Switch Theme:

Why do you think 7th edition is too complicated?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





West Chester, PA

There are a couple major offenders and a ton of minor offenders. I'd generally put the problems into two categories: time wasters and rule complicators. These are things that make the game tedious without adding gameplay value.

1. It is possible for models to move, run or charge, pile-in, and consolidate (or end of combat pile in) all on one turn. That means that on a fairly typical turn players might have to physically move a model 1 to 4 times. For armies with lots of models like Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc, this gets downright tedious for everyone involved. It would not be very hard to consolidate all of that movement (and rolling) into a single move. Instead of having up to four movements and rolling for things like run/charge/consolidate/terrain, models should only move once per turn with all running and charging done in the movement phase. Running and charging should be a fixed modifier (like initiative) added to the model's base movement, and terrain should be a fixed -2" or -3" to a move. This removes a lot of wasted time, since rolling for every unit to run or move through terrain also adds unnecessary actions. The specific modifiers can be debated, but the point is that models should only need to be moved once (or at most twice!) per turn, and you should not have to roll a die for simple movement actions.

2. Excess rolling. For instance, giving weapons re-roll to hit or wound instead of just increasing BS or S. A good example of this is the Eversor Assassin's poison gauntlet which wounds on a 2+ and then re-rolls failed to-wound rolls. You're forcing players to roll against a 97.3% event, it's mostly a waste of time. You'd be better off making it insta-wound and bumping his points cost slightly. Snap shots are another example, rolling overwatch for Imperial Guard is a chore, you load up buckets of dice and then you miss them all. Units had a chance to shoot in the shooting phase, get rid of overwatch.

3. Rule complicators are wonky rules that require too much parsing or allow players to exploit certain rules. Shooting at units with mixed toughness and armor saves, close combat with units with mixed WS, using look out sir to selectively tank or pass off wounds depending on whether its a plasma bolt or a lasgun, etc. I think a lot of these ones are based around independent or named characters. Rather than simply buffing a unit or nearby units, they are inevitably loaded down with tons of special rules and wargear that require a whole 5 minute explanation to the opposing player. This is a bit more of a tricky problem and comes down more to game design. 40k is a game where you're fielding dozens or a hundred plus models, a single character should not have a tome's worth of special rules that apply to just him. In my opinion, characters should be more like unit or army buffs, not one-man game-breakers.

4. All the charts, as so many people have pointed out. I tend to think that every chart in the game could be simplified down to either a d3 or a simple x+ roll. The perils of the warp and the vehicle damage tables are all very neat and wonky, but it's just a slog when you need to constantly check to see what a "3" on perils is, or whether after a "6" the transported unit disembarks from a vehicle or not. You could keep in the more complicated rules for a kill team or specialized smaller games, but it's quite silly to be tracking weapon destroyed for my 35 point sentinel in an 1850 point game. Better to have it be, on a penetrating hit roll a die, on a 5+ it does two hull points of damage, and the vehicle always suffers -1 BS next turn. Simple, easy, and effective, no need to remember which vehicles are immobilized, which weapons are gone, whether this vehicle is stunned versus shaken, etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 00:40:43


"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun

2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







This is an early idea for abstraction, but why not an "exploding" system or so? Like, "for every 3 points you succeed on hitting or wounding, you inflict an additional hit or wound?" So if you hit on 3+, you inflict 2 hits on 6. If you have BS 8, you automatically score one hit, you get 2 hits on a 3+, and 3 hits on a 6". Etc?

You can abstract it as "trick shots"/ricochets/etc?

Lower overall rates of fire and add some mechanic to reinforce destroyed units/make recycling easier to compensate.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





West Chester, PA

 MagicJuggler wrote:
This is an early idea for abstraction, but why not an "exploding" system or so? Like, "for every 3 points you succeed on hitting or wounding, you inflict an additional hit or wound?" So if you hit on 3+, you inflict 2 hits on 6. If you have BS 8, you automatically score one hit, you get 2 hits on a 3+, and 3 hits on a 6". Etc?

You can abstract it as "trick shots"/ricochets/etc?

Lower overall rates of fire and add some mechanic to reinforce destroyed units/make recycling easier to compensate.


I would almost go for something simpler. E.g. a rapid fire weapon only fires one "shot", but gives the soldier +1 BS or something. Obviously it would require some points rework, but I think that kind of approach would greatly simplify the shooting phase.

"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun

2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
   
Made in us
Dangerous Skeleton Champion





 TheSilo wrote:
There are a couple major offenders and a ton of minor offenders. I'd generally put the problems into two categories: time wasters and rule complicators. These are things that make the game tedious without adding gameplay value.

Spoiler:
1. It is possible for models to move, run or charge, pile-in, and consolidate (or end of combat pile in) all on one turn. That means that on a fairly typical turn players might have to physically move a model 1 to 4 times. For armies with lots of models like Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc, this gets downright tedious for everyone involved. It would not be very hard to consolidate all of that movement (and rolling) into a single move. Instead of having up to four movements and rolling for things like run/charge/consolidate/terrain, models should only move once per turn with all running and charging done in the movement phase. Running and charging should be a fixed modifier (like initiative) added to the model's base movement, and terrain should be a fixed -2" or -3" to a move. This removes a lot of wasted time, since rolling for every unit to run or move through terrain also adds unnecessary actions. The specific modifiers can be debated, but the point is that models should only need to be moved once (or at most twice!) per turn, and you should not have to roll a die for simple movement actions.

2. Excess rolling. For instance, giving weapons re-roll to hit or wound instead of just increasing BS or S. A good example of this is the Eversor Assassin's poison gauntlet which wounds on a 2+ and then re-rolls failed to-wound rolls. You're forcing players to roll against a 97.3% event, it's mostly a waste of time. You'd be better off making it insta-wound and bumping his points cost slightly. Snap shots are another example, rolling overwatch for Imperial Guard is a chore, you load up buckets of dice and then you miss them all. Units had a chance to shoot in the shooting phase, get rid of overwatch.

3. Rule complicators are wonky rules that require too much parsing or allow players to exploit certain rules. Shooting at units with mixed toughness and armor saves, close combat with units with mixed WS, using look out sir to selectively tank or pass off wounds depending on whether its a plasma bolt or a lasgun, etc. I think a lot of these ones are based around independent or named characters. Rather than simply buffing a unit or nearby units, they are inevitably loaded down with tons of special rules and wargear that require a whole 5 minute explanation to the opposing player. This is a bit more of a tricky problem and comes down more to game design. 40k is a game where you're fielding dozens or a hundred plus models, a single character should not have a tome's worth of special rules that apply to just him. In my opinion, characters should be more like unit or army buffs, not one-man game-breakers.

4. All the charts, as so many people have pointed out. I tend to think that every chart in the game could be simplified down to either a d3 or a simple x+ roll. The perils of the warp and the vehicle damage tables are all very neat and wonky, but it's just a slog when you need to constantly check to see what a "3" on perils is, or whether after a "6" the transported unit disembarks from a vehicle or not. You could keep in the more complicated rules for a kill team or specialized smaller games, but it's quite silly to be tracking weapon destroyed for my 35 point sentinel in an 1850 point game. Better to have it be, on a penetrating hit roll a die, on a 5+ it does two hull points of damage, and the vehicle always suffers -1 BS next turn. Simple, easy, and effective, no need to remember which vehicles are immobilized, which weapons are gone, whether this vehicle is stunned versus shaken, etc.


I would agree with this. There are a lot of needless unique rules and rolls that have a minimal overall impact on the game but slow the game down a lot. It just makes it a mess in terms of book keeping and makes it hard to have timely turns. Instead of adding new rules all the time, it's really time to have a proper re-write of the rules and consolidate things down.

Necrons
Imperial Knights
Orcs and Goblins
Tomb Kings
Wood Elves
High Elves 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





1) They oversimplified in the transition between 2nd and 3rd edition, forcing them to rely on universal special rules to correct the lack of detail

2) The core gameplay is still built around a few units of individual models supported by one or two larger models, while the modern game can have an army of <5 superheavies face several hundred infantry models.

3) Rules are terribly organized, at least spread out across an entire book, if not across several books

4) When they add a new idea, they don't replace anything, they just built upon the old systems

5) They never stick with a design paradigm long enough for it to spread to every faction, so we have 2 or 3 different design philosophies within a single edition

6) Poor editing and playtesting leads to different interpretations of how rules and mechanics interact with each other
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





One of the issues is simply basing a game on D6 dice pools. As popular as it is, when D6's are resolved individually, there's just not a lot of variance that produces a good reliable variance.

Realistically, the only target numbers that should be used are probably 3+, 4+, and 5+. After that, you've reached the point where the curve doubles/halves, which is generally the point where a game can very easily accidentally break down.

It just leaves the game in place where there's only so much meaningful variance that can be created on the statline and puts extra demand on special rules to make models unique.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




leopard wrote:
If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.

Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)

Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.

the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.

Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.

Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)


Or, you know, just free electronic format with indexes, search and all that. It's been more than a decade since the first kindle.
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






I haven't thought about this as i usually play orks or csm - you know, the ones who usually don't have a ton of fancy rules. But than the new legion rules came out and i decided to run Alpha legion warband + Alpha legion lost and the damned (respawning cultists). And than i rolled the warlord trait that allows to swap your warlord with another character but it's written in a way that they don't change squads - they just change locations and if you swap your warlord with a regular character - not independent, this character and his squad would have to run towards each other to regain coherency.

And than there's a bunch of some extra special rules for the alpha legioneers. And a few extra for the cultists. And than the alpha special respawning cultists and how it interacts with the cultist's own respawning ability. And so on, and so forts.

And the opponent was playing cult mechanicus - and it was the first time i played vs them. So he had to explain a whole lot of new special rules. And than he was running formations that gave extra. And they were gathered together to form a super-formation to get some extra.

All in all, we spent 40 minutes JUST EXPLAINING THE SPECIAL RULES that our armies possessed.

Maybe it's not such a big issue as we were both unfamilliar with the rules on the whole and we'd get used to them eventually. But i'm not sure it's good game design to get SO many special rules on top of each other. Most often than not it's better to have fewer things to remember. And army distinctions can be easilly done with just a few tweaks that are fast and easy to explain.

For example. A new unit that has been introduced: Tzaangors. When you want to describe them to an opponent that hasn't faced them yet, you say: they're T4 cultists with MoT (6++) that cost 7 ppm. That's it. Sure, they have an odd rule that gives them preferred enemy vs relic-wielding models. But it's a mostly excessive rule. All in all, it's still quick and easy to explain - everyone knows meq, geq, ork boy statlines. You just add a few tweaks to them. And now try to explain skiitari rangers with carabines taken as part of war convocation. Guardsmen with bs4, 4+ armor and 6+++ (good so far). Their weapons are 3-shot lazguns that deal 2 wounds on a roll of a 6 regardless of toughness. Than you have to explain that those wounds have to be saved separately as it's not just a wound pool but 2 wounds dealt for each failed one. Than they have specific bonuses for being skiitari - you name them all (6 of them iirc) and than they get affected by war convocation bonuses. And they also get scout.

It's taken 6 times longer to explain a single unit that's supposed to be basic!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 07:52:15


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20. They need to get rid of the 3 (sometimes 4) step process of killing a model.

Warzone had it perfect, roll to hit, roll to wound. Done.

Want more armor? Want harder to hit? Increase the statlines, that's all. No need for a billion special rules.

And it's DOABLE because it's on a D20. On a D6 you can't do anything.

A space marine hits on a 3. After that, the next highest accuracy is a 2! There's nothing after that! The D6 can't support it. So then GW does a second roll or re-rolls. It's just mind-numbing.

GW please... switch to alternating unit activations (away from I GO YOU GO), and switch to the D20. Get rid of this archaic garbage that was inferior 20 years ago.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 13:02:25


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Whitebeard wrote:
Warzone had it perfect, roll to hit, roll to wound. Done.

How about a single "To Hound" roll ?
   
Made in ca
Grumpy Longbeard





Canada

 Whitebeard wrote:
They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20. They need to get rid of the 3 (sometimes 4) step process of killing a model.

Warzone had it perfect, roll to hit, roll to wound. Done.

Want more armor? Want harder to hit? Increase the statlines, that's all. No need for a billion special rules.

And it's DOABLE because it's on a D20. On a D6 you can't do anything.

A space marine hits on a 3. After that, the next highest accuracy is a 2! There's nothing after that! The D6 can't support it. So then GW does a second roll or re-rolls. It's just mind-numbing.

GW please... switch to alternating unit activations (away from I GO YOU GO), and switch to the D20. Get rid of this archaic garbage that was inferior 20 years ago.


Sounds an awful lot like Infinity... Which is a good game.
D6 system is workable, but the resolution of 40k is off for the game size.

Nightstalkers Dwarfs
GASLANDS!
Holy Roman Empire  
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps





Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

Even a D10 leaves room to drift a bit.

D12s and D20s roll a long way, and lobbing buckets of them would mean spending 10 minutes finding them all.

"I go you go" is bad for armies if these sizes, but using initiative could be worse. Getting most of an Eldar army's turn done before an Imperial one, every game, would get annoying.
Including modifiers to avoid an unit set on overwatch (or similar) might help there, but having a hard-set modifier to turn order would not be popular.

6000 pts - 4000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 1000 ptsDS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
Clubs around Coventry, UK 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Would it be complicated to have a system more like this

D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:

Eldar Guardian might be WS 0, BS 0, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 5+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5+
Guardsman might be WS 0, BS 0, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 4+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5+
Veteran Guard WS 0, BS +1, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 4+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5
Marine might be WS +1, BS +1, Defence (WS) 5+, (BS) 4+, S4, T4, W1, A1, LD 8, Armour 3+
Wych might be WS +2, BS 0, Defence (WS) 6+, (BS) 5+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 6+
Genestealer might be WS +2, BS -, Defence (WS) 6+, BS 5+, etc
Hive Tyrant might be WS +2, BS +1, Defence (WS) 5+, BS 3+, etc

Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)

So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,

So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)

just thinking....

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/10 14:28:44


I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in ca
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Skinnereal wrote:

"I go you go" is bad for armies if these sizes, but using initiative could be worse. Getting most of an Eldar army's turn done before an Imperial one, every game, would get annoying.


Initiative as a stat would change a lot with that sort of change. It could be based more on unit role than an army-wide rule - things like Rangers, Pathfinders, Scouts and Sentinels would act earlier in the turn, things like Terminators, Dark Reapers, or Broadsides would act near the end the of the turn.

Or do something along the lines of pilot skill in X-Wing, less agile units do their movement first, more agile ones move second (so your Wyches can move out of the way when an Imperial Knight is closing in on them), then the order is reversed in the shooting phase and the ones with better reaction times can squeeze their shots off first.

It could also breathe some life into little used units like Ork Kommandos - who would have much more of a role in reacting and responding to threats.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I agree with just the few posts I bothered to read. 40k present day looks like a massive mess. I came back to play after a long hiatus. 5th edition seemed like a lot of fun. 6th edition started to feel more confused or complicated. I haven't even played a game of 7th due to other obligations, but it just looks so complicated now.

I despise these current loopholes to make extremely hard to beat units. I don't care how you slice it, a 2++ with a re role sounds like frustration, not fun. AoS is looking more and more my cup of tea. Basic, easy, and fun.

40k is my favorite of the two storylines and all the armies and characters involved. I'll really be hoping 8th edition follows AoS lead and makes me want to come back. I don't know whether I'm in the majority or the minority, but 7th edition just seems stupid to me now. End the ability to make these all powerful lists and units...

I guess I do need to play it and give it a chance, but I'm going to do the same with AoS. This is just my observation as an onlooker for the last year or so. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after I give it a chance.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Garukadon wrote:
I agree with just the few posts I bothered to read. 40k present day looks like a massive mess.
That would be because it is one

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





West Chester, PA

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it be complicated to have a system more like this

D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:

Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)

So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,

So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)

just thinking....


Since the stat system is already based around 10 as the max, I'd like a similar system but using a D10, which I think would allow for a bit more variety in unit ability without necessitating additional special rules. Instead of To Hit, To Wound, Armor Save you'd simplify it to Attack and Defense. The shooter would roll one D10 for attack (BS +/- weapon modifier) and the target would roll one D10 for defense (T +/- armor modifier). So weapon strength and ap would be replaced with an attack modifier, while armor save would be replaced with a defense modifier.

For example, a guardsman shooting a guardsman might attack with attack 3, needing to roll 1-3 on a D10 to hit/wound. The target guardsman might defend with Defense 3, needing a roll of 1-3 on a D10. Then special weapons would apply +1 or +2 or more to attack, while armor upgrades would add to defense. That way you can also easily build in other modifiers like cover saves in your example, or even bonuses for shooting a squad from the flank or rear (based on the orientation of the squad leader), and ignores cover weapons or blast weapons apply negative modifiers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/10 22:19:30


"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun

2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
   
Made in ca
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy





Manitoba

It's hard to tell whether or not my opponent is cheating because I'm not familiar with their codex.

 
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






 OrkaMorka wrote:
It's hard to tell whether or not my opponent is cheating because I'm not familiar with their codex.


That's a good point. There's so many rules now it's easy to start abusing them if you're inclined to do so. That's why I'd stick to a small core set as much as possible. If everyone knows all the rules it's harder to cheat them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





West Chester, PA

 Future War Cultist wrote:
 OrkaMorka wrote:
It's hard to tell whether or not my opponent is cheating because I'm not familiar with their codex.


That's a good point. There's so many rules now it's easy to start abusing them if you're inclined to do so. That's why I'd stick to a small core set as much as possible. If everyone knows all the rules it's harder to cheat them.


I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.

"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun

2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






 TheSilo wrote:
I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.


And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.

I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Future War Cultist wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.


And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.


I was playing upstairs at my FLGS when we heard from the 40k game in the basement below one of the players say he hoped his oppponent got cancer after some janky rules shenanigans.

True story.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 TheSilo wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it be complicated to have a system more like this

D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:

Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)

So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,

So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)

just thinking....


Since the stat system is already based around 10 as the max, I'd like a similar system but using a D10, which I think would allow for a bit more variety in unit ability without necessitating additional special rules. Instead of To Hit, To Wound, Armor Save you'd simplify it to Attack and Defense. The shooter would roll one D10 for attack (BS +/- weapon modifier) and the target would roll one D10 for defense (T +/- armor modifier). So weapon strength and ap would be replaced with an attack modifier, while armor save would be replaced with a defense modifier.

For example, a guardsman shooting a guardsman might attack with attack 3, needing to roll 1-3 on a D10 to hit/wound. The target guardsman might defend with Defense 3, needing a roll of 1-3 on a D10. Then special weapons would apply +1 or +2 or more to attack, while armor upgrades would add to defense. That way you can also easily build in other modifiers like cover saves in your example, or even bonuses for shooting a squad from the flank or rear (based on the orientation of the squad leader), and ignores cover weapons or blast weapons apply negative modifiers.


Judge Dredd had a similar system of opposed roles:

So you had your shoot stat +D10 vs Agility +D10 modified by skills, weapons, cover etc, multiple shots from a single gun gave you multiple dice and all those that exceeded the agility score of the target hit. Worked quite well.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

Ruin wrote:
I was playing upstairs at my FLGS when we heard from the 40k game in the basement below one of the players say he hoped his oppponent got cancer after some janky rules shenanigans. True story.
Well, then there is just plain janky gamers, do not blame the game rules.
BUT unclear rules (or just plain so many) certainly add that extra level of frustration to allow less than ideal outbursts to happen.

The game reminds me of work.
Someone would say "You seem flustered or stressed."
I would reply "The work is NOT difficult, it the just the amount is more than the day allows, which is the true problem."

People want to play for an hour or two and come to end about in that timeframe.
40k does not lend itself well to that.

Any means of addressing time hogs in the game would be almost a direct means of dealing with "complication".
An opponent taking too long is a typical complaint in 40k.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in gb
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine






Ayrshire, Scotland

1) GW forgot that they have USRs - Rather than units being given these to make them fluffy and everyone knowing what they are and what they do, units now have to have their own rule that does the same as 1 or more of these, and this slows the game down as this needs explained.

2) Pre-measuring - while this was a change that I initially liked, it does slow the game down as players spend time measuring out loads of ranges, rather than just making a guess and going for it.

3) Formations - The introduction of formations with all the bonuses and extra rules they came with also slowed the game down

DS:90-S+G++M--B--I+Pw40k05#+D++A++/eWD324R++T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

I liked how a unit was more "the model" which makes for speed (5th edition).
Add a sergeant, special weapon, heavy weapon and away you go.
The Joe-troops act as hit-points and we do not get concerned with closest to closest or any of those other rules.
Individual model targeting rules work for skirmish, 40k kinda evolved out of that due to unit size and quantity.

I must admit, I agree the pre-measure has been license for insane fussing.
Requiring guessing until the move is performed and measured makes sense for cutting down too much physical analysis paralysis.

I think there is certain threshold for patience when you decide "They are going to shoot at them!" and then how long it takes until models get scraped off the table.
The Roll to hit - roll to wound - roll for save - roll for feel no pain OR Jink - roll for reanimation protocols - roll for leadership check... with various possible modifiers in-between.

I have come to appreciate many games that boil it down to "hit" then "damage/kill" and possibly some leadership / catastrophic damage (getting gimped) and constrain all modifiers within those elements.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Whitebeard wrote:
They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20.


Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Insectum7 wrote:
 Whitebeard wrote:
They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20.


Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.
The problem is the level of detail, differentiation, and scale/special rules 40k has tried to pack in on the D6. D6's don't work so fine there, and is part of the reason why there's so much bloat in those respects, because a D6 just doesn't cut it when trying to portray that, particularly when 90% of things use just 2 or 3 values and 16% of results are auto-fails. Either the detail, scale, and differentiation need to be toned down, or greater granularity of results is required, or both.

That said, D20's are probably a bit much either way, D10's would probably be the ideal solution.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




D10's are exactly 10% on each increment. This gives us more dynamic range and easier math. I think D20s are overkill.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 20:38:43


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.


And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.

I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.


Exactly. One thing, basic troops don't necessarily need a whole raft of USRs to make them different, the stats and gear should do that for them. USRs should be applied to things outside of the troops section of the army.

Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: