above and beyond the core rulebook. It's within the realms of human capability if you are dedicated, sure, but it is very difficult. Certainly a crazy way to design a game. Magic the Gathering and similar games have vast numbers of unique game mechanics but they have the advantage there of only exposing the opponent to a limited number of special rules at once with each rule presented right there on the gaming piece.


I am very familiar with both systems, and they are solid of examples of how to build a tight, enjoyable, and diverse ruleset.
I have to say FoW was a lot less tight than I was expecting. There are a lot of aspects I think could be improved upon and a lot of unnecessary detail (troops bailing out of tanks and so on seems like stuff that can be abstracted a good deal more I feel) but I know the historical crowd like that sort of thing. Certain aspects are somewhat arbitrary. The fact that a formation is pinned by 5 hits no matter the size of the formation drives me nuts (epic is better since the number of hits required to pin/break a formation is relative to the number of hits and size of the formation).

Epic and FoW do have the occasional unique special rule. Gurkhas for example, have a special rule to represent just how badass they were in combat. But they're very limited, not more than one or two per army list.

Deadnight
29-04-2012, 21:27
The concept of hit, wound, save is pretty simple....
1) Roll to hit. How good is your guy/gal/robot/alien/warp-spawned monstrosity at putting rounds on target?
2) Roll to wound. Based on the strength of the weapon vs. toughness.
3) Roll for saves vs. the weapon AP, if allowed.

The simple analogy is if you get shot in the chest while wearing a bullet-proof vest. The bullet may not penetrate and kill you (saved), but you're still going to feel like someone took a sledgehammer to your ribcage (wounded).

As for tanks, they are actually a lot like infantry. they have a toughness value (AV) that reflects how damage-resistant they are. But, as stated before, they generally have much thicker armor, and so the difference between AP 5 and AP 3 means nothing to a tank. AP 1, however, is specifically held above all others in that it does increased damage to vehicles despite their armor.
.

SO if the AP is irrelevant to vehicle armour (because of its thickness), and sheer brute strength is whats relevant to getting through, then why does the same sheer brute strength that will all but flatten a land raider bounce off an infantryman's personal armour? Its illogical.

Look at other games. Warmachine has 2 rolls (attack, and damage). Infinity has 2 rolls (attack, armour saves). Starship Troopers had 2 rolls. Most wargames use 2 rolls. Most game systems have a univsersal system representing "health". In WM, you have individual troops with individual "hits". you have multi-hit infantry like Men 'O' War. And you have jacks and beasts with damage grids. but yet it all boils down to individual hit points being used. Look at Starship Troopers. you have a "damage value" that you have to roll to hit. troopers are damaged on a 3+. warrior bugs are damaged on a 5+. airships are damaged on a value determined by how fast they've moved.

All it is is people attemping to implement reality to a set of extremely abstract game mechanics. and to be honest, those of 40k are the wrong mechanics to try and make sense of. the reason three rolls to kill someone exist is because of the original intent of the writers to allow the inactive player to have some input on the game. Nothing more. the reason vehicle rules are the way they are is they are a tacked on set of additional rules to a wargaming ruleset that is basically a port of a medieval wargame.

if anything, the damage system of infinity is the best out there.

Spell_of_Destruction
30-04-2012, 00:11
I don't think 40k is too complicated for it's depth at all. This is coming from someone who remembers 2nd edition... that was a nightmare when you tried to take things beyond skirmishes.

The thing is that the 2nd ed rules weren't really any more complicated than the rules from 3rd ed onwards. It's just that in some case they were clunky and time consuming to act out. 3rd ed mostly streamlined the gameplay, not the rules.

Of course many of us feel they threw the baby out with the bathwater and a fair amount of depth was lost in the process. Many of us to view 2nd ed fondly don't really want to go back to 2nd ed - we want a game with the streamlined gameplay of 3rd-5th ed and the depth of 2nd.

Carlosophy
30-04-2012, 14:51
All the additional rules aren't there for extra tactical depth though, they are there to make the units more unique which in turn gives your army more character and enables it to tell a better story on the battlefield. 40k is after all 1/2 RPG.

Consider the weapon system of 2E: every gun had a unique profile that you had to keep looking up to see how many wounds it inflicted and how it rolled to penetrate a tank. This meant that there were more minute differences between a Lascannon and a Krak Missile but they were both still AT weapons; now look at the D-cannon. This was a weapon that had 2-3 different table's you had to roll on depending on the nature of units under the blast marker. Teleporting models around the battlefield, inverting Tanks, making monsters change table edges and sucking whole squads into the warp made it too random to be an effective AT weapon like the Lascannon but made for much better stories.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-04-2012, 18:28
In certain ways, I agree with the OP. The rules are incredibly complicated and (for me, at least) none of them really seem to add much in the way of enjoyment to the game. As a matter of fact, some of them even spoil my fun. Whenever I play a game of 40k, it always seems like the hardest part of playing the game is making it enjoyable. And while certain rules do keep things fresh (like roads speeding up tanks-- that can have an interesting effect on a game), a solid rules set that's fun to begin with is preferable to a weak rules set layered with frosting to sweeten it up.

I love 40k; the artwork and the models especially. The rules of 5th edition, however, are a weak link. It isn't a very good game, imo, when you remove the beautifully painted/sculpted minis and the artwork.

SideshowLucifer
30-04-2012, 18:43
I think 5th is by far the best of the bunch. They kept some of the feel of 2nd alive with a lot of the simplicity of 3rd and 4th. That doesn't mean I think 5th is a good game, just that it has been closer than the others.

rickyard
01-05-2012, 01:13
Love the game, but my family have finally enjoyed my second choice: Space Hulk. Thay have found it simpler, but exciting, wonderful, quick, awesome, really enjoying. I think they are right, of course it is nothing compared to the whole 40k system, but, Why do we need SO MUCH rules if Space Hulk uses the same minis, the same background, the same termies and it is extremely quickly compared to its greater brother?? of course I don't mean 40k had to be as simple as space hulk, I am only saying that the kind of enjoy feeling when playing SH (NOT having to see the rules, and it is explained in 5 minutes) has never been even similar in 40k. Warhammer 40 k rules are bigger, and the game is a beautiful showcase for my wonderful armies, it is a nice diorama... BUT it is not a great game.

Lord Inquisitor
01-05-2012, 15:33
Love the game, but my family have finally enjoyed my second choice: Space Hulk. Thay have found it simpler, but exciting, wonderful, quick, awesome, really enjoying. I think they are right, of course it is nothing compared to the whole 40k system, but, Why do we need SO MUCH rules if Space Hulk uses the same minis, the same background, the same termies and it is extremely quickly compared to its greater brother?? of course I don't mean 40k had to be as simple as space hulk, I am only saying that the kind of enjoy feeling when playing SH (NOT having to see the rules, and it is explained in 5 minutes) has never been even similar in 40k. Warhammer 40 k rules are bigger, and the game is a beautiful showcase for my wonderful armies, it is a nice diorama... BUT it is not a great game.

And one other cool thing about Space Hulk is that the complexity of the rules stayed about the same through three editions of the game with the last edition very similar to the first. Space Hulk is a great example to show you can get heaps of tactics in a very simple wargame and you don't need to add more and more special rules to keep people coming back to it.