I got back into 40k just before Christmas and although I love painting the models I'm finding the gameplay plain difficult and dis-jointed.

Now it may just be me but I find most games typically follow he following breakdown:

40% playing the game
50% reading he rule book
20% in discussions of the result of reading he rulebook.

now it could because I'm new and eventrually I'll just get it, but I'm finding this format not very enjoyable at he moment, it also doesn't help when we get confused wih previous editions and FAQ being thrown in the mix. I seem to spend far more time reading and discussing rules han playing.

Does anyone else find this or is it just me?

Besides the cost (another beaten to death discussion) I'm finding this pushing me away from GW and considering other brands for the first time, namlythe Mantic Deadzone and Warpath for he selling point of them being faster paced and easier to play.


thoughts?

How many previous edition changes have you been through?

There's always a transition period. This is my third edition switch, and this one happens to have a lot of little fiddly rules and changes. It probably took me 40-50 games before I really felt comfortable with this edition, but then, I play often enough and really work at mastering the rules, so for me "comfortable" means knowing the rules really well.

I don't think this editions rules are any more complex than the last. If anything, I'd say they're simpler (not based on any evidence, just gut instinct).

They unified a lot of edge case rules. If you both know your armies well enough, the core rules are pretty darn easy to learn .

I believe this is the effect of this random edition, you have to consult a table for this, and a table for that, roll 42D6 because random is fun, hell, daemons can even play by themselves if you just roll on that warp storm table!

That and many of the rules just aren't very well-written, too many contradictions here and there, just look at YMDC in this forum, it's bloody in there. Once you got used to most of the core rules though, it's mostly just flipping back and forth for those all-so-fun random tables as you roll all those random dice for the random effects on the random table in the book of randomness!

So, I'd say it's half and half, partly because you're new, partly because GW just write craptastic rules.

well I got out at 2nd then back in with this edition change so I would say I was starting fresh.

I would certainly agree with lots of fiddly and niggly rules.

Maybe Its he quantity I need, typically I will only get one game a week and that is taking most he evening at the moment (600pts).

I would agree that for me comfortable would be the stage where the game play and pace is he majority of game.

I agree the core of the game is simple, move, shoot, assault even with checking tables every few seconds!

Coming back to 40k recently after leaving over a year ago because I found 5th edition to be absolutely unplayable (especially balance-wise), I found 6th edition to be a lot better written, with clear, easy-to-learn and intuitive rules.

So you could say my experience has been quite the opposite of yours.

Looking into other games is never a bad thing, however. I did so for a year, and it is lots of fun. I am now a big fan of Warmachine/Hordes and the relatively young game Godslayer, both of which are awesome. I also really like Infinity, although I never quite played it enough to really know the rules by heart.

Baronyu wrote:

That and many of the rules just aren't very well-written, too many contradictions here and there, just look at YMDC in this forum, it's bloody in there.

This. It is like this in every edition of 40K. It's not that there is lots of rules. It's just it's lots of rules that are not well-written and too many contradictions as Baronyu said. 4th edition was what, one of the most simplified, streamlined versions of the game? Or was that 3rd?

Anyway there was always arguing how the rules worked. Look at YMDC, before 6th edition and you will see pages apon pages of how the rules worked for 3rd, (was Dakka around for 3rd?) 4th, and 5th edition.

GW doesn't not know how to write out rules for 40K. Can't speak for Fantasy, but at least Lord of the Rings was pretty well written. So GW just doesn't know how to WRITE, CLEAR, CONSISE rules for 40K.

TL;DR, 6th edition is not complicated, GW can't write clear concise rules for 40K. Almost all 40K editions were complicated because of poor written rules.

Dakka was originally started as a website in support of a local league playing 2nd ed 40k and Necromunda. The site's popularity first started going national and international during 3rd ed.

Each edition has generally gotten clearer and cleaner; 3rd was a big jump from 2nd, but got a bit messy with trial assault rules and revised vehicle rules published in White Dwarf partway through the edition. Then 4th was largely a cleanup and refinement, as was 5th.

6th has brought back some more detail in some places, and has made a lot of rules more model-centric and visually-oriented, like casualty/wound allocation to the closest model. It's a bit less abstract, less unit-to-unit, more focused on the positioning of the individual models. Which for some folks is very intuitive, and for others, used to more squad-focused games, feels fiddly and like a step backwards.

I think 5th was the best and overall clearest edition in terms of the rules, but the addition of allies to this edition, among a number of other changes, has opened up the metagame so wide and allowed such a larger number of armies to compete using different builds, that it's really refreshed my interest in and excitement for the game.

It takes a lot of matches to be fond of the rules but as time goes by, you will soon start being less and less in need of the rulebook all the time. Wound rules are very unintuitive and clunky, but you will get used to it. They certainly are a step-up from 5th and thus worth the additional effort.

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Hetelic wrote:

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Made me laugh too.

Hetelic wrote:

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Gah, you shouldn't have said that!
I just wanted to ask him how he can put 110% in a game, cause I want to do that too!

I feel there is tad too much "clutter" in 6th edition rules, particularly in the way battles are set up: if your army has lots of psychic powers and/or other similar abilities which has to be decided pre-battle, it can be chore to roll them all + warlord trait etc. And then of course mystery terrain & objectives etc. I'd never want to play Daemons with their enormous amount of random effects, Warpstorm and whatnot, and subsesquent book-keeping. None of them are unreasonable in isolation, but when you add it all up, it gets tiresome.

Also, there are some minor rules and abilities which just feel bit pointless and sometimes difficult to remember in heat of battle - abilities like Fear or Precision Fire etc.

Of course, in some ways rules were simplified and made less random than in 5th: reserves, Vehicle damage and Deep strike are all less random. Once the game gets going, I don't feel it is any slower or complicated than 5th - Wound allocation, once you get the hang of it, is faster & more intuitive, I also prefer 6th edition assault rules and that melee weapons have AP. But I just feel that few weeks of more playtesting and bit more streamlining the ruleset could have been improved.

I don't think they are "too complicated" rather than they added a lot of little things you have to roll for and such. Little things like Look Out, Sir! I forget half the time and don't really effect casual games. The core rules themselves are pretty solid, IMO. There's just a lot of discrepancies between the BRB and codexes that cause people to argue endlessly until an FAQ (hopefully) fixes the problem.

I am new tot he 40k game and I would agree it seems overly complicated. The thing that bothers me most is the fact there are all kinds of rules fould in all different places in different codexes etc.. It becomes hard to track down exactly where the rule is. You know you read something about it but can't remember where. Was that in the rule book, or in the codex??? Now what page was that again??? Somehow the rules need to be better organized so it is easier to find what you are looking for that is my main complaint. So maybe it is not a problem with complexity but a problem with organization.

Having all of the codexs for the different races makes for a rich background and tapestry for each, but I really have no hope of "knowing" the rules for some else's army. I have to take their word for it when they tell me a rule affecting their stuff. I am too new to say any different. That aspect kind of bugs me too.

I think that one of the things we're seeing in 6th is pushing the special rules into the BRB rather than having them all in the codex. So now a codex entry can just say "fleshbane" and we know what it is, as opposed to having multiple units and weapons across armies that are similar but not exact. Makes it easier to FAQ too (or so you would think). Part of the complication results from the overlap of non-updated codecies. I think that 6th is overall good, though there are still some cases where I think it is too specific and could be simplified.

They're less complicated than 2nd edition, so no.

It does feel complicated. If I play against a deamons or chaos codex I start to go a little cross eyed. I'm rolling for this and this and this. O and this guy has this or that plus this. I just have to take their word for it. To much to remeber on top of what I have so I just tell em to update me as we go:

Keeping track of random buffs isn't complex. It's not interesting either, but that's a whole separate thread.
Pen + paper = buffs + warp charges. Or if you're fancy you can even use some sort of newfangled electronic gizmo.

The learning process is quite difficult for the game. I'm in the same boat as the OP, in that I find myself taking 4 or 5 hours to play a relatively small game. But I do find that as the individual games go on I need to check certain things less and less. For example hit/wound/save rolls. I guess it will be the same for other rules.

The bit that annoys me is learning a rule after the game is finished. When you find you haven't applied something pretty important it's a bit of a pain in the ass. I do that a lot :|

Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp, the game isn't that random even though lots of whiners claim that rolling for warlord = whole game is lost on a dice roll.

Also check your figures, they add up to 110%

I think it's better than 12 years ago, when you had White Dwarf come out every month, with a new chapter in it, with new rules, and if you did not keep up with that, then you fell behind. (Having to buy a copy just to double check the White Scares player, who might forget his copy) But White Scares, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, all had Chapter Approved, and then there was IG all armor armies and their rules, and Ork-ish Human IG armies. Then the mini codex for Assassins which could be used by a lot of armies, then you had the Mini one for Catuchan Guard.
I do think 6th is getting close to things that drove me away from WFB, like having to roll to see what random magic thing was going to happen. Or when I got out of Hero Clix, when you had random effect cards. Not a fan of Warlord traits (that's why I buy HQs with effects that go to the army) or not knowing what power I will have (why I drifted away from Thousand Sons, which was not cheap having bought them all when they were metal, and hard to find around here.)
It's the little things that bog it down, and it's like they added to many little things, when they could have added say half of them, and then brought the rest in, in 7th.
At least the Hit/Wound/Save chart is like the same for years and years, but it has a pattern that makes it easy.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Hetelic wrote:

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Gah, you shouldn't have said that!
I just wanted to ask him how he can put 110% in a game, cause I want to do that too!

guess that gives me the answer to my problem! A little mince lol

MarsNZ wrote:
Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp,

I remember back when to figure out how far your vehicle moved if you didn't go in a straight line you had to figure out the arc of the curve, you had an entire flowchart to dictate how your robots moved, and the Ultramarines had a half-eldar Librarian.

Anyway, it's not just the OP, but I'm guessing it's because he's new with a three edition jump between his last games, and really, the only reason that you didn't YMDC as 'bloody' then as it is now is because wide spread easy internet access is a lot bigger than it was in the ye olden days. 40K in the current edition is a pretty simple and straight forward game.

Personally I think certain rules are just worded in a too complicated manner:
Examples

- "The unit suffers a number of Strength (X) hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the template"
Why not just say "each model under the template takes a Strength (X) hit?" I know this is to stop Barrage weapons sniping characters etc but it's just too unecessary to word it in that manner.

- "At the start of the fight sub-phase roll a D3. The enemy unit suffers a penalty to their Weapon Skill and Initiative values equal to the result of the D3 until the end of the phase".
Why not just say "Enemy units suffer a D3 penalty to their WS and I values for the rest of the phase."?

Erm, barrage can snipe characters. And if you say "each model under the template" people would argue that "oh, he's not completely under the template, thus not a model under the template".

They're more complicated than they need to be, 40k has more pages of rules than the vast majority of wargames out there. A big part of this is because 40k can't decide what it wants to be and what scale it wants to represent. We have rules for every possible form of close combat weapon and differentiations between every possible small arms, replete with rules for individual challenges and rules that cover each blow a model may may make against an opponent. Then at the other end of the spectrum 40k tries to also represent orbital bombardments, artillery fire, aircraft, squadrons of armor, allied forces of vast disparity, etc. 6E has exacerbated this more than any other edition, with more emphasis on both ends of the spectrum. The game doesn't know if it wants to play at an RPG level, a company wargame level, or a skirmish level. It's a mightily confused ruleset that can't make up its mind what it wants to be so it tries to be everything.


There are plenty of other games that cover almost as much with far fewer rules/space. A game of Heavy Gear can include 15ft tall mechs, heavy battle tanks, infantry formations, electronic warfare, airstrikes, artillery, and more, but doesn't get bogged down in the same things 40k does (it also uses 1/2-1/4 the models). Dropzone commander likewise has rules for a vast array of forces but doesn't get bogged down in the same tedious detail that 40k does. While 40k can still be fun, it's very obvious that at this point it's trying to be too many things at once.

6th edition isn't complicated at all. It's got a lot of additional rules, which means more to remember to do, but the mechanics of everything is very simple. The only real issue I have is remembering some of the new stuff added for 6th that doesn't get used very often, stuff like Deny the Witch.

The biggest issue isn't being complicated, it's being unclear. That's not the same thing.

If you want a system that's complicated and clearly written, go give Infinity a try. Have fun with Face to Face rolls.

Yes.

Each edition comes with these minor persnikity changes in the main rules and each codex and frankly I can't keep track of it any more.

And the addition of more and more and more random charts in 6th does nothing for me. Roll for warlord trait, roll for psy powers, roll for magic terrain powers...

@#$% it. I'm sitting this one out. Between $50 codexes, price hikes, finecast, and of course being overseas I just have no enthusiasm for the tabletop game.

6th edition is my first for 40K (played fantasy before that) and I agree there is allot of stuff you need to know, im struggling but each game you get better.

My advice would be to get an excel spread sheet, write out your army list and then specifically write out what unit special rules you have per unit and exactly what they do. Then print it out so you have a reference for the game.

For instance its not worth me writing "model X has stealth" I have to write "model X has stealth (which gives you +1 cover save... etc.... so I can easily refer to that during the game.

I have started to realize that things like points, weapon ranges, strength, etc... have begun to sink in for my army.

bodazoka wrote:
6th edition is my first for 40K (played fantasy before that) and I agree there is allot of stuff you need to know, im struggling but each game you get better.

My advice would be to get an excel spread sheet, write out your army list and then specifically write out what unit special rules you have per unit and exactly what they do. Then print it out so you have a reference for the game.

For instance its not worth me writing "model X has stealth" I have to write "model X has stealth (which gives you +1 cover save... etc.... so I can easily refer to that during the game.

Those kinds of rules aren't the problem. It's the little rules that sneak into the game that people just forget over the course of a game. Psychic powers is a good example. I always forget to do Blessings at the start of the turn. I always forget to do Deny the Witch on offensive powers. This is due to 40k not having a psychic system since 2nd edition, just having attacks that require a leadership roll to make.

The worst offender is the assault system and wound allocation. They change every edition. Considering I barely get a game in every month, when I finally get into a groove with them they get changed. Not more or less complicated, just different, and learning them all over again.

I still thinking adding rules for every ax, mace, maul, flail, hammer, fist, and chainsword was a bit much. Not only does it just get to be to much, when most of those weapons should fall under the same rules, but you have an issue I faced at change over. My Chaos Terminators had a power mace in one of their hands. One of my Space Marines had a Power Ax. Now, they were fine Power Weapons, and the look was a little extra cool and showed them as not having a normal sword. And being metal minis from years ago it's not like I can snap it off, even if I knew there would be a change, like I did when their base got larger as Eds passed. My Khorne Berserkers came out of the box with axes and swords, but if I want to use the axes, now I have to pay extra, and I have new rules, where if I knew there would be a change like that I would have found a way to use all swords...and who knows what the next change will bring, so why buy more or mess with what is there. I just have to roll hits/wounds separate.
I modeled some of my Chaos Marines with two pistols years ago, since it was two close combat weapons, and it made them look like gun swinging cowboys, then every Marine got a bolter and bolt pistol, and close combat weapon, so little changed, now we have gun slinger rules, so I have to watch using them so not to confuse anyone.

I read something the other day and looking at how my bro and i play the games trying to add stories with them... Jervis Johnson recomends using a GM like in the old days... perhaps if you have a third person (with my bro and I its just us right now) to write a story and be the rules guy on issues that come up and what he says goes etc and run and monitor the random stuff might make it a lot more fun as well as he has been mentioning and i think perhaps where they wanted to go with the game.

Games i played so far are not too bad. I forget minor rules.. the overall game play is the same for me and overall its all a lot easier to play than 1st and 2nd edition lol .

 Bookwrack wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp,

I remember back when to figure out how far your vehicle moved if you didn't go in a straight line you had to figure out the arc of the curve, you had an entire flowchart to dictate how your robots moved

Haha tell me about it, every vehicle had a unique damage chart, and the combat rules... wow. Somehow I still remember how to conduct a 2e assault flawlessly, probably because of the amount of study one had to do back then just to figure it out.

Haven't seen a 12" radius S6 (-3 save) explosion since the 'good old days' though.

TBH the biggest problem isn't that the rules are complicated, it's that there's no elegance at all to them. It's just a giant pile of changes on top of changes on top of changes, many of them clumsy in execution, with GW's traditional inability to write clear rules. So you have the obsolete core mechanics from the 1980s, but also whatever GW thought was the cool new idea for 2012. Meanwhile each codex has to be new and different (including way too many marine armies that exist just for the sake of having lots of different marine armies), so you've got tons of special rules that only apply to a unit or two.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know if it wants to play at an RPG level, a company wargame level, or a skirmish level. It's a mightily confused ruleset that can't make up its mind what it wants to be so it tries to be everything.

Exactly. Every edition GW just picks "all of the above" and you get your skirmish-scale wound allocation rules being used to turn artillery batteries into character snipers.

The rules are not complicated but the rule set is cluttered which makes them cumbersome.

I would simply remove some of the cinematic crap. I feel like this edition is a step backwards.

I hate the fact that LoS drawn model to model , but wound allocation is done unit vs unit. the rules are simple if you have 5 identical models fighting another 5 identical models. the problem starts when you are in melee with a 11 man GH squads he has a totem guy a WG and RP a hidden MoTW some normal dudes and some plasma dudes and you have a blob of 30 IG with 3 sgts and a comissar. then to get everything right you have to roll everything separate and it turns them game in to 3 hours chore.

Hi folks.
Just to say 40k has ALWAYS had complicated rules.
When you define complexity as lots of different systems to cover one function.

And simple game play when you define complexity as the amount of diversity the operation of the system/game.

2nd ed had very complicated rules, but also had lots of complexity in the game.

3rd ed onwards has most of the complexity stripped out to make way for the massive amount of over complication in the rules!

The CORE rules of 40k, cover standard infantry , with standard weapons.Which is about 20% of the game play.
The rest of the game play is covered with additional systems and exclusive rules.

This by definition makes 40k rules over complicated!

I started playing Warhammer 40k in 6th edition and I don't think it's too complicated. Before I started, I learnt a lot from Miniwargaming's bat-reps. Just by watching, I had the important rules down: Movement, Shooting and Assaulting phases rules.

After reading the rules and some games, me and my friends have the "basic" rules down, but ofc we still check the codex / rulebook for any special rule. There's loads of those and ofc we don't know them by heart.
Another thing I always check to make sure I'm doing it right is the movement for the different types of vehicles. Thankfully the tables at the end of the rulebook have all this.

This last weekend I was teaching a friend how to play 40k and a veteran player was helping me. He mentioned how everything was so simple nowadays compared to the 2nd edition. Hell, I was so surprised when he showed me his RT era Space Marine with the helmet attached to his leg, because he wanted him modeled that way, but if he didn't have an helmet the smoke would give him penalties

I wouldn't say this edition is complicated, so much as just tedious.

Too much dice-rolling. Too much randomess.

Agree with Bodazoka that writing stuff down helps alot - to be fair you are also less likely to "assume" that things are still the same - something that players of all abilities tend to do - we now try to enforce the check the rules first. Im my expereince Tournament players are often the worst offenders in this as they seem to assume they are right (even when they ae soooo not despite what they play in torunaments)

Alot of the problems IMO are due to the rules lawyers trying to constantly twist every little thing in their favour.............but that may be just me, I don't think its that complex compared to previous versions.

There are many things I like about this edition - premeasuring, random charge mechanic, scenarios that are more than just kill points (like in WFB) there are others I am not keen on.

I think learning the rules is a constantly evolving process; it also depends on how often you play. I play about 4-5 games every week, and have played since 3rd Edition, so it mostly comes like second nature (the finer points will be memorised in time.) I still have to check the rulebook ever so often, however, because you forget rules or have been playing them the wrong way.

I think they are. I have been playing sense 2004, I still question everything I do ingame.

I find the rule book setup very, very clunky, kinda unorganized.

Matt Ward absolutely destroys every codex he touches.

Everything seems to have away of having some form of feel no pain.

I cant remember the last time I could roll a normal armor save.

But! I absolutely adore 40k. Everything about it, from the storys to the art is just magical to me. .

ids1984 wrote:
I got back into 40k just before Christmas and although I love painting the models I'm finding the gameplay plain difficult and dis-jointed.

Now it may just be me but I find most games typically follow he following breakdown:

40% playing the game
50% reading he rule book
20% in discussions of the result of reading he rulebook.

now it could because I'm new and eventrually I'll just get it, but I'm finding this format not very enjoyable at he moment, it also doesn't help when we get confused wih previous editions and FAQ being thrown in the mix. I seem to spend far more time reading and discussing rules han playing.

Does anyone else find this or is it just me?

Besides the cost (another beaten to death discussion) I'm finding this pushing me away from GW and considering other brands for the first time, namlythe Mantic Deadzone and Warpath for he selling point of them being faster paced and easier to play.


thoughts?

its all practice man. Games for me are now about 80% gameplay 10% reading 10% dispute/ debate

BlaxicanX wrote:
Too much dice-rolling.

I still love seeing people make this complaint. It cracks me up.

I think 6th Ed is one of the best versions of 40k I've played, probably actually better than 2nd Ed really. I stopped after 3rd, perhaps early 4th, because things were way TOO standardised and simple.

Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

 Melissia wrote:
Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

2nd was damn near unplayable. I have nightmares about the half hour 'blind grenade phase' that launched every turn.

Roll to see how each of the 10 blind grenade templates blows, roll to see which expire, draw line of sight to see which models are blocked...

I still firmly beleive a lot of praise 2nd edition gets is Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome. I don't doubt that some people thoroughly enjoyed it, but a lot of the mechanics people touted as superior plainly weren't. It really does just feel like nostolgia talking. Even still, when I hear people talk about 2nd edition and a bad mechanic is brought up, the common repsonse is 'we house ruled it so...'.

I mean, when a designer comes out, apologises for a wargear item and recommends it be torn up, you know there's problems.

 -Loki- wrote:
Those kinds of rules aren't the problem. It's the little rules that sneak into the game that people just forget over the course of a game. Psychic powers is a good example. I always forget to do Blessings at the start of the turn. I always forget to do Deny the Witch on offensive powers. This is due to 40k not having a psychic system since 2nd edition, just having attacks that require a leadership roll to make.

The worst offender is the assault system and wound allocation. They change every edition. Considering I barely get a game in every month, when I finally get into a groove with them they get changed. Not more or less complicated, just different, and learning them all over again.

That is more forgetting the rule rather then not knowing the rule though, 'little rules' are a massive problem for our group who only play once a month and have a heap of new Codices coming though. For instance my group mis read the wound pool allocation rule and would have an IC with a 2+ 3++ use his save first before deciding whether to then roll for look out sir. As you can imagine that changes the game greatly! also things like Tau players using a squads own marker lights, and Necron players assuming scythes have QS etc...

Speaking of wound allocation I have just realized that you cant assign wounds to models out of someones weapon range. We always play you cant shoot at models out of weapon range but all wounds accrued even as models are removed from the front are still counted. Once again a pretty big game changer!

been playing since second. 5th was a much cleaner set of rules, probably the cleanest yet. They really muddied up CC in this edition and made shooting a lot more difficult to manage. Not sure why they did it.

In my honest opinion: no.

In fact, I would say, its even easier than before, as in my perspective so many things are more uniform and streamlined.

Perhaps the people in your group and play circle are not used to the new edition yet, or some other factor.

Some of the suggestions here on making references until you learn your army or rules are good ones.

Of course, these are my opinions, and the results of others may vary....but overall, I think its easier.

best of luck and have fun!!

 RicBlasko wrote:
I still thinking adding rules for every ax, mace, maul, flail, hammer, fist, and chainsword was a bit much. Not only does it just get to be to much, when most of those weapons should fall under the same rules, but you have an issue I faced at change over. My Chaos Terminators had a power mace in one of their hands. One of my Space Marines had a Power Ax. Now, they were fine Power Weapons, and the look was a little extra cool and showed them as not having a normal sword. And being metal minis from years ago it's not like I can snap it off, even if I knew there would be a change, like I did when their base got larger as Eds passed. My Khorne Berserkers came out of the box with axes and swords, but if I want to use the axes, now I have to pay extra, and I have new rules, where if I knew there would be a change like that I would have found a way to use all swords...and who knows what the next change will bring, so why buy more or mess with what is there. I just have to roll hits/wounds separate.
I modeled some of my Chaos Marines with two pistols years ago, since it was two close combat weapons, and it made them look like gun swinging cowboys, then every Marine got a bolter and bolt pistol, and close combat weapon, so little changed, now we have gun slinger rules, so I have to watch using them so not to confuse anyone.

Agreed. More trouble than it's worth, on several levels.

At its core, the system is great! But there is a preponderance of cluttered rules layers that serve to spoil good game play. 6th Ed. was a lateral move as was 5th, and now the rules and the scope of the game seem to be clashing with itself. As Valkathi and Peregrine pointed out so well, the game is confused about what it even is supposed to represent anymore.

 Melissia wrote:
Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

2nd edition sucked, but mostly we didnt know it at the time.

2nd ed still had tons of broke stuff in it like virus grenades and sustained fire. 3rd was the bringing of 40k as we know it now. 5th was the pinnacle and 6th is a step backwards IMO.

Regarding the bit on "different rules for mace, ax and hammer" some players like this, as it allows for more diversity of builds, and feel that it gives more creedence to what a hero might be wielding...

I also do recognize, however, that this fact, like many others, if not accounted for when a player made the minis - can be troublesome later.

Personally, I would not change them - as long as they are homogenous units, just say "hey, all these guys only have power weapons, they are all the same, I just like them because they look cool".
As long as it'ts not "oh, this unit the axes are swords, and the maces are powerfists, but on this unit the swords are axes and power fists are pistols.." any reasonable player should not have a problem with it.

I would happily play against you if you did such.

I do admit, the rules suffer from not enough rounds of play testing and proof -reading (they used the same individuals too long - I see it all the time in software development) but overall I feel they are not that complex.

Or rather, the EDITION rules are not that complex...add in all the army specific special rules....well, that gets to be quite the challenge - but that I play too many armies...

best of luck and have fun!

The main reason 40k rules are STILL over complicated, is they are STILL using WHFB game mechanics .

If they re -wrote 40k using Epic game mechanics I am sure the level of rules complication would reduce, and game play and balance would improve.

davethepak wrote:
Regarding the bit on "different rules for mace, ax and hammer" some players like this, as it allows for more diversity of builds, and feel that it gives more creedence to what a hero might be wielding..

The point is that it's an example of GW not really knowing what they want to do with the rules. Having different rules for different power weapons makes a lot of sense in an RPG or skirmish-scale game where the game is all about a small number of characters and you want maximum detail in their actions/equipment/etc. Having different rules for different power weapons makes no sense at all in a company-scale wargame where the difference between a power axe and power sword for the sergeant makes little or no difference in what an entire unit is capable of. The detailed rules that are great in the small-scale game just add pointless clutter in the large-scale game.

Rules issues were common at first. 6E is much more of a simulation than it used to be, so they are doing MORE things that "make sense" than they used to (wound allocation being one of them) but because they are... It's creating confusion with the other half of the brain that wants balance.

I'd say that it will come naturally but it will take games to figure it out. Trust in your opponents good will and it will go a long way towards makign the rules lookups seem a friendly exercize.

tgf wrote:
been playing since second. 5th was a much cleaner set of rules, probably the cleanest yet. They really muddied up CC in this edition and made shooting a lot more difficult to manage. Not sure why they did it.

5th edition was cleaner but a lot of the simplifications were pretty silly. The way that cover worked essentially meant constant 4+ cover save for everyone, as long as you use the proper amount of terrain. Whenever I built a list I regarded AP3 as irrelevent unless it was on a flame template, since it just means the save goes from 3+ to 4+. Add in 4+ feel no pain and you get blood angel infantry that are tougher to kill than TH/SS terminators.

And close combat gave us hidden power weapon shinanigans, the entire cornerstone of blob guard was loading the sargents and commissars up with power weapons so that you could remove grunts while every turn your power weapons felled 2 or 3 marines/terminators. The new method is more combersome but it's not as silly.

 BryllCream wrote:
The new method is more combersome but it's not as silly.

So having a Basilisk be the best sniper weapon in the game is "not as silly"?

Basilisks aren't the best sniper weapon in the game.

Pathfinders and Vindicres are far better. This is all assuming that your enemy would leave his really expensive warlord just strolling around the back of the field out of line of sight of everything in your army.

 BryllCream wrote:
Basilisks aren't the best sniper weapon in the game.

Pathfinders and Vindicres are far better. This is all assuming that your enemy would leave his really expensive warlord just strolling around the back of the field out of line of sight of everything in your army.

Sigh. Nitpick all you want about whether it's technically the absolute best or just near the top, but the point of that statement remains: the wound allocation rules may have stopped the "silly" hidden power weapons, but they simultaneously enabled the equally silly barrage sniping that turns Basilisks into sniper rifles.

Right but the frequency of that occuring - of Bassies picking out a charector (don't they get look out sir! anyway?), is less frequent than each shooting attack getting 4+ cover, and each combat with a tactical squad with a hidden fist in it.

 BryllCream wrote:
(don't they get look out sir! anyway?)

Unless you're sniping the melta gun out of a squad instead of the character. And even if you have LoS you have to keep rolling it for every wound until you die or run out of wounds, and even a single failed LoS probably means a dead character.

Also, the hidden power fist may have been more common, but the sniper Basilisk is much more fluff-breaking and obnoxious. The sergeant usually surviving to the end could be rationalized as a combination of the sergeant being the best fighter in the unit and the cliche of the hero character always surviving until the end (or until it's time for a heroic death). The sniper Basilisk is just stupid in every way.

So the "best sniper in the game" will scatter 2/3 of the time, a single S8 AP3 wound and the target *always* gets a 2+ save?

You think that is as game changing as 4+ cover in every single shooting attack in every single game you ever played? Or the hidden power fists in every single tactical squad in every battle ever played? Really?

 BryllCream wrote:
So the "best sniper in the game" will scatter 2/3 of the time, a single S8 AP3 wound and the target *always* gets a 2+ save?

1) It scatters 2/3 of the time, and some of that 2/3 will still result in a close enough hit to get the job done. Compare this to a normal sniper rifle, which "scatters" 5/6 of the time, allows the same 2+ save, only wounds on a 4+ instead of a 2+, doesn't ignore most armor, and doesn't inflict instant death.

2) Where are you getting the idea that it's only a single wound (at STR 9, not 8)? If you hit six models in the unit and roll five wounds the target has five wounds to take (or attempt to LoS away).

You think that is as game changing as 4+ cover in every single shooting attack in every single game you ever played? Or the hidden power fists in every single tactical squad in every battle ever played? Really?

I didn't say it was game changing, I said it was a stupid rule. The question was whether GW's different choices of rules were silly or not, not whether they were unbalanced.

Also, I didn't say anything about "universal" 4+ cover (which had a lot to do with people ignoring the rules for terrain that wasn't 4+ cover), I was comparing wound allocation systems.

...were you touched up by a Basilisk when you were a kid or something? You seriously can't compare basilisk sniping to 4++ universal cover, or hidden power weapons.

The fact that 6th has less aggregate silliness is clearly better, no?

Interestingly enough cannons are one of the best sniper units in fantasy. In couple of editions we will have one rule set!

/sarcasm off

Well they are STILL using WHFB game mechanic in 40k over 15 after they stopped being suitable for the game play ,so what do you expect?

What whfb mechanics are in 40k that are not appropriate?

Do you get all of the FAQ mods in the Ipad edition of codices?

Message to original OP:

They have tried to streamline the rules to get new players in.

Us old Roguetrader, second edition types are finding core mechanics too simple.

The loose wording of the rules and people taking those grey zones to the max can make it very complicated rules lawyering.

There are more streamlined game systems out there, all of us have a "go to" beer and pretzels game to fall back on if the the latest FAQ changes hurts the brain.

Relax and enjoy, good luck!

bodazoka wrote:
Do you get all of the FAQ mods in the Ipad edition of codices?

IIRC, they could get updates before the FAQ/errata! I remember hyperphase sword being AP3 in the ebook weeks before they released the FAQ, so people were arguing that it could be an axe for all we know! Hyperphase sword, an axe!

The ebooks tend to have the first 'hotfix' FAQ updates, due to GW being able to work on them right up until launch, while the print codex needs to be finalised months beforehand for print, storage and distribution.

A good example is Tau missile drones being limited to Broadsides. The ebook always had that restriction, the book does not. They fixed it before the ebook version was put on sale, but after the print book was sent to the printers.

ids1984 wrote:
I got back into 40k just before Christmas and although I love painting the models I'm finding the gameplay plain difficult and dis-jointed.

Now it may just be me but I find most games typically follow he following breakdown:

40% playing the game
50% reading he rule book
20% in discussions of the result of reading he rulebook.

now it could because I'm new and eventrually I'll just get it, but I'm finding this format not very enjoyable at he moment, it also doesn't help when we get confused wih previous editions and FAQ being thrown in the mix. I seem to spend far more time reading and discussing rules han playing.

Does anyone else find this or is it just me?

Besides the cost (another beaten to death discussion) I'm finding this pushing me away from GW and considering other brands for the first time, namlythe Mantic Deadzone and Warpath for he selling point of them being faster paced and easier to play.


thoughts?

Before I read the rest of the thread. I do not think WH40K is complicated at all. The basic rules at least are not all that complicated.

What does annoy me about this ruleset however, is that they are consistently badly written.

There are no or very few clear definitions of what certain words mean within the rules. Wording between different rules that are doing similar things can be very different. Rules between various books often contradict each other. And so on and so on. Just spending a few days in YMDC has made that very clear.

Then again, this is the only Miniatures game I play. The other games I do play however are

DnD: Similar level of complexity, much clearer rules.
ASL: Massively more complex. Much clearer rules.
SFB: Massively more complex, current edition is much clearer as well.

So for me, no, the problem is not complexity. The problem is that these rules are not properly "technically" written.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Personally I think certain rules are just worded in a too complicated manner:
Examples

- "The unit suffers a number of Strength (X) hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the template"
Why not just say "each model under the template takes a Strength (X) hit?" I know this is to stop Barrage weapons sniping characters etc but it's just too unecessary to word it in that manner.

- "At the start of the fight sub-phase roll a D3. The enemy unit suffers a penalty to their Weapon Skill and Initiative values equal to the result of the D3 until the end of the phase".
Why not just say "Enemy units suffer a D3 penalty to their WS and I values for the rest of the phase."?

a) Because it isn't the models under the template. In previous editions (4th I think) that was how it worked and then you had weird rules to swap the models that were under the template with others and such, it was a mess. Now it is very clear. Count ow many are under the template, the unit suffers that many hits and they are resolved as normal shooting attacks.

b) Your version leaves open the discussion on whether you roll one die for both penalties, or a separate die for both.

In both cases here, the GW rule as written is actually better.

Baktru wrote:
SFB: Massively more complex, current edition is much clearer as well.

I think the problem here is design intent. SFB was designed from the beginning to be the most "realistic" possible simulation of Star Trek starship combat, and executes that plan as effectively as possible. So you have detailed rules, but written by people who know they're writing a complex system and pay attention to things like careful organization and limiting the number of ships involved. 40k, on the other hand, feels like the designers just throw on whatever rules they feel like adding at the moment. So you have the rules paying careful attention to tiny details like exactly what type of power weapon a model is armed with while simultaneously abstracting everything away to the point where a unit can't have the autocannon engage a tank while the lasguns shoot at an infantry target. The authors aren't working under any kind of overall plan or complexity budget, so the result is a complete mess.

SFB has vast rulebooks with hundreds of pages and truely massive amounts of errata that have accumulated over the decades in each edition of the rules.

Its a different game for a different mindset and taste....

40K is designed to be fun pick up game and for the most part it works although there are things that are annoying - but thats all games of whatever complexity.

The problems seem to be more when people twist every possible meaning of a word to their own advantage siting RAW as an excuse for bad behaviour especially when the RAI is obvious. But then they do this in SFB as well as a regular on their forum..........

Hi BryllCream.

The WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods that are less than 'optimum' for 40k include...

A)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating player turns are fine if the units start out of effective range of the enemy, and have to manouver into effective range.
In WHFB most units have to get in to close combat to be in effective range, as ranged weapons are used mainly in support of close combat .
The much lower model count in RT and 2nd ed made 'manouvreing to engage' a very important part of the game play.

The majority of 40k unit carry ranged weapons , so after the increase in model count leading to cramped battle fields, most armies units can engage in turn 1.
Also the waiting for your opponent to move, then shoot, then assault, with everything is rather boring , and can lead to players loosing interest in the game.

Alternating phases, or alternating unit activation, would increase the player interaction and tactical consideration in the game, while removing the complication of additional rules to get more interaction.(EG 'over-watch' etc.)

B)The damage resolution.
WHFB damage resolution mechanic is fine for the simple weapons and armour found in the WHFB world.
A lump of metal/wood/rock is swung or thrown at a target.The targets protection (armour) is either plates/strips of hide or metal of some sort.
Most weapons are low velocity, or low yield impact, which allow the target to dodge or deflect the potential hit(s) making them reasonably survivable..

So the roll to hit- roll to wound - roll to save makes sense.
An orc swings an axe at the head of an elf.(Roll to see if the orc would hit the elf.)
Then see what damage the axe will do if the elf doesnt deflect/dodge the blow.(Roll to wound.)
Then roll to see if the elf can dodge out of the way or deflect the blow with armour/shield.

Compared the most of the ADVANCED weapons of the 40k universe, lasers, plasma,energy /powered edge weapons , mostly high velocity and or high yield impact.
Generaly when hit, the target simply relies on its armour protection.(Not much chance to dodge out of the way...)
If its lucky the armour reduced the impact of the hit to make it survivable.
Using damage resolution similar to FoW or Epic would make for a more straightforward and intuitive damage resolution process.

I could go on , to cover ALL the current game mechanics and resolution methods in the current 40k game but ill stop there...

If more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods were used ,the core rules could cover far more game play, reducing the amount of extra rules that cause over complication in the rule set.
Which would leave more room for actual game play.(Complex game play with intuitive rules, rather than complicated rules and simple game play.)

(Are you familiar with any other rule sets apart from 40k?Epic Armageddon seems to have more synergy with battles in the 40k universe, than the current 40k game does.)

Lots of people seem to think that well defined , intuitive rules would destroy narrative games.In my 3 decades of playing table top war games, the more defined and intuitive the rules the easier they are to adapt and evolve to suit narrative requirements.

Who cares, as long as it's fun. Dont lose sight of what matters.

Hi Jancoran.
IF you like reading EXTRA pages and pages of rules that are counter intuitive and confusing for fun, rather than playing the game .
Or enjoy arguing about what the rules are supposed to mean rather then playing the game.

Compared to people who have fun playing the actual games , you have lost sight of what is important IMO!

The game play of 40k could be covered in a fraction of the pages of the current rules take up.IF it was written for game play rather than sales of individual minatures.

I have no problem with the game play of 40k, its ideal for its target audience.

But the instructions to play the game(rules,) are over complicated and counter intuitive, when compared to other rule sets.

FUN game play is the most important thing.Poorly worded , counter intuitive and over complicated rules detracts from this.

I dont find it complicated and the rulebook reads more like a REFERENCE guie once youve been through it.

As for arguing, thats on the players, not the game. the intent is obvious more often than it isn't and if you have pople who care about the other persons fun, then that will be enough in the oddball places.

This comes down to players. Really. I literally play more non-online games than anyone I have ever met, miniature or otherwise. The list is...staggering. I am as eclectic as they come. One minute Im playing Babylon 5 A Call to Arms, then its Monsterpocalypse, then its Warhammer fantasy, then its 40K, then its Flames of War, then its DBA and so on.

And in every game, the rules are vastly different but onething stays the same: people want to play together and push reallly really REALLY cool models around and kill each other with them.

So you can get wrapped up in WHAt the rules are or you can do what I do: learn them and enjoy them for WHATthey are with people who aren't a douche about it.

Tend to agree with everything that Janacorn says in this matter

Are you really calling some people's friends "douche" for arguing about rules? Seriously?

I play tabletop games with my friends as well, we're a good bunch, none of us are TFG or seriously bent on WAAC in any game we play, but now and then, regardless of game we play, we'd get into debate or discussion on how some certain rules worked or how it isn't worded the most clearly, and WH40k is the one game that we have to constantly look online to find answer for rules, a game normally takes longer as we have to look up rules for this, rules for that, FAQ for this and that, or online discussions for the most popular solution/RAI, and occasionally have to ask for 3rd party's opinion to decide stuffs!

What I'm saying is: arguing about rules doesn't make it douchey, especially when the rules are so poorly written. A fun game can have clear, well-written rules, even competitive rules, heard of sports? Heard of tennis? I heard it's this competitive sport that a lot of people play casually for fun, I'm never invited to one, so I don't have any first hand experience... Or how about video games? Halo, CoD, CS, Street fighters??? Or MtG? D&D(well not competitive, but well written rules)? Pathfinder? I can keep listing games that are fun with well-written rules.

And it's great if you're fine with the rules, if I ask you how far a jetpack infantry can move, and then how many dice to roll for beast in terrain, then what does '3' meant on the personal warlord table, and whether drop pod can have a mishap if it doesn't scatter or whatever the current YMDC hot topic is/was(I can't use drop pod, so I didn't follow! ), and you can answer all that without looking in the book or online for answer/solution, kudos to you, high five yourself and open a bottle of champagne. But there's no need to throw insults at those people who hold a different view.

I don't think he did or I would not have agreed - what line says that?

Every tabletop game I have ever played has had things that I needed to look up but on a average night at our club - only a few mins are spent checking things - and thats about it.

To be honest the only time we have really have an issue is when someone is trying exploit the rules - then it can take a bit of time to sort out.

We are all different

So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)




I don't believe that these people are stupid or malicious in their misreading of the rules. I also don't think that these rules are misread because, looking at the rules in the book, there's little room for misinterpretation. I think players are simply forced to juggle so many different rules nowadays that it's easy to confuse things for other things, especially between editions.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)

Well the first is correct:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Read the FAQ.

I couldn't find anything on the second. The rule book even states "rounding up".

 Griddlelol wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)

Well the first is correct:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Read the FAQ.

I couldn't find anything on the second. The rule book even states "rounding up".

That must be in the FAQ as the rulebook says pretty clearly, "On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful. You must pick a model from the same unit within 6" and resolve the Wound against them instead."

Leave it to GW to completely change a rule with an FAQ.,

I still miss when you used a template, only the ones under it could take the wounds from it/die from it. Not giving people the change to scatter it all over the unit as they liked.

The definition of over complicated is using more elements than needed to describe a function.

40k rules use multiple resolution methods to cover single functions.
Therefore it IS over complicated.

Every extra resolution method and 'exception rule' (special rule,) adds to the complication of the game, and diminishes the complexity of the game play.

As with many in this thread the problem is not the rules themselves so much as the presentation. Having just got back into after 16 or so years it is quite a steep learning curve and the rule book doesnt always make it easy especially the ability chains i.e. a model has this special rule which also grants this special rule which leads to another special rule (and a lot of frantic searching in the rule book and between the codex and rule book).

Having said this it would be difficult for them to make it as complex as rogue trader (plus expansions) was, and I started when i was 9 (I dont think we once played to the proper rules)

GW does stupid little nitpicky things to all it's editions. What I don't get is how 6th edition brings back things that were dropped after 2nd edition, left out for more than a decade, and then suddenly thrown back in. It smacks of not having anything better to add to the game, so they think "let's just add back in stuff we deleted from 2nd edition when we brought 3rd edition out and dumbed things down. We've alienated all the players from those days, so it will be seen as new.". Psychic powers, power weapons types, moar random tables!, etc.

I half expect GW to soon have to have some sort of "innovative" way where 40K weapons can negatively modify the target's armor save roll, rather than AP negating saves altogether. Or you know, how it was in 2nd edition.

I agree GW will just rehash WHFB game mechanics and rules for 40k as long as enough people buy them.

Other game systems that use appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods do seem to be growing their market share at the detriment of 40k.