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.
I've been reading the rules for Warhammer Fantasy for a week now...And damn, they're hard to grasp. The basics are ok, but the absolute frackton of special rules and modifiers make it too hard a game for me to learn, let alone teach one of my friends how to play it.
It seems to me that Warhammer ( and 40k) can only be played with people that are constantly studying the book. There's just too much for anyone to know it all by himself. Different kinds of mounts, of weapons, of magic weapons...Then every army book have a whole more stuff,..
Whenever people talk about a good ruleset, they always say" easy to learn, hard to master". Warhammer is not easy. God, it's so clunky I can't even build a list for my high elves. So much variables make it a chore.
Well, I won't give up just know( bought me a wizard and a spearmen unit to start), but I know that Warhammer will never be my go to game. I would like people to rate other rulesets in regards of newbie learning.
Does 40K have the same difficult bloat of a ruleset? Can I hope that someday we will have a streamlined experience? How does these other games fare:
40K Hobbit SBG
Infinity
Bolt Action
Firestorm Armada
Dropzone Commander
40k is just as clunky as Warhammer Fantasy, but perhaps even worse. There are DLCs to worry about as well. For 40k and Fantasy, if you really want to get in, just get whatever appeals to you aesthetically and just play with like-minded people.
Hobbit game is pretty much dead. However, the rules are a barer version of GW's other games but with the clunkiness taken out.
Infinity is in a weird spot in that the base game can be difficult to learn, but arguably worthwhile. Much of the complexity comes from the interactions and the fact that even the most basic model can do so much. Complexity arises from adding in specialists.
Bolt Action is rather easy to learn and barely any special rules to clink stuff up. The rules are solid and intuitive. Most every model also plays the same with minor variants in stats being the difference. Special unit-specific rules are rare. It plays surprisingly like 40k.
Firestorm Armada and pretty much all Spartan Games games are pretty much Yahtzee. You throw D6s at one another and stuff happens. Oh yeah, there's also models. I think Firestorm Armada is out of season right now so Spartan Games doesn't care about it at all right now. Buy their other flavor-of-the-year Yahtzee variants.
Keraun0s wrote: I've been reading the rules for Warhammer Fantasy for a week now...And damn, they're hard to grasp. The basics are ok, but the absolute frackton of special rules and modifiers make it too hard a game for me to learn, let alone teach one of my friends how to play it.
Oh yes.
Does 40K have the same difficult bloat of a ruleset?
Oh yes.
Whenever people talk about a good ruleset, they always say" easy to learn, hard to master"
Well, I won't give up just know( bought me a wizard and a spearmen unit to start), but I know that Warhammer will never be my go to game. I would like people to rate other rulesets in regards of newbie learning.
For simpler but deeper rules, you don't have to give up the wizards and spearmen. Just the, er, rules. Have a look at these three, for starters. More abstracted but with less listbuilding (they aren't obsessed about, to misquote someone from long ago, the handkerchief on the fifth model of the fourth rank of your sixth unit); quicker but more tactical; easy proxies or unit creation rules for your Warhammer armies; fewer, cheaper, freer rules and supplements.
I found Warmahordes rules to be easy to learn. The strategy of order of activation, efficient use of focus, model positioning, etc is what makes the game hard to master. With GW it's the 837 special rules, some of which contradict each other, is what makes GW games hard just to learn.
Toofast wrote: I found Warmahordes rules to be easy to learn. The strategy of order of activation, efficient use of focus, model positioning, etc is what makes the game hard to master. With GW it's the 837 special rules, some of which contradict each other, is what makes GW games hard just to learn.
I'd like to add a bit of a caveat to this.
WM and Hordes core rules are fantastically written. They are clear concise and easy to learn (and the quick start rules are free on the PP website). Please remember that each Unit/Model can have it's own special rules and granted they are printed on the card so no special supplements needed. They require reading and learning the different units and their special abilities if you want to play competitively.
But yeah, it's definitely a problem I think. Me and my mates learned to play WHFB by each of us reading the rules and then the first dozen games just figuring out "wait, what do we do now?", "hang on, that's not how I read it".
It's easier if you already have an established group, because then you can just learn by playing under the guidance of people who already know the rules.
I honestly could not imagine reading through 40k or WHFB rules from scratch these days. I did it when I was a kid because I was more patient as a kid, these days I think I'd throw the book out the window and go do something more productive
Some games are just better written and so are easier to learn. Start with some very simple core mechanics and build on them. When you start with reasonably complicated core mechanics, write them in a conversational tone rather than just writing them as rules, and then start introducing exceptions to the core mechanics on top of that, it does make it hard to learn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 03:15:11
Toofast wrote: I found Warmahordes rules to be easy to learn. The strategy of order of activation, efficient use of focus, model positioning, etc is what makes the game hard to master. With GW it's the 837 special rules, some of which contradict each other, is what makes GW games hard just to learn.
I'd like to add a bit of a caveat to this.
WM and Hordes core rules are fantastically written. They are clear concise and easy to learn (and the quick start rules are free on the PP website). Please remember that each Unit/Model can have it's own special rules and granted they are printed on the card so no special supplements needed. They require reading and learning the different units and their special abilities if you want to play competitively.
In WM the complexity comes from different rules and combos interacting. The core game is easilying the quickest to pick up from a demo, but it takes many many games to grasp the nuances.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My main issue with 40k when I tried to play was the rules. There were just so many situations where something contradicted (instead of bending or adding to) the main set if rules...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 03:43:09
GW is falling behind at the moment, and this isn't a bash, but simply truth. They can't seem to grasp the concept of competition or change, and that is usually the early warning sign of a failing business. The rules are clunky and even contradictory. Some of us continue playing the game only because we have a ton of money in it, but I don't really buy much anymore.
I don't want to make this yet another GW vs the world post, but if GW actually pays attention to their competition (Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity), who make major changes to their rulesets when they change editions, then 40k will likely end up with a cleaner ruleset that is easier to understand. The truth is, 40k and fantasy rules haven't "really" changed in the past 30 years. I don't count tweaks, as it really needs an overhaul.
If you are having fun, then continue doing so and stay off the forums, lest they convince you otherwise. If you want to play wargames for the sake of strategic play, there are other FAR better options. If you are playing because you like the models, fluff, or gazillions of dice of Warhammer, then go have fun! But the rules will remain difficult to understand and unbalanced.
Warmahordes is my chosen game for the strategic and tactical depth, and VERY clean rules. No wargame is ever perfect as they can't reach a perfect balance with so many varied options (the same options that draw us to play to begin with), but it is written with tournaments in mind, meaning that you don't see the same armies winning every tournament like you tend to see with GW games.
I think Infinity is very easy, and getting easier (come 3rd edition). There is a sort of polymorphism to the design. Once you understand the system, everything works the same way. So the only things you have to remember are the unit and weapon stats.
In a lot of ways 40k 2nd edition was like that. The game was fairly simple and easy to remember and a lot of the complexity was derived from the stats. 3rd edition changed all that, and I think that's when 40k became a bit of a mess. They got rid of stuff like the movement characteristic, and the weapon damage characteristic in order to "streamline" the game. But then it didn't make any sense that a lascannon inflicts the same number of wounds as a bow & arrow (I.e. one wound) -- or that fast units like genestealers move the same speed as lumbering terminators. Obviously the bits they cut out actually served an important function, and were required to play the game. But instead of admitting the error and putting them back, they decided to make up loads of ad hoc special rules to plug the holes. Things like Instant Death, and Fleet. So now instead of having to remember a simple stat, you have to remember a completely different process for moving and shooting.
I think the worst company for rules though are Fantasy Flight. Not because they write bad rules, but because they seem to be able to take quite simple ideas and present them in the most mind numbingly complicated way imaginable. Trying to figure out an FF game for the first time is always painful. I still actually haven't figured out how to play the Space Hulk card game. I even watched a youtube video explaining it, but somewhere between phases and facings I think I just got bored and decided to play something else.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 05:10:13
If you (or anyone else!) enjoy WHFB, then by all means, fantastic.
I'd suggest looking for WHFB 3rd edition + Warhammer Armies. A lot more straightforward. You'd be able to find them if you look in the right places.
I'd also strongly suggest trying out Kings of War - All rules (and army lists) available for free from Mantic's website, and perfectly compatible with most Warhammer models.
Mantic also have the core rules for Dreadball available online now too. Dreadball does appear to have a load of special rules but in reality the vast majority of them only relate to the special character equivalents.
I think the most rules any specific team has is maybe 4. And that's only really the season 3 teams.
Dropzone commander has somewhat complicated rules. Its one of those games that has so many potential choices you can theoretically do, that the rulebook needs to cover all the bases. In saying that, the rulebook is incredibly concise, being not very many pages long. The only real difficulty is, deciding 'I want to do X' then understanding whether the rule will let you or not. Its a lot easier if you're learning the game from an experienced player, who can immediately tell you 'no sorry you can't do X, but you can do Y and this is where Y is allowed.' Also, make sure to watch the beasts of war demo video too. That pretty much covers the core of the game entirely. Its only really when you try to do something 'weird' that you find your self potentially confused.
Dropzone Commander is an amazing game and is definitely my GOTO 40k replacement now.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 08:53:07
melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
In WM the complexity comes from different rules and combos interacting. The core game is easilying the quickest to pick up from a demo, but it takes many many games to grasp the nuances.
But isn't this how 40K and WHFB (and Malifaux) work too? The core concepts are relatively straightforward and easy to understand; but the actual game depends on a bunch of special rules for each model that you have to memorise and pull off, with only a bit of necessary lip service to manoeuvre, flanking moves, corridors of fire, and other jiggery pokery like that?
(I mention Malifaux because it seems a similar concept. I've a bit of experience with that, and I've seen it praised as tactical, due to it's combos, with a straight face, while some monster chews through half the other team because it's veritable novella of special rules is so much better than anything on the other side.)
Moktor wrote:If you are playing because you like the models, fluff, or gazillions of dice of Warhammer, then go have fun! But the rules will remain difficult to understand and unbalanced.
Some people don't seem to understand. When you buy into one of these prefab, one-stop, box-set games, you're not legally obliged to keep all aspects of it 'official' and 'exclusive' and joined at the hip, and play it as-is. You're not voiding any warranties if you tinker with it. Keep the models. Keep the fluff. Keep a big bag of dice lying around, if that's what, er, floats your boat. But try different rules if the original rules do your head in. This is especially true for fairly generic settings like Warhammer and 40K.
But isn't this how 40K and WHFB (and Malifaux) work too? The core concepts are relatively straightforward and easy to understand; but the actual game depends on a bunch of special rules for each model that you have to memorise and pull off, with only a bit of necessary lip service to manoeuvre, flanking moves, corridors of fire, and other jiggery pokery like that?
I disagree. I also read the WM rules and find the basic game FAR easier to grasp than WFB. Also, I bought two starter boxes to play right away. WFB has so many combinations at the basic level that even making an army list is a chore. Even if models have special rules, the cards have them all. Just look at them and you're set. There's no shuffling a hundred pages just to know how charges work for this type of model, or those damn charts to hit, to wound, etc...
Some people don't seem to understand. When you buy into one of these prefab, one-stop, box-set games, you're not legally obliged to keep all aspects of it 'official' and 'exclusive' and joined at the hip, and play it as-is. You're not voiding any warranties if you tinker with it. Keep the models. Keep the fluff. Keep a big bag of dice lying around, if that's what, er, floats your boat. But try different rules if the original rules do your head in. This is especially true for fairly generic settings like Warhammer and 40K.
If they charge so much for their ruleset, at least we should expect some quality. I'm no game designer. I want to get a ruleset and play, not make one.
Smacks wrote: I think Infinity is very easy, and getting easier (come 3rd edition). There is a sort of polymorphism to the design. Once you understand the system, everything works the same way. So the only things you have to remember are the unit and weapon stats.
In a lot of ways 40k 2nd edition was like that. The game was fairly simple and easy to remember and a lot of the complexity was derived from the stats. 3rd edition changed all that, and I think that's when 40k became a bit of a mess. They got rid of stuff like the movement characteristic, and the weapon damage characteristic in order to "streamline" the game. But then it didn't make any sense that a lascannon inflicts the same number of wounds as a bow & arrow (I.e. one wound) -- or that fast units like genestealers move the same speed as lumbering terminators. Obviously the bits they cut out actually served an important function, and were required to play the game. But instead of admitting the error and putting them back, they decided to make up loads of ad hoc special rules to plug the holes. Things like Instant Death, and Fleet. So now instead of having to remember a simple stat, you have to remember a completely different process for moving and shooting.
I think the worst company for rules though are Fantasy Flight. Not because they write bad rules, but because they seem to be able to take quite simple ideas and present them in the most mind numbingly complicated way imaginable. Trying to figure out an FF game for the first time is always painful. I still actually haven't figured out how to play the Space Hulk card game. I even watched a youtube video explaining it, but somewhere between phases and facings I think I just got bored and decided to play something else.
I've gotta disagree about 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition. You might say 2ed was simple (I think it was still relatively complex, with lots of special rules floating around), but mostly it was extremely clunky. With the switch to 3rd, they attempted to streamline the game, and I think they largely succeeded. I agree they shouldn't have ditched the Movement stat - that alone has caused no end of trouble for future editions. Switching to the AP/cover system was probably not a good idea; neither was retaining the vast gulf in rules between infantry and vehicles (otherwise known as the story of why every walker wants to be a monstrous creature). But the general thrust of things was an improvement in terms of number of rules to remember and the speed you could finish even larger games.
GW's mistake was that they didn't go far enough with 3rd, or failing that at least push it further with 4th edition. While 3rd had issues (and we are still living with those issues today in W40k 3.4ed) it was a step in the right direction. So in my opinion 4th should have been to 3rd as 3rd was to 2nd - another serious attempt at streamlining the game for large scale battles. Instead things just get more complicated every edition. Things seem to have stabilized somewhat in 7th (barely any changes over 6th, and consolidating codex rules into USR's), but they've chosen to stabilize the game at a very bad point if you ask me.
Long story short, I think neither 2nd nor 3rd were good rule sets, but they were good starting points. They should have forked the game at the 2nd/3rd split - evolve the 2nd edition rules into a more advanced, streamlined skirmish system (what Kill Team wishes it was), and evolved the 3rd edition rules into a more advanced, streamlined large battle system.
Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
I disagree. I also read the WM rules and find the basic game FAR easier to grasp than WFB.
That's, er, kind of in line with what I said.
Even if models have special rules, the cards have them all. Just look at them and you're set. There's no shuffling a hundred pages just to know how charges work for this type of model, or those damn charts to hit, to wound, etc...
I used to think the same thing, when I started Malifaux. "Coo, it's good 'n' convenient, innit?" But I swapped shuffling a hundred pages for peering at a pile of cards, wondering which of many convoluted moves to pick, and if the stars were aligned just right for it. Amounts to the same thing.
If they charge so much for their ruleset, at least we should expect some quality.
You'd think so, but they do, and we can't. Not much good railing against the unfairness of it, not if you also expect GW to listen. You either dump it, stew in it, or try to make it work for you.
I'm no game designer. I want to get a ruleset and play, not make one.
I don't recall telling you to. In fact, looking at my first post in this topic...
I would say that learning any game, but in particular Warhammer and 40k, is more of a group effort.
By that I mean I don't think it's possible to learn the rules fully by just reading the book.
The rules come by making mistakes and within your group of friends and one of your friends remembering that rule at just the right moment, almost like a gestalt consciousness.
So I guess what I'm saying is nobody knows the rules straight away on their own, you kind of pick it by osmosis over time by playing within a group.
You won't get it right the first few times but eventually it will become second nature.
I also find watching battle reports online or hanging around forums and asking questions helps too.
The most important thing at the early stages is to make sure you get your army list right, as there's nothing worse than putting all your models together and realising that you can't use some of them.
I used to think the same thing, when I started Malifaux. "Coo, it's good 'n' convenient, innit?" But I swapped shuffling a hundred pages for peering at a pile of cards, wondering which of many convoluted moves to pick, and if the stars were aligned just right for it. Amounts to the same thing.
I find the Malifaux cards much easier, because each rule explains exactly what happens and how it interacts. Sure there's a lot of combo's and synergy, but all the information you need is right in front of you and you rarely need to look at the actual rules.
Compare that to 40K, where the unit has a codex entry, which gives you a list of special rule names. You then have to look up each rule in the BRB, and the chances are at least one of them will simply say "Rule X: confers Y on unit" so you then need to look that up too.
I have to say that apart from some historical simulations that model *everything* (windspeed & direction, rain, etc), GW rules are by far the most complicated to read, whilst still being the vaguest and most tactically shallow.
If you like the Warhammer Fantasy world, and your opponent agrees, then use your GW minis (and any others you like) with Kings Of War. Same flavour, much clearer and faster.
Smacks wrote: I think the worst company for rules though are Fantasy Flight. Not because they write bad rules, but because they seem to be able to take quite simple ideas and present them in the most mind numbingly complicated way imaginable. Trying to figure out an FF game for the first time is always painful. I still actually haven't figured out how to play the Space Hulk card game. I even watched a youtube video explaining it, but somewhere between phases and facings I think I just got bored and decided to play something else.
ABSOLUTELY! This. With every single game... We always take one night just to unbox and read the rules before having people over to play the game. Chits and tokens and special dice and more chits and cards to mark things that most people could just remember. OH man, I love/hate FF so much. Like, I want to spit in their face, then lick it off.
Speaking from personal experience, it is possible to learn most systems just from the rulebook, that's kind of the point of it. Infinity I had the most difficulty with as the translated free rulebook is a bit all-over-the-place in terms of formatting and layout, but by comparison, I found 40k, WFB, Malifaux and Deadzone easy enough to learn from the books.
Being essentially the rules and intro guy for my now-defunct gaming group, I've basically had to learn these games without an opponent introduce them to new players.
Smacks wrote: I think the worst company for rules though are Fantasy Flight. Not because they write bad rules, but because they seem to be able to take quite simple ideas and present them in the most mind numbingly complicated way imaginable. Trying to figure out an FF game for the first time is always painful. I still actually haven't figured out how to play the Space Hulk card game. I even watched a youtube video explaining it, but somewhere between phases and facings I think I just got bored and decided to play something else.
ABSOLUTELY! This. With every single game... We always take one night just to unbox and read the rules before having people over to play the game. Chits and tokens and special dice and more chits and cards to mark things that most people could just remember. OH man, I love/hate FF so much. Like, I want to spit in their face, then lick it off.
Now, my only experience with FFG is Android Netrunner, but I think those rules are pretty well written. I for one had no problem understanding them at a first read.
Paradigm wrote: Speaking from personal experience, it is possible to learn most systems just from the rulebook, that's kind of the point of it. Infinity I had the most difficulty with as the translated free rulebook is a bit all-over-the-place in terms of formatting and layout, but by comparison, I found 40k, WFB, Malifaux and Deadzone easy enough to learn from the books.
Being essentially the rules and intro guy for my now-defunct gaming group, I've basically had to learn these games without an opponent introduce them to new players.
They learn WFB from you? 40K? How did you managed to explain every detail about each kind of weapon to them? Did they remember it all every game session?
Paradigm wrote: Speaking from personal experience, it is possible to learn most systems just from the rulebook, that's kind of the point of it. Infinity I had the most difficulty with as the translated free rulebook is a bit all-over-the-place in terms of formatting and layout, but by comparison, I found 40k, WFB, Malifaux and Deadzone easy enough to learn from the books.
Being essentially the rules and intro guy for my now-defunct gaming group, I've basically had to learn these games without an opponent introduce them to new players.
They learn WFB from you? 40K? How did you managed to explain every detail about each kind of weapon to them? Did they remember it all every game session?
Honest question, no irony whatsoever.
Well, I could never get any of them into WFB, but yes, I've taught a good half a dozen poeple over the years to play 40k. I go through the motions of starting off with a small game and working up from there. I general, I'll teach the core rules and whatever is needed for some intro games, and then they learn from their codex how that works with the game at large, so it's not like I'm teaching by wrote the stats for every model/weapon, more the principles of the rules rather than the numbers if you will. Obviously it's not an overnight thing, but after a few games I find most people can play a game with little/no instruction well enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 14:19:29
Herzlos wrote: But if you take X-Wing or Malifaux for example, after a few *turns* most people can play with little/no instruction.
Possibly true. I can't speak for X-wing, but Malifaux benefits from having a single mechanic (two if you count the two types of duels), but in terms of learning to play it may suffer as literally every model has a different set of abilities. This is a very cool thing, but I can see it being daunting for a new player compared to, say, SM, where 70% of the army have bolters and the same BS.
Either way, I'm not arguing that 40k is simpler, just that it can be learnt from the book.
The mechanic is pretty simple though, you flip a card and add that to your attack stat, and they flip a card and add it to the defend stat, attacker needs to match or exceed defenders total.
Having the attack/defend/range on the cards really helps, as there is essentially only 1 table (the flip modifier based on much you win a duel by).
Herzlos wrote: The mechanic is pretty simple though, you flip a card and add that to your attack stat, and they flip a card and add it to the defend stat, attacker needs to match or exceed defenders total.
Having the attack/defend/range on the cards really helps, as there is essentially only 1 table (the flip modifier based on much you win a duel by).
Like I said, I agree, the core of Malifaux is simple enough to learn, and the same can be said for Infinity's F2F rolls. The learning curve with those two games, perhaps unlike 40k, is that especially in Malifaux, you have to learn what exactly each model is capable of, which is perhaps less simple than in 40k where there is a lot more similarity within factions and two statlines tells you all you need to know.
I don't think 40K or WFB are that much more complex than other games, but I do think the rules are so horribly written and poorly organized that it appears far more complex than it is.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
@Tannerhauser42.
40k and WHFB are not complex games.(They have very simple game play functions and interactions.)
However, WHFB and 40k (especially) have over complicated rules , as they uses multiple systems to cover the same function.
Most other game write rules focusing on the end game play.(Well defined, concise intuitive rules .)
WHFB and 40k have rules written to sell the latest releases short term.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: I've gotta disagree about 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition. You might say 2ed was simple (I think it was still relatively complex, with lots of special rules floating around), but mostly it was extremely clunky. With the switch to 3rd, they attempted to streamline the game, and I think they largely succeeded. I agree they shouldn't have ditched the Movement stat - that alone has caused no end of trouble for future editions. Switching to the AP/cover system was probably not a good idea; neither was retaining the vast gulf in rules between infantry and vehicles (otherwise known as the story of why every walker wants to be a monstrous creature). But the general thrust of things was an improvement in terms of number of rules to remember and the speed you could finish even larger games.
3rd edition played faster, but I don't think it had anything to do with the rules being less complex. If anything I felt shooting and assaulting became much more complicated. I still don't know WTF was going on when you had three units locked in combat with different wound allocation stuff. The reason 3rd played so much faster was because they introduced rules such as Sweeping Advances which meant an entire squad could be wiped out on a single dice roll. They also got rid of a lot of the things that interrupted the game. In 2nd edition there was a lot of stopping to roll on result tables. Smoke grenades, vortex grenades, flamed units 'on fire', vehicles damaged or out of control: everything had a result table. These weren't complicated by any means, but they did slow the game down. GW also made squads much more uniform, by removing their wargear options and removing the distinction between different CC weapons.
I don't feel any of these changes reduced the complexity of the core rules. Rather they reduced the players ability to build complex squads, and made those squads die faster.
