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.

Redbeard wrote:...But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.

Wow.

Just, wow.

Can't wait to read the "Designer's Notes" this month.

I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom also lie within the Standard Bearer too.

Hi,


I personally think that the new reference sheets are far more stream lined and will make for faster games, which for me has always been one big down side of the game. I dont enjoy having to allocate 3 hours for a 1500 point game because once hand to hand starts it never ends. This faster resolution of combat to me seems like a boon.

Bodichi wrote:Hi,


I personally think that the new reference sheets are far more stream lined and will make for faster games, which for me has always been one big down side of the game. I dont enjoy having to allocate 3 hours for a 1500 point game because once hand to hand starts it never ends. This faster resolution of combat to me seems like a boon.

You think 3 hours for a 1500 point game is too long?

I don't think I've had much trouble getting an 1850 point game in under 3 hours.

Also, be careful what you wish for... AT-43 games are real quick too...

About shooting Ordnance and everything else while sitting still:

Not what the full rules say, sadly. To fire Ordnance, a vehicle may not fire anything else in V5.

Alpharius wrote:

Redbeard wrote:...But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.

Wow.

Just, wow.

Can't wait to read the "Designer's Notes" this month.

I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom also lie within the Standard Bearer too.

Hey, for some of us, long division is no picnic!

I don't think Alessio claims that, rather the author of the article makes the claim.

I don't buy Alessio's comment at face value. Even though I love the game and universe they've created (and am not going to quit) I don't have a lot of respect for some of the twits at GW but there is no way that anyone working there is THAT much of a twit. This is clearly someone trying to spin the dumbing down of the game to their target audience's level as affecting even adults. The only people who might actually have difficulty with the limited math involved in this game are the youngsters playing the game. You remember them; the one's with parents buying the army du jour because they're feeling guilty about not having enough time for their kids. At least that seems to be GW's thinking.

I agree that there needs to be change to stave off boredom but the flavor of change lately has been as GW calls it "simplification" or as normal people call it "removing choice". I actually think I'm going to like more than I dislike about the new rules but what I dislike will be on the order of wading in sewage. (There is no middle ground on the things that it looks like they've flocked up.) What I really detest is what they've been doing to the codices and for the life of me I'll never understand their reasoning behind the codex decisions. We've all known for a very long time that all of GW's decisions for far too long have been driven by their bean-counters at the expense of nearly all other input. That's what makes the codex decisions so completely baffling to me. Choice drives sales. Having options between armies gives us choice as to which army to buy and having choices within an army gives us choices as to what to buy within that army. Having units that are all useful in an army and options like SM traits that allow a player to come up with non-standard choices spurs sales. Having units that are ineffective though rules, points, or are just plain too expensive for their utility puts a damper on sales of those units.

The fate of the traits system is my pet peeve. Taking away traits reduces sales on miniatures associated with those traits. Was the traits system flawed? Of course it was. It was an elegant idea that was an abortion in its execution due to GW's lack of playtesting (alleged but obvious) and horrible imbalance between advantages and disadvantages. Over at B&C we spent a lot of time fixing the problem for them and proved that it can be (and should have been) done. Their decision, if rumors are to be believed, was to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Chaos codex is a good list but doesn't represent the average Chaos army. While some of the Cult armies were overpowered, the solution should have been to fix the problems not $hitcan them. My biggest beef on this issue is the LatD list. From the fluff this list allows you to build 90% of Chaos armies. It also spurs sales on miniatures that are used by two other codices (CSM and IG); one would think this is a no-brainer for the bean counters. It also tapped into the a market for additional sales of SM minis as this is the only list that allowed players to produce a legal Imperial list combing a subset of the SM and IG codices if one limited their choices to clearly non-Chaos selections. I'm at a complete loss as to why the bean-counters allowed this list to fade away.

GW have to keep changing the rules because otherwise 40K would become static and, well, "done" and once all the customers had bought it they would not sell any more. Then they would have to make a new game.

First, I'm going to trot out my theory that the problem isn't the combat res, but the ridiculous way it's sold to us.

Second, actually I doubt it's kids that would have trouble with the math. Memory is pretty quick in 10 year olds, and I've yet to meet a 10 year old that can't handle some basic subtraction. If anything, it's grown men that have lives and jobs and families that might forget a modifier here or there. I still don't buy it, but I really don't think the "GW only wants kids to play 40k" thing is the answer here, if for no other reason then GW isn't dumbing down 40k. 5th edition isn't really more complicated or less complicated then 4th or 3rd. It's lateral changes. Combat is simpler, but armor pen is more complex. All is change, as heraclitus would say.

don_mondo wrote:
I guess you could call it that. These are the ones that were sent out to the hobby centers so they're open source material. They were also posted to the Kommandos Forum with permission to share them out.

I'm a Kommando, where are these files on the Kommando's forum. PM please.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree with polonius, in that these rules ( main rules not codexes ) are neither more simpler nor more complex, merely a different approach. I think that this will force many armies to rethink their current strategies and if that happens i will be happy. I get tired of playing the same five armies all the time.

We'll have to semi-disagree on the Tank Bustas.
I agree that they're trouble, as-is, but I think they'll get better in 5th, when they can commandeer a transport.

Redbeard wrote:You're confusing 'chaos' - the opposite of order, with Chaos - the term used to represent the whims of the Warp Gods, who are apparently anything but chaotic, and pursue their own goals. It's just that their goals aren't known to humans. And, again, you missed the point. You are again correct, that taken literally, they are chaotic and not predictable. And yet, here we are, as a group of gamers as a whole, not using them. Why? Because we gamers realize for a unit that costs as much as they do, having a random effect generated after deployment isn't effective. If they were less expensive, sure. If their random effect could at least be known before you placed them on the table, sure. But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.

Actually, I had no confusion, at all.
I think you missed my point.
The "[/playful carcasm]" was meant to show that, indeed, I agreed with you.

Redbeard wrote:But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."


When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.

That's...
just...
sad.

The math isn't complicated, but don't forget the impact the new wound allocation rules have on multiple wound models. Adding up the wounds on either side after taking casualties would take longer. Certainly not insurmountable, but it does involve bookkeeping which takes time. Add in the sort of silly rules involving dreads and MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully.

Polonius wrote:The math isn't complicated, but don't forget the impact the new wound allocation rules have on multiple wound models. Adding up the wounds on either side after taking casualties would take longer. Certainly not insurmountable, but it does involve bookkeeping which takes time. Add in the sort of silly rules involving dreads and MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully.

The old version was trivial, in comparison with WHFB's combat resolution. Strangely enough, a large number of people seem to get through that game okay.

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:The math isn't complicated, but don't forget the impact the new wound allocation rules have on multiple wound models. Adding up the wounds on either side after taking casualties would take longer. Certainly not insurmountable, but it does involve bookkeeping which takes time. Add in the sort of silly rules involving dreads and MCs and how many wounds each counted as, it wasn't seamless. I did three wounds, you did two is seamlees.

I dont' go out of my way to defend GW, but I think his comment probably related to a playtest version, and he simply did not choose his words carefully.

The old version was trivial, in comparison with WHFB's combat resolution. Strangely enough, a large number of people seem to get through that game okay.

They sure do. Of course, the combet res mechanic in WFB is it's core component, and the crux of most games. Assault is important to 40k, but it's just one of several aspects that are important.

Look, I'm not saying it wasn't a dumb quote. I was challenging the idea that GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds.

I think it was a designe decision that they made, one that I'm not sure I agree with, but it was made. I think it's more evidence that GW wants 40k to play smoother. Look at the new codices, look at the combat res: its' about smooth, and yes, simple. Don't tell me you haven't had a 40k game turn into "count the wounds"? I don't mind it, but apparently the designers did. I'm saying I think that was their point. And to re-iterate my point that GW employees have an incredible knack for sounding clueless and ridiculous even when they're really not.

Polonius wrote:I was challenging the idea that GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds.

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Better yet, they'll combine the two and righteously lay all the blame upon Jervis' son.

Fixed your typo.

bigchris1313 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Better yet, they'll combine the two and self-righteously lay all the blame upon Jervis' son.

Fixed your typo.

Fixed your "fix"

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:I was challenging the idea that GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds.

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:I was challenging the idea that GW is continually and relentlessly dumbing down 40k because either 1) the designers are idots or 2) they want to market exclusively to 10 year olds.

But even if you were to successfully refute this point, GW will invariably change something that cause people to trot out the golden standbys. Better yet, they'll combine the two and unfairly lay all the blame upon Jervis' son.

As much as I appreciate the support, I'll pass. I don't give GW a free pass any more than I give the posters here a free pass, but I know I'm not always right and I try to post that way. I'm just not sure relentlessly painting people that disagree with you as fools or bullies (not just here but in many, many other threads) really gives you any ethical or moral crediblility. Whiel I agree that the harping on the poor kid is both petty and oafish, it's clearly symbolic of larger disgruntlement. To point out that many who disagree with GW and/or you like to mock little kids in an attempt to discredit them is disingenous.

I jumped in originally because Allessio's quote was easily misunderstood. It was a dumb thing to say, and given the climate of the hobby, it's not suprising that a lot of folks read it as an attempt to dumb down the rules even more. Even if there was malice in it (which I doubt), there's no reason to be malicious in response.

And yes, I'm sure you will say that you were kidding or joking or that it wasn't malicious. If it geniunely wasn't meant that way, well, then you really need to work on getting your intent across much as GW does.

JohnHwangDD is so tired of people complaining about GW that he jumps the gun and puts words in their mouths.

Pariah Press wrote:JohnHwangDD is so tired of people complaining about GW that he jumps the gun and puts words in their mouths.

Ahh! A typo aching to be fixed!

Just so that you know, the quick reference sheets are included in the July edition of WD, on a piece of thicker paper/card. At least, they are in the UK edition....

InyokaMadoda wrote:Just so that you know, the quick reference sheets are included in the July edition of WD, on a piece of thicker paper/card. At least, they are in the UK edition....

I got the Quick Ref card with my US copy today.

Edit: The Emperor does not look quite as healthy in the colored variation of the classic 3e rulebook picture.

$6? I might go ahead and get a WD just to get a copy of this on the good card.