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.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.

I don't really think that's a great measure of depth as just because a computer can have a decision tree based on all possible game outcomes only an exceptional human would be able to do something similar so in practice it's not a useful measure of complexity. A chess computer might know all possible game outcomes (roughly 10^120) and be able to narrow down on the most likely one to win the game currently being played, a game like 40k might have many more possible outcomes but the decision tree for any given moment in the game isn't necessarily all that complicated.

You could program a computer to always make the "right" choice in a game like 40k as well, it's just the random element means even if you always make the right choice it doesn't mean the computer would always win.

I just don't think anyone would bother trying to write a good 40k playing code, not because it's hard but because people aren't going to be bothered.

HI folks.
if we limit the discussion to just war games , then the elements of the game play are much easier to define IMO.

I like to call all the decision making before the game starts, Strategic choices.

As this involves the strategic deployment of troops. EG force selection , the mission objectives and deployment on the table.(These are usually assigned at a strategic level by higher command level than ther players.)

I like to call the decision making in game the Tactical choices.
As these are game decisions made in response to the developing tactical situation as the game progresses.These represent the unit commanders/individuals taking on the spot tactical action to counter enemy action .

There are two sorts of war game-
Abstract, like Chess.With simple rules that just focus on tactical interaction between the players.The rules are simple as there is no direct real world counter part the players can use to guide them in the game play.

Simulation, like X-wing.These follow a well known real world concept to allow players to recreate combat types they have seen in films etc.
The level of rule complication can be higher in simulation type games , as long as the resulting game play is intuitive.

IMO the narrative in the game should be confined to the background of the forces, and the mission they are on.
To enrich the strategic elements of the game play, which do not have the depth of action and excitement the tactical in game actions have.

IMO, the game narrative gets the players to the table, after that the players generate their own narrative from clearly defined intuitive rules.

If players have to use narrative to explain away poor counter intuitive game play , then things have gone horribly wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.

The depth of knowledge about chess is far more important than that of knowledge about other games.

Humans haven't been able to beat supercomputers at chess for a while now.

The game is a lot more complex than you present, but it is indeed solved.


Do not forget that pro chess players generally have spent far more time perfecting their play than anyone in any other game discipline, so it doesn't make much sense to be reductive when talking about chess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

morgoth wrote:
In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.

I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.

In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.

That sounds a lot like: "I don't like 40K's complexity and I like WMH's complexity".

It's a valid opinion but I don't think it helps with the discussion.

I highly doubt WMH's complexity is more desirable than 40K's just based on its modularity.

One way to look at 40K is to say that many specific rules were regrouped under generic rules and their interactions managed within the core rules, which is a good thing we need a lot more of to call it all simple.

morgoth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

morgoth wrote:
In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.

I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.

In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.

That sounds a lot like: "I don't like 40K's complexity and I like WMH's complexity".

It's a valid opinion but I don't think it helps with the discussion.

I highly doubt WMH's complexity is more desirable than 40K's just based on its modularity.

One way to look at 40K is to say that many specific rules were regrouped under generic rules and their interactions managed within the core rules, which is a good thing we need a lot more of to call it all simple.

I actually don't really like either game for different reasons. I don't actually have a huge amount of experience with WMH to know if what I described is how WMH handles things

The thing I don't like about 40k's complexity is it comes from 40k's current iteration actually being based on a heavily simplified ruleset. The current 40k rules date back to 3rd edition when the goal was to heavily simplify and streamline the rules compared to 2nd edition which was a bit of a mess.

The complexity we have now in 40k comes from the developers wanting more variety but also not wanting to rewrite the core rules, so they've just stacked special rule on top of special rule on top of exceptions to special rules to make it work.

I think the movement system is a good example. 3rd edition got away from using a movement characteristic - thus they simplified the stat line. But all that means is to have variety in the way units move you need complicated rules to handle lots of different situations and unit types - thus added complexity to both core rules and additional special rules.

A movement stat, IMO, is a better way to go, it is simpler and inherently allows for a wide variety with minimal special rules and exceptions.

I think in if you ever write a set of rules for something like, I dunno, a certain unit type, and those rules consume a whole page, maybe you should be asking yourself "why?", and I don't think that's a question GW have asked of 40k for a while.

KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:

Diversity

Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.

There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.

I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.

So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.

Davor wrote:

KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:

Diversity

Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.

There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.

I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.

So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.

What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.

Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.

 KiloFiX wrote:

Davor wrote:

KiloFiX wrote:Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:

Diversity

Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.

There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.

I don't get it. Diversity? Now we are throwing in a new word. How is that any different from depth? If it's not depth then how is it different from rules bloat or just added extra rules? Doesn't diversity mean something different? So that would be like saying someone finds baseball boring but finds hockey exciting because it has more action. So the diversity is that it plays differently. Or in 40K terms someone wants more diversity, you don't play X-wing from 40K because it's still a miniature game so they go onto playing poker or Magic the Gathering or video games. To me that is diversity.

So not sure how diversity comes into play say something like 40K vs Age of Sigmar to X wing. They are all the same. Miniature games.

What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.

Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.

I believe the classic solution is for the designer to suggest sticking cocktail sticks to the models.

This raises a question. Should I chaosify my white or black chess pieces?

@KiloFix.
I you want the different units to behave and interact differently enough to make diverse tactical interaction happen naturtaly from straight forward rules.
You simply have to make sure the stat line is doing its job properly.

Otherwise you end up with simple stat lines that means nothing much in game terms, so you have to rely heavily on special rules to add this difference back in later.

Why can so many other war games have such tactical depth and diversity , with rule set many times less complicated than 40k 7th ed?

Well its because the rules are written with the specific game play in mind.(Rather than just short sighted focus on short term sales like GW do.)

I'm sorry if someone said this already, but a game can be as complex as you are willing to make it be so. In meaning, it depends entirely on who I choose to play. Look at M:tG, you can play aggro weenie rush, or you can play superfriends. You can play slivers, or elves. All have varying levels of complexity. Do I choose to have a turn where I draw a card, play a land, play a creature, attack, resolve damage and end my turn, or do I use planeswalkers that I can activate multiple times a turn, every turn (Teferi + Chain Veil)? Do we play a counterspell game or a Storm game?

Warhammer has the same choices. Did you bring models that can move in the movement phase? Or models that can use psychic powers? or able to shoot? or supposed to win in assault? did you bring buffing units or more guns? Do you choose to use the erratas, or use the rules that you are entitled to in your units? For instance, I play Tau, and I make a conscious decision as to how I wish to play, (what level I choose to play at against a player, beginning, casual, or WAC?) Do I use the EWOs on my stormurge, or my Target locks on my suits? did I bring markerlights?

Warmachine is another one. . . do you use a jack army or choose to use combined arms? or only the free points in jacks and the rest in infantry? Do you feat, or choose not to? When?

I think 40k has a split personality, it's either a war game that thinks it's a DnD game. Or it's a DnD game, trying to be a wargame, like historical wargame. To many books, to many random rolls.

 KiloFiX wrote:

What I mean by diversity is simply, Space Marines look and play differently from Eldar.

Even if you have perfectly low rules complexity and perfectly high tactical depth, some people might not be happy with Space Marines vs Space Marines.

I get it now. I would take that as depth not diversity, like how the Chess pieces play differently from each other than say like checkers. I see where you are coming from thanks for you explanation. Too bad we had this "diversity" but GW had to give rules that Eldar/Tyranids have and give it to everyone so Space Marines could get those rules for free.

Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same. There does the depth/diversity of the game now.

Hopefully 8th edition fixes this and does an Age of Sigmar by throwing the baby with the bath water this time but this time don't be lazy and do an actual reboot of the game.

Davor wrote:

Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.

I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.

My personal rubric for gaming enjoyment prioritizes ease of play and low complexity. I like tactical enjoyment but not enough to move up in complexity. For me, almost nothing justifies high levels of complexity, layers of special rules, etc .

Thus for me, I can immediately discard games like Warmachine and virtually all editions of 40k along with games like Battletech as well.

That is not to say that all simple games are my cup-o-tea, but there are more than enough games that offer a streamlined game experience and tactical choices. Games like Song of Blades, Dragon Rampant, Alpha Strike, Mech Attack and Kings of War offer such experiences.

morgoth wrote:

Davor wrote:

Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.

I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.

What did I say that is false?

‘Complex’ is the opposite of ‘simple’; ‘complicated’ is more like the opposite of ‘easy’.

The two are often related (with complex things being complicated and vice versa), but not always.

If something is complex, it means that its structure is not simple; it may be made up of many parts and/or its component parts may be connected together in a non-trivial way.

If something is complicated, then it is difficult to use.

Important distinction.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction

I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.

OT: what the OP referred to as rules complexity is really called complication. All the procedures a player must complete to resolve a given situation. Roll a die and consult a chart--> simple. Roll multiple dice ( to hit and then to wound) with each requiring charts of their own, and then roll more dice for saves of some sort -->Needlessly complicated. Because it can be done with 2 dice rolls. And one chart. Call this mechanical complication. Rules complication, this comes when there are so many rules that determining the interactions becomes a chore.

 Red Harvest wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction

I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.

Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction

I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.

Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.

3e also finally rid the game of THAC0, thank the gods!

For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)

System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)

Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction

I think he referred to the original game -- OD&D, which had none of the nonsense you cite. Nor did AD&D 1e have much of it. (It did have a profusion of charts.) 2e was published to spite Gygax.

Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.

3e also finally rid the game of THAC0, thank the gods!

For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)

System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)

Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.

The Auld Grump

I see the same rage 4E D&D brought to the fore that AoS brought to the WHFB, and GW being unwilling to admit they may have ticked off a portion of their customer base. Personally, I see a lot of parallels to the rise of 9th Age and Kings of War to games like Pathfinder, Dungeon Crawl Classics and the OSR movement. With the coming 8th edition of 40K, I'm wondering what lessons Games Workshop will have taken away from AoS - do they see it as a financial coup and will do the same to 40K - blow up the galaxy and a revamped system the old guard hates - or did they feel a sting with customers leaving and may pull a 5th edition (D&D) remake trying to streamline rules with nods to the past and only slight touches to the fluff? The way they did the FAQ, and the fact there's been no widespread playtest among the fanbase makes me think the former is coming, not the latter. I get the impression they feel boxed in by 30-year-old fluff and rules, and are eager to heave it out the window and start anew - in the same sort of manner Disney dumped Star Wars expanded universe, but is pulling in the "best" bits into what is essentially new material (Rogue One, Rebels, even the "alternate future" of The Force Awakens).

In other words, I don't think that GW has learned they need to put the proper analysis into their ruleset - they're going to continue to wing it, basing the rules off the model and not any sort of in-game balancing and study of game mechanics & interactions.

Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.

GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.

On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.

Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.

That was kinda okay. RT feels like a wargame/RPG hybrid that even encourages having a game master so one could actually "forge the narrative" and collaborate. The game grew into a real skirmish game (2nd edition) and moved to todays quasi-Epic but never lost abilities that rely on arbitrary randomness.

 Stormonu wrote:
Hey, watch it - 2E was the highlight of my D&D years, so don't try and put words in my mouth. 1E did have a lot of different systems (Thief chances, Ranger surprise rolls, psionics, etc.) compared to 3E's unified system, but I was never satisfied with 1E. Never got to experience OD&D, beyond a short stint of Holmes basic.

Not my intent to put words in your mouth, which is why I said that "I think you meant..." rather than saying, "you meant...". No matter. Holmes Basic should have given you a good glimpse of the original game. Overall, 2e was very much not to my liking, but I started with Holmes in '78, then onto the 3 LBBs before there was even an AD&D players handbook, so I freely admit my bias for the original and then for 1e, flawed as they were. However, the point of the game was to enjoy playing, and if you enjoyed 2e, that's great. I won't hold it against you.

As an "Old School" player, I like 5e. It's not perfect. Nothing is. But it represents a significant reduction in all the complications that crept into the game.

Wait, what's the opinion on AoS again - according to the low / high rules / tactical complexity framework?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
3e also finally rid the game of THAC0, thank the gods!

For 2e and late 1e the thing that stood out was the excellence of much of the setting material, and the settings themselves. (I loved Birthright and Ravenloft - and I still run the campaign that had its roots in A Mighty Fortress.)

System wise, 2e started strong and then started falling apart at the edges. (Not consistently - I liked the Player's Options books, but then you had The Complete Book of Elf Cheese....)

Until 4e, I liked each iteration of the game better than the one before. I might like 5e, if ever I have cause to play it. But 4e... ticked me off something wicked.

The Auld Grump

Give 5e a look, it is very much a back to basics version. 4e was a skirmish game rather than a RPG, really. Not a bad one either,from what I've see.

I had to look THAC0 up. I had forgotten what a mess it was. For those of you who do not know...

THAC0-- To Hit Armor Class Zero (0)-- is determined by consulting a chart, and then is modified by a variety of situational bonuses and subtractions. Beginning THAC0 was 20 for all characters.

Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THAC0 (if the Armor Class is a negative number, one adds it to the THAC0) The Character has to roll the resulting number or higher on a d20 in order to hit. There were many potential modifiers. Lots of 'procedure' here.

Previously (to the THAC0 system) the rule was: consult a chart that cross references character class+level with target AC and roll that number or higher. The die roll was modified, not the target number and not the target AC, by bonuses/subtractions. There were some potential modifiers. Perhaps too many.

Current rule is: roll a d20. Modify the role with bonuses/subtractions. If it equals or exceeds target AC, the character hits. There are also very few modifiers. Most are handled by giving the action an advantage or disadvantage, rather than adjusting target numbers or dice rolls. Simples.

The THAC0 system is an example of a complication, especially compared to the current rule. It added nothing to the complexity of the game play.

(To be fair, the 2e initiative system was much nicer than the 1e version. The 1e version was complication times ten. Ugh.)

Game play improves, IMHO, when the game's procedures are just enough and no more to get the job done.

I

I agree with Peregrine and Extra Credit in that the question of complexity is ultimately a cost/benefit analysis.

Every rule costs you something in terms of game design.

The salient question is how much bang you get for your buck.

People have different ideas about what sort of value proposition they are willing to accept in a game, and that seems to be the OP's question.

The difficulty is that the answer is largely a matter of individual taste.

That said, I think we can all agree that more depth in fewer rules is always more valuable. In other words, the more 'value' a rule provides in terms of player choice, outcome variance, etc. etc., the better.

Of course, a game system is a gestalt of all the rules, and so you have to look at the 'value' of the system as a whole rather than the value of specific rules in isolation. This is not to say that a minor change to a rule set cannot have a strong impact on the 'value' of other rules in the system, hence the ubiquitous 'house rule'.

But riding on top of all of this cerebral BS is the question of experience. And that's an elusive beast. It's why there are so many different games with very, very similar rules systems. I mean, take any wargame and you are looking at broad swath of fairly universal rules concepts.

As game designers, we are all chasing the dragon, trying to find that perfect mix tailored to titillate our target audience. It's like making a common recipe, such as pumpkin pie. Everyone uses mostly the same ingredients, the process is by and large the same, but there's a wide world of sensory variation from inedible to incomprehensibly divine. And while you can set some broad benchmarks for quality, to the individual consumer, personal taste and preference is a big part of the equation.

And that's because we're not very different at the end of the day.

HI folks.
I believe the game play complexity should be set to suit the target audience.
If its a game for 8 years and up, then it is going to much simpler than a challenging war game for mature experienced war gamers.

I try to use the term complexity to mean multiple interconnected functions/interactions.
EG It is a tactically complex because lots of elements of game play interact to give the end result .

And complicated to describe unnecessary instructions /elements , that just add to the level of confusion without adding anything meaningful to the game play.

So I agree with others that the optimum game play complexity is established first.(Eg part of the primary design brief to attract the primary demographic.)

But what ever the level of game play complexity, the level of over complication in the rules should be kept to a minimum.

Eg game play complexity is a matter of personal preference, but over complicated rules are always bad.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Another aspect of complexity is the addition of random elements that limit the effectiveness of tactics - increased random chance aids the inexperienced player.

GW is not alone in that regard, nor is it a recent problem for GW - random wonkiness in GW games go back to at least Rogue Trader and Realms of Chaos.

On the flip side, there are those games that eliminate random chance entirely chess is one example, the old but excellent Trillion Credit Squadron for Traveller is another - but in general I do like having some measure of random chance, I just don't like it driving the game.

Not exactly sure where the 'funny' aspects of some of the AoS warscrolls falls in regards to complexity - I think that sometimes there are things that count as 'just plain dumb'.

The Auld Grump

I actually think the random elements work both ends; they reward players able to contingency plans and make risk/reward decisions, as well as giving 'come back opportunities' to novices that really have nothing to lose.

Davor wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Davor wrote:

Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.

I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.

What did I say that is false?

Your statement is not proper English, and its contents are the reflection of a poor understanding of the game.

Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.

I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)

morgoth wrote:

Davor wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Davor wrote:

Pretty sad we had this depth, or diversity but to make Space Marines better and or cheaper with new rules and no points added GW took away the differences what made other armies different and no wonder a lot of the units now play like they are the same.

I wonder if anyone who does play the game regularly and competitively agrees with your statement.

What did I say that is false?

Your statement is not proper English, and its contents are the reflection of a poor understanding of the game.

Go ask a serious 40K player if he feels CentuBomb plays like ScreamerStar.

I'm picking, on purpose, two armies that are psy-deathstar-based so that you may be as close as possible (no point in asking whether gladius marines play like scatbike Eldar ...)

Not a clue what you said. Sorry I am not nerdish/geekish enough to understand that. Not proper English? CentuBomb and ScreamerStar is proper English. Even the autocorrect doesn't recognize it. So what is not proper English that I didn't say?

Let's see. There was movement stats. Now Everyone moves 6". Now it's less complex or diverse. Also Space Marines got a free 2" boost while other armies like Eldar and Tyranids have become slower while paying more points or no point reduction to compensate.

Now Space Marines no longer have to choose what grenades or missiles they must take. They have both now. Maybe that is different that they don't have to choose but other armies still have to choose either this or that.

Shall I go on, or is that not proper English for you, or nerdy enough?

I do think a game can be over-complex, but it's a scale that depends in part on the audience/players. For ex. I love the aesthetics of Infinity but I feel like their rules system is an over-complicated mess with tons of special rules and most rules having multiple levels (some that trump others) it just makes it ridiculous.

The tactical movement that's inherent in the base system, the shooting/overwatch, the opposed rolls are all great and do add tactical choices. The 17 different hacking devices and levels of martial arts no so much.

On the opposite side of the spectrum of games I'm familiar with enough to speak on is 40k. The way the system is built mechanically with d6s and combat charts means there's very little gradation, there's not a spectrum of chances really. In addition the simplistic move/shoot/assault means there's not many tactical decisions outside of which unit to target.

Warmachine is my in the middle game, there's tactical choices in how spells and feats are employed, and they have gotten a lot of special rule bloat but there's not a bunch of different versions of the Stealth or Gunslinger abilities for ex..

---

I would say complexity is having multiple ways to approach the game or situations in the game. So it would be a game that could handle forces that are represented as stealthy and quick, slow and powerful, etc. It would be say having all the DnD classes playable. Lack of complexity is the stereotypical everyone is space marines - everyone hits at a certain number, armour saves on a certain number, etc.

A good level of complexity is where I have choices and abilities that can allow my preferred approach to situations in game. A bad level of complexity is where I need to constantly look at the rulebook to figure out what certain things do.