I've been reading all the discussions on various sites about how 7th edition is "unbalanced" and "rules bloat" is an issue. People also like to throw around the term streamlined a lot when it comes to what needs to happen with 8th. However, I haven't seen anyone really dig into detail about what needs to be streamlined and cut. So I'd like to start a discussion and really see what the major problems with this edition people have. I don't want to get into how they can fix these issues, I'm merely trying to identify the big ones. I'll have a go and I hope people will discuss and add!
Pre-game:
Generating random warlord traits (just love I can't choose my general' s abilities )
Generating random psychic powers and fishing for specific ones (same reaction as above)
During Game:
The IGOUGO turn system (lots of wait times where you are doing nothing but armor saves)
Reserves (really don't have a problem with how this works actually)
Movement...I don't care for how finding rules for how different units move is scattered all over the place in the BRB.
Psychic Phase...it doesn't really seem to be an issue when it's only a couple of Psykers casting powers but when you have like 20 or more warp dice is when it really slows things down. Daemon summoning I think seems a bit broken since you aren't really paying any points for them. Also, the psychic powers in the BRB range from "weak as feth" to "OMG this power is super broken!" Balancing of these powers needs to occur.
Shooting phase...wound allocation getting a bit wonky and different save values in the unit can slow the phase down, but other than that it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Assault phase...not being able to assault out of reserves really neutered some armies while other armies have gotten formations/rules for a few units to ignore this. Having a random charge range on 2d6 isn't helping either. There is also the issue of the WS chart being rather pointless of having a high WS and being maxed out at only hitting on threes or not getting hit on 5's at best.
The Allies Chart:
Please, for the love of gawd, get rid of Battle brothers. This is the breeding grounds of ridiculous Death Stars that we all see in tournament 40k. I think I have a mini stroke every time I see stuff like TWC with Librarius Conclave on bikes and Ravenwing/Sammael
Anyway...please feel free to add and discuss folks!
It needs a major overhaul.
Have a look at AoS. Small rule set and added game complexity by the war scrolls.
I could imagine that 40k gets the same treatment. This would be a move in the right direction.
Today, a maelstrom game that needs five or so hours makes the whole game ridiculous.
wuestenfux wrote: It needs a major overhaul.
Have a look at AoS. Small rule set and added game complexity by the war scrolls.
I could imagine that 40k gets the same treatment. This would be a move in the right direction.
Today, a maelstrom game that needs five or so hours makes the whole game ridiculous.
I haven't really read through all the rules for AoS (lol, I know it's only 4 pages), but I've gotten a general idea from seeing other people talk about the game. I can agree that some of the rules from AoS could definitely be ported over to 40k, but I don't think I'd like to see it totally get changed into AoS in Space. However, AoS does have a lot of good ideas like war scrolls and rules being available for free, with buying army books as an option for added rules and fluff. This would mean though, that Gdubs would have to invalidate all the 7th ed codexes and have all the new "data slates" available immediately online with rules on day one of release of the new edition.
A switch to AoSification would need a lot of planning ahead.
I doubt that GW will make this switch.
They want to sell their overpriced codices and supplemental books also in the future.
After spending a large amount of time with AoS since the GHB was released I can say that I do miss 40K a lot. Mainly because I enjoy building lists and adding upgrades, formations and special rules to them.
This is something I feel is lacking in AoS, sure there are battalions and sometimes I have to choose weapons for my units, but I never have to pay extra for them or any such considerations. It's too straight forward sometimes.
The main issue with 40K for me was the difficulty in finding special rules, they are so spread out over BRB, codexes and supplements that it became time consuming just to find a specific rule.
I would also like more digital implementation from GW, having a searchable index in a mobile app to find specific rules would be magic. Army builders and such directly from GW is something I would have no problem paying for.
In general I like the rules and I mainly think it's the amount of time a game takes that needs to be trimmed down.
Cayhn wrote: After spending a large amount of time with AoS since the GHB was released I can say that I do miss 40K a lot. Mainly because I enjoy building lists and adding upgrades, formations and special rules to them.
This is something I feel is lacking in AoS, sure there are battalions and sometimes I have to choose weapons for my units, but I never have to pay extra for them or any such considerations. It's too straight forward sometimes.
The main issue with 40K for me was the difficulty in finding special rules, they are so spread out over BRB, codexes and supplements that it became time consuming just to find a specific rule.
I would also like more digital implementation from GW, having a searchable index in a mobile app to find specific rules would be magic. Army builders and such directly from GW is something I would have no problem paying for.
In general I like the rules and I mainly think it's the amount of time a game takes that needs to be trimmed down.
I have the BRB on my iPad which I view through the iBooks app. The enhanced version has search options like you were talking about. Although I know that not everyone has an iPad or iPhone. I also didn't have much of a problem searching for the USR's in the main book, but I really don't like having to flip all over the place to find special movement rules and shooting restrictions for all units and vehicles.
The question is why do I think it is too complicated. This could be answered a number of ways, but I am going to focus on what lead us to this point.
GW releases new versions of the game approximately every 4 years. A new release is a big undertaking, involving core rules, several Codexes, and a boxed game. New Codexes come out in the period between major upgrades.
This creates a situation where rules are issued on an iterative basis. A lot of things happen as this process takes place:
- Models get released, and GW often releases favorable rules for new models to increase sales.
- New kinds of models get released, creating a need for new rules to cover their use.
- Staff changes, meaning someone with a different take on the rules is potentially writing the new ones.
- The vision changes, which often involves an emphasis on new kinds of play at different points values.
- The publications for promoting the game change, which has an impact on how players see themselves getting enjoyment from it.
Under these conditions, the rules are like quicksand, where the ground never really stays where it was the last time you looked. The characteristic they lack is consistency. While power imbalances can and should exist between various armies, they should not be so pronounced. But think about the number of rules someone needs to know in order to play the game. There's the BRB rules, the Codex-specific rules, the FAQ rules, the supplement rules, formation / detactment rules, Forgeworld rules, house rules, and the tacit dont-be-that-guy rules. To get through a game, you need to know about 30 rules from the BRB plus a little bit from each of the other areas.
It's a result of the rules lifecycle. For the game to remain consistent, GW would need to be executing perfectly on a creative vision, data-driven playtesting, knowledge transfer as staff changes, resisting the urge to compromise the rules in favor of successful marketing, and the like. How many things need to go right for this all to happen? It's too complex to think about, much less manage over a 4 year span.
The reality is GW does it's best to manage the rules, but it's not really satisfying. When they realize how horrible they have made things for the community of gamers who buy their product, they react in the best way they know how, which means finding a way to address the situation through revenue-generating activity. Which leads to more rules. Given enough time, the rules turn into a Tower of Babel no one can really understand in it's entirety.
Time to blow it up. All this talk about 8th edition is nice, but I am more interested in seeing an independent ruleset that operates outside of the marketing cycle and can be updated more frequently than every four years. The way I see it, why trust GW not to do the same again?
I think Gdubs has poured a lot of time and money into the new campaign supplements that came out this year, along with the new armies and other army specific supplements. I think it would seriously ruin all the good will they have generated this year if they completely invalidated all the codices and started their cycle of boom and bust codex releases all over again.
Not that I couldn't see them do that anyway, but I'm hoping that this new direction the company has taken will stay the course.
Special rules in 40k 7th ed overlap too much, and are too similar in a lot of cases.
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison.
Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.
Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.
Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.
Building are damaged like vehicles, but not in all cases.
Etc.
All of this on top of small tweaks between versions.
5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.
ICs in 5th ed had Skilled Rider, but not in 7th. I didn't realise they lost that until a year after I first played 7th.
40k needs a top-down rewrite. Keep the terms, but consolidate them.
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.
Skinnereal wrote: Special rules in 40k 7th ed overlap too much, and are too similar in a lot of cases.
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison.
Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.
Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.
Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.
Building are damaged like vehicles, but not in all cases.
Etc.
All of this on top of small tweaks between versions.
5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.
ICs in 5th ed had Skilled Rider, but not in 7th. I didn't realise they lost that until a year after I first played 7th.
40k needs a top-down rewrite. Keep the terms, but consolidate them.
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.
Agreed, some of the special rules could definitely be consolidated together. Like Zealot basically just being a combo of Fearless and Hatred (just remove zealot rule and give the other two rules instead).
Its always fun if the question is ehm.... this neutral and positive it sure will bring the best out of the internet lol. 7th isn't complicated at all. the game is quite simple to be honest. It has a fethed up balance system, there are some rules that could be fixed, but complicated nope not at all. Calculating rock breakage behavior in irregular shaped rock structures is complicated, playing 7th edition 40k is simple every half witted 12 yer old can do it really.
oldzoggy wrote: Its always fun if the question is ehm.... this neutral and positive it sure will bring the best out of the internet lol.
7th isn't complicated at all. the game is quite simple to be honest. It has a fethed up balance system, there are some rules that could be fixed, but complicated nope not at all.
Calculating rock breakage behavior in irregular shaped rock structures is complicated, playing 7th edition 40k is simple every half witted 12 yer old can do it really.
Pre-game: Generating random warlord traits (just love I can't choose my general' s abilities ) Generating random psychic powers and fishing for specific ones (same reaction as above)
During Game: The IGOUGO turn system (lots of wait times where you are doing nothing but armor saves) Reserves (really don't have a problem with how this works actually) Movement...I don't care for how finding rules for how different units move is scattered all over the place in the BRB.
Psychic Phase...it doesn't really seem to be an issue when it's only a couple of Psykers casting powers but when you have like 20 or more warp dice is when it really slows things down. Daemon summoning I think seems a bit broken since you aren't really paying any points for them. Also, the psychic powers in the BRB range from "weak as feth" to "OMG this power is super broken!" Balancing of these powers needs to occur.
Shooting phase...wound allocation getting a bit wonky and different save values in the unit can slow the phase down, but other than that it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Assault phase...not being able to assault out of reserves really neutered some armies while other armies have gotten formations/rules for a few units to ignore this. Having a random charge range on 2d6 isn't helping either. There is also the issue of the WS chart being rather pointless of having a high WS and being maxed out at only hitting on threes or not getting hit on 5's at best.
The Allies Chart: Please, for the love of gawd, get rid of Battle brothers. This is the breeding grounds of ridiculous Death Stars that we all see in tournament 40k. I think I have a mini stroke every time I see stuff like TWC with Librarius Conclave on bikes and Ravenwing/Sammael
And what of this do you find too complicated ? You sure seem to have some issues with some rules as do we all, but I can't figure out the parts that are just to complex for your understanding or so complicated that figuring out how it works bogs up the game.
You are free to think of me as an idiot and all but this doesn't change the fact that OP's question and issues seem to something else completely as is 7th edition too complicated. These nuances do matter and prevent threads like these to devolve into a offtoppic all is bad slugfest.
The question is this game too complicated ? can never be answered by yes the balance of this game sucks or yes GW handles supplements completely wrong.
Nostromodamus wrote: It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.
This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.
You are free to think of me as an idiot and all but this doesn't change the fact that OP's question and issues seem to something else completely as is 7th edition too complicated.
These nuances do matter and prevent threads like these to devolve into a offtoppic all is bad slugfest.
The question is this game too complicated ?
can never be answered by yes the balance of this game sucks or yes GW handles supplements completely wrong.
On the contrary, that was a compliment. They sometimes happen on the Internet.
Nostromodamus wrote: It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.
This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.
I like how AOS handles things, to be honest. Core rules are very simple and any special rules a unit has are right there on the warscroll. Minimizes page-flipping and searching multiple books for rules and their interactions.
The rules themselves are not complex, but the process of seeing what units use which rules and what they do and how they interact is sometimes a handful.
Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well, had bad news today and my head is fuzzy.
It's complicated in the sense that you can't go from never having played the game to learning the rules in a single afternoon, but you should be getting the hang of it after a dozen games or so. If you've been playing the same edition regularly for years, you shouldn't be having a problem with understanding the game.
Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, I actually find Special Rules one of the more streamlined parts of the game. All the special rules are listed alphabetically in a very easy-to-find section at the back of the rulebook, and because of the nature of special rules, you'll likely be using the same ones every game (i.e. you'll play Orks and all your army will have Furious Charge) and so you'll learn what they do pretty quickly.
The issues arise because there are just so many rules and potential situations in a game. This isn't a criticism - I'd much rather have a complex, in-depth ruleset than something like AoS. However, it does give rise to a rather large FAQ. Again, this isn't a huge problem if you carry a copy of the FAQ with you and make sure to highlight/memorise parts that are particularly relevant, but it's much harder to find your way around the FAQ than it is the rulebook. GW need to tighten up and streamline the rules, and be a bit more on the ball when the community comes across a problem. I don't own any electronic publications from GW, so apologies if they are already doing this, but they should, where appropriate and not too messy, be adding in clarifications to digital publications to make sure people are referring to the weighty FAQ as little as possible.
Nostromodamus wrote: It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.
This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.
I like how AOS handles things, to be honest. Core rules are very simple and any special rules a unit has are right there on the warscroll. Minimizes page-flipping and searching multiple books for rules and their interactions.
The rules themselves are not complex, but the process of seeing what units use which rules and what they do and how they interact is sometimes a handful.
Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well, had bad news today and my head is fuzzy.
No problem man, thanks for the reply and sorry about the bad news. I hope your head gets to feeling better
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Shadow wrote: It's complicated in the sense that you can't go from never having played the game to learning the rules in a single afternoon, but you should be getting the hang of it after a dozen games or so. If you've been playing the same edition regularly for years, you shouldn't be having a problem with understanding the game.
Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, I actually find Special Rules one of the more streamlined parts of the game. All the special rules are listed alphabetically in a very easy-to-find section at the back of the rulebook, and because of the nature of special rules, you'll likely be using the same ones every game (i.e. you'll play Orks and all your army will have Furious Charge) and so you'll learn what they do pretty quickly.
The issues arise because there are just so many rules and potential situations in a game. This isn't a criticism - I'd much rather have a complex, in-depth ruleset than something like AoS. However, it does give rise to a rather large FAQ. Again, this isn't a huge problem if you carry a copy of the FAQ with you and make sure to highlight/memorise parts that are particularly relevant, but it's much harder to find your way around the FAQ than it is the rulebook. GW need to tighten up and streamline the rules, and be a bit more on the ball when the community comes across a problem. I don't own any electronic publications from GW, so apologies if they are already doing this, but they should, where appropriate and not too messy, be adding in clarifications to digital publications to make sure people are referring to the weighty FAQ as little as possible.
Then combine the FAQ's from the main rule book along with all the other FAQ's from the codexes and then it's like 20+ pages of rules definitions and exemptions and then it's just a hot mess
GW do, in theory, apply FAQ and errata changes to the iBook versions.
The ePub versions though, they don't list the version number or date, or update the Black Library site when an update happens.
It takes 3-4 hours to play a 2k game that's pretty indicative of a bad rule set, you have random rolls for too many things it slows things a lot.
Combats a perfect example rolls to hit, rerolls then wounds followed by saves and then fnp rolls, it's sluggish and you have to do it with every squad attacking.
Add on top mysterious terrain and other crap like that it's an inelegant mess that's no fun to play.
There's no flow anymore to the game it's just rolling dice.
There are some rules I would like to see changed so they make more sense, but I don't think the game is too complex, in fact, none of the people I game with, think this. Yes it can take hours to play a single game, but that's just a side effect of having so many mini's to deal with. I would say, the game is still less complex then 2nd edition was, there's more options now, but still less complex then each unit having it's own movement value, each vehicle having it's own damage chart, Armor save penalties, and countless other modifiers.
All in all, the game is fairly simple to play, yes some people will find the game to difficult to play, but then again, some people find checkers to complex. Is the game more complex then other games? Yes. But then again, that's been the primary draw for many players through the years. Are there balance issues? Yes again, but that's not really a problem with the core rules, as the core rules effect each unit equally. The problem with balance really comes from how GW decides point values. I have no clue how it's done, but I would imagine it's a 'vibe of the thing' process, when in reality the best way to handle it would to be to have an established point based formula like the old VDR rules they once had. Combine that with the unbalanced way they update armies, and you're going to have balance issues no matter what the rules are.
Changing to core mechanics of a game has been the death nail for several games in the past. No matter what system you use, people will love it, and others will hate it, that's just life.But I've seen several successful game systems change their core mechanics to simplify the game, to try and appeal to a new crowd, only to suffer from the decision and eventually die off. Changing the rules in order to streamline 40k will not solve the real problems with the game, all it will do is drive players away. Yes you can still play with the old rules, but let's be honest, it get's harder and harder to do that. Most people play at their FLGS, which inevitably adapts to the new rules system. Yes you may occasionally have a 'retro night' but rare is it that you will find regular matches on an outdated rule system.
This thread conflates complicated with time consuming.
Everyone always uses chess as the canonical argument, so I will, too: chess is not very complicated to learn but to play a game can be very time consuming.
So, is the game too complicated? The sheer amount of rules and codices make this game complicated. It's rather frustrating that I can't easily read my opponents rulesets before a game. And, as a new player, it's not that I will challenge people on their claims, I just like to read things as written since i'm learning. It gets complicated keeping track of all the different stuff.
Is the game too long? That's a byproduct of your point sizes. Limit your games to 1,000 to 1,250, with less terrain and a smaller game board.
The game is unnecessarily complicated and yet lacks complexity.
There are many redundant special rules that can be removed. How many special rules do you need to effectively represent the same thing.
Why do you need to have movement spread over 3 different phases.
Poorly thought out psychic phase. It's all or nothing, it's complete garbage.
It heaps on tonnes of extra rules without actually adding any levels of tactical play.
I really do not want to see an AOS style change. That game system should be a "how not to" in rules writing. Basic rules sets do nothing to create a full and tactical game. It completely lacks any nuance outside of basic strategies and synergies.
This game needs to let go of the I GO U GO turned based system. The insane amount of firepower that some armies produce now in a single turn is proof that this type of game turn sequence is outdated for 40k.
40K needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. That doesn't mean it needs to be lobotomized like AOS.
hobojebus wrote: It takes 3-4 hours to play a 2k game that's pretty indicative of a bad rule set, you have random rolls for too many things it slows things a lot.
The time it takes to play a game isn't indicative of anything. There are plenty of good, simple games that take hours to play.
If there are elements of the rules that you feel take longer than they should, then that's one thing... But the game taking a long time to play, in itself, just indicates that the game takes a long time to play.
Marmatag wrote: This thread conflates complicated with time consuming.
Everyone always uses chess as the canonical argument, so I will, too: chess is not very complicated to learn but to play a game can be very time consuming.
So, is the game too complicated? The sheer amount of rules and codices make this game complicated. It's rather frustrating that I can't easily read my opponents rulesets before a game. And, as a new player, it's not that I will challenge people on their claims, I just like to read things as written since i'm learning. It gets complicated keeping track of all the different stuff.
Is the game too long? That's a byproduct of your point sizes. Limit your games to 1,000 to 1,250, with less terrain and a smaller game board.
The first time I started 7th edition was right after it had come out. I hadn't played 40k since 3rd edition I believe, and so I thought all the rules were a little overwhelming at first. After a few thorough sit down and read the book sessions I started picking up the basics and a lot of the special rules very easily. Now I'm very comfortable with the rules set and don't find it that complicated, taken in the context of the basic rules. Where I really see complication occurring is in Army List building. The sheer amount of codices and the Imperium of Man all being battle bro's presents a mind boggling array of combinations that I doubt the game developers ever foresaw. It's like they were creating new codices in a vacuum with little regard as to how new rule-X or special snowflake unit-Y would interact with the rest of the game. Also, letting the marketing team seemingly run the show by making sure each new cool unit was OP so it would sell more seemed to be an issue.
My friends and I have routinely run small games from 500 points to 1000 and managed to complete them in perhaps a little over an hour and a half at worst. So I agree with you there as well. Playing 1850 or 2000 points is simply going to take more time.
That all being said, I still hate the random warlord traits and random psychic powers. When I put together my general with his wargear and other bits, I'd like to create that guy for a specific purpose (army buffing, CC monster, whatever), so when I roll up a Warlord trait that completely does not suit the theme of my Warlord then I feel slightly cheated on paying points for a general when I'm not entirely sure what his special trait is going to be.
This is also the same problem with random psychic powers. I can't design a Librarian very well when his abilities are randomly determined and changed before every game. I may have paid good points to make sure he is a Biomancy buff monster that tries to buff himself to be a CC killer, but instead end up with useless Biomancy pew pew powers. It's hard to create a Psyker and want to pay points for him when it's a crap shoot of what exactly he can do in game.
To me, that would be like paying full points for a Tactical Squad and saying, ok...your special weapon trooper's weapon is randomly rolled, along with your heavy weapon choice. How can you design a unit like that when their weapons/wargear are randomized all the time?
Brutus_Apex wrote: There are many redundant special rules that can be removed. How many special rules do you need to effectively represent the same thing.
I agree with you here. Furious Charge is basically the same abstraction as Hammer of Wrath, for example.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Why do you need to have movement spread over 3 different phases.
This actually makes sense to me, because you move in the other two phases instead of some other action, and having to remember to not take those actions two phases later doesn't make sense. Additionally, being able to move after one has shot is way better than being able to move a lot further beforehand.
Brutus_Apex wrote: This game needs to let go of the I GO U GO turned based system. The insane amount of firepower that some armies produce now in a single turn is proof that this type of game turn sequence is outdated for 40k.
I see this claim a lot but every alternative always has its own terrible flaws.
Can't even work out how to choose an army nowadays, what with a dozen books for each army, formations, data sheets and all that. Makes it a bit difficult to even start looking at getting back in, and cant really be bothered putting the work into it to get back in, when other games make it so much easier.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Can't even work out how to choose an army nowadays, what with a dozen books for each army, formations, data sheets and all that. Makes it a bit difficult to even start looking at getting back in, and cant really be bothered putting the work into it to get back in, when other games make it so much easier.
Because there are way to many rules about everything. There is not a single game within my local gaming club that we've played without opening the Rule Books a couple of times. I personal;y almost always forgot a special rule that could turn the game in my favor. My last time I forgot that my Warlord has eternal warrior and just let him die from Instant Death wounds. It is not because I don't know what the rule is, it is because I forget it among all other stuff I have to remember.
Again, I like depth, it should just be more approachable to get your hands on the actual rules to play the game.
For instance, why not sell a searchable e-book with every single codex? That would be amazing. Suddenly my iPad has everything.
Oh you have this special rule? Let me just type it into the search bar, and bam. I get the rule, and a list of all units where it's applicable, and i can drill into them.
Martel732 wrote: There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.
Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.
Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.
The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.
Martel732 wrote: There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.
Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.
I personally want to play large games...but the rules (complicated ot not) prevent that being played In reasonable times. Now many would say play lower point games, but I would rather see armies clash with each other instead of small squads.
Now many put aos down, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but most often it's for petty hatred for change. I've played the system a few times already, and the system has complexity and ease of rules as well (although not as complex as 40k), but I've been able to play large games of aos in shorter time in comparison to 40k. The game alows me to play large "army" games in short time. I like that. It apeal to me (unfortunately I'm more interested in 40k then aos as far as aesthetics goes). So I hope gw turns 40k into something like aos (probably not exactly like it, but closer), and I will readily play it.
I'm crossing my fingers.
I don't think 40K is too complicated, but rather think it's just a mess as far as what they've ended up with.
I fully support a game being very complex, rich, detailed, lots of rules. On the flip side I love some games which are stunningly simple, but rewarding. What I don't like...is a simple game which is compounded into a complex game by simply heaping loads and loads of additional rules and exceptions onto a simple game framework.
Disclaimer: The below is an obvious exaggeration (barely)
When I watch a 40K battle report this is what I see, as a non-40K player.
Player A: Okay, my squad fires its heavy bolters at your character. (rolls dice) Okay, I got four hits, but I get to re-roll ones...(rolls again) and I have six total hits. These are inferno buttpound shells so they ignore cover and count as Strength six instead of five.
Player B: Okay, roll to wound. I have Mask of the Jelly Troll which boosts my toughness, and Cloak of the Everbiscuit which lets me count as being in cover even if I'm "not".
Player A: (rolls to wound) I score three hits, but I get re-roll any failures because I have Wretch of the Apostasy Sanctum for my Lord of War, which lets me do so. (rolls dice) I score four hits.
Player B: Four hits, gotcha. My detachment rules let me pass half of any successful hits to my character to a nearby friendly unit...so these shots go to my scouts over here.
Player A: Okay, roll your saves.
Player B: I roll my saves (rolls dice) and I fail. However I get to re-roll those and I make (rolls dice) two of them. I suffer two wounds, which would kill me but I get re-rollable invulnerable saves.
Player A: My squad there is lead by a Chaplain and he has the Fisticuffs of Angry Armour which reduces your invulnerable save by one, and if you roll a one you suffer instant death.
Player B: My character also has the Boots of Bee Nectar which means I can roll to ignore instant death on a two or better... (rolls dice) I make one save, so I suffer only one wound.
Player A: My detachment rules allow me to score full kill points if I wound a unit...
It's silly but I swear that is what it looks like in damn near every battle report I watch. Every basic component rule is undone by a half dozen special rules (which in turn are undone by other special rules, or allowed by further special rules). There is nothing attractive about that as a consumer who is in GW's target audience. Nothing...at all.
I've said it in other threads that GW started with a simplified and very streamlined game when they went from 2nd to 3rd...and they've taken that small box or bag and have stuffed it to the point of ripping it in half. They've pushed themselves into a corner with very simple basic rules, which now seem to require a comical amount of special rules to make units different (which admittedly I find they're trying TOO hard to make ever single unit super duper different) or special, or more powerful.
Martel732 wrote: There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.
Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.
It's in an attempt to granulate the game, though.
Or it's directionless bloat and the sign of bad designers. Depends on how you look at it.
n0t_u wrote: ...despite hard attempts to simplify and streamline for 4 editions now.
I don't think they've actually been trying to do that as an overall goal since the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition. Some specific elements of the game have been streamlined at various times since, but there is no evidence that the studio has been actually trying to simplify or streamline the game overall. Quite the opposite, if anything.
Skinnereal wrote: Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison
...
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.
Interestingly, this was an attempt to fix page flicking, too many special rules embedded in each other would lead to Special Rule a grants special rule b and c.
Special rule b affects weapons like this and give weapons with special rule d special rule e and weapons with special rule f special rule g.
It was just easier to consolidate things, into one entry and it also allowed tweaks to things like sniper without having to change everything with poison/rending/whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hobojebus wrote: It takes 3-4 hours to play a 2k game that's pretty indicative of a bad rule set, you have random rolls for too many things it slows things a lot.
Combats a perfect example rolls to hit, rerolls then wounds followed by saves and then fnp rolls, it's sluggish and you have to do it with every squad attacking.
Add on top mysterious terrain and other crap like that it's an inelegant mess that's no fun to play.
There's no flow anymore to the game it's just rolling dice.
I don't think time to play a game is indicative of how good or bad the game is. Sometimes you want an evenings entertainment. Cricket can go on for days, but even that must have around a billion fans!
Personally I like the suspense provided by the hit/wound/save system (but it begins to get a bit silly once you start adding in rerolls, fnp, iwnd, blahblahblah). If warlord traits/powers take too long to roll in linked game settings (tournaments, campaigns, etc) then just make a rule that characters are stuck with what they roll (across games) until they die... would be entertaining seeing people trying to suicide their psykers that did not roll favourable powers! Alternatively, write lists that minimise these random elements (use characters with preset traits, don't overload on psykers, etc).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.
The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.
Army specific FoCs have been a thing since the FOC was a thing, it's just every single one (with the exceptions of Saim Hann and Astral Claws IIRC) used an identical one to the rulebook.
n0t_u wrote: ...despite hard attempts to simplify and streamline for 4 editions now.
I don't think they've actually been trying to do that as an overall goal since the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition. Some specific elements of the game have been streamlined at various times since, but there is no evidence that the studio has been actually trying to simplify or streamline the game overall. Quite the opposite, if anything.
Maybe it's mostly been focused at the list building part of the game. Least that's my view on it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.
The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.
Army specific FoCs have been a thing since the FOC was a thing, it's just every single one (with the exceptions of Saim Hann and Astral Claws IIRC) used an identical one to the rulebook.
If they're all identical, how are they army-specific?
I've never found the game overly complicated, my biggest issue is that I was taught by a guy who is very 6th edition and sometimes what I know is completely wrong in 7th, mostly in armies that use tactics completely different playstyle to the Wolves and Nids - I glaze over the rule as I read it and don't notice that it's ordered differently.
As for balance there's two skewed axis, rules enable way more flexibility to shooting things as opposed to hitting them.
Then there's the army codex issue. The haves and have nots.
I run Space Wolves, as far as melee codexes go it's definitely a 'haves' codex but it's still a melee codex and the biggest, baddest melee unit relies on mobility and can be easily blocked.
I also run 'Nids, another melee codex and definitely a "have not" codex.
The difference between the Wolves and the 'Nids is huge, the difference between the 'Nids and a 'haves' shooting codex is beyond belief.
There's just too many things that are similar yet not the same.
Melta, armourbane, ordnance, lance, tank hunter all basically give some bonus against vehicles - yet it's a bit different every time.
Same with furios charge, move through cover, rage, fleet. Rage doesn't work against defense grenades but furious charge does, however it doesn't work in a disordered charge. And cover reduces your Initiative and your charge range, assault grenades only help with the Initiative.
And don't get me started with transport rules and what I'm allowed to do with verhicles depending on how far I moved them... Those are things that I have to look up every single game.
The main problem is despite all these things the game itself is not very deep or tactical. Basically 40K is like watching a firework.
If I want a tactical game I play Lotr or STAW - both of them have a very easy ruleset btw.
As someone who has been off and on for the last 10 years, 40k is complicated because of all the unit types and their interactions - further compounded by codex rules replacing the BRB rules.
When I first started at the beginning of 4th edition you had to remember infantry, vehicles, walkers, etc. There was no psychic phase, basic FOC, and there was only one codex per army.
Then over the years we got flyers, flying monstrous creatures, superheavies, detachments, supplements, warlords/challenges, etc.
These additions to the game were really interesting in some ways, but the problem is that 40k cannot support them all. The game cannot support complex rules for squad/character interaction and also support vehicle formations/superheavies. It often feels like kill team and apocalypse merged together and those are two conflicting mentalities.
If GW wants to bring back balance and rule simplification they need to impose restrictions. Unbound rules were just a desperate attempt to move product by allowing players to buy that "one" kit they always wanted but didn't want to invest in an entire army to use it.
Just to be clear the game play of 40k is very simple.
The reason the rules are over complicated are..
Lack of interaction in the game turn mechanic.
This leads to additional reaction rules like over watch.
Multiple resolution methods.(SEVEN)Most good games manage with TWO.
Over simplification and restrictive use of a D6.
This means the core rules can not cover the diversity of the 40k universe.(Core rules ONLY cover standard infantry in the open.)
So everything else has to have extra rules or special rules.
Every other war game I have played has Core rules and a FEW Special rules.
40k has core rules.
Universal Special rules.(Oxymoron.)
Codex Special rules.
Special snowflake special rules.
The last time I counted 40k has 86 special rules!Most war games have up to two dozen special rules.(Some manage with less than a dozen special rules.)
Well, more often than not one has to look into the rule book during the game.
This is because one player asks whether a rule applied is correct or not, and they need the rule book to resolve.
This can slow down the game severly.
I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.
40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.
If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.
40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.
If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.
Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.
It's also worth noting that until they were made part of the core rules, they saw very little use outside of agreed scenarios, because most players felt they didn't fit the game...
The existence of super heavies isn't the problem. Shoehorning then into a game where opposing armies often have to be specifically constructed to stand a chance against them is the problem.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting. Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Nice logic - here's some counter logic. In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.
40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.
If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.
Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is
No one is complaining that they have to take ranged options. They are complaining that some ranged weapons are either too strong for what is supposed to be a company based game, or that some options are too cheap and common for what they do. Where's the tactics in blowing up a squad a turn, when they have no way of countering it? There's nothing tactical in taking a super heavy, pointing at an enemy unit and saying "remove that unit". Yes, I am aware that there is rolling, but that's just a formality; something will die most of the time. You might as well play chess with only queens.
Also, a point on 5th ed parking lots - if you are going to build an army without any form of anti tank, you're should lose. I'm sorry but that's how it is.*
*I don't actually agree. 5th ed vehicles were a tad too tough, especially if you didn't have good dedicated anti tank in your army. However, your condescending and dismissive post required some attention.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.
It's also worth noting that until they were made part of the core rules, they saw very little use outside of agreed scenarios, because most players felt they didn't fit the game...
The existence of super heavies isn't the problem. Shoehorning then into a game where opposing armies often have to be specifically constructed to stand a chance against them is the problem.
Yeh, SHV should have stayed in apoc or epic. They do not belong in a game of 40k's scale.
I'll explain some of my problems with 40k in it's current state:
- It's got too much random rolling. It's especially grating when it comes to Warlord Traits and Physic Powers. Not only does it slow down the pre-game setup but it also prohibits you from making suitable strategies for your army. Like somebody mentioned before, it sucks when you try to build a certain character only to have the wrong power screw it all up.
- There's too many special rules. A lot of them overlap. Zealot for example is just a combo of hatred and fearless. Sniper is basically a combination of Poisoned and Rending. Armourbane and Melta are very similar too.
- Too many rules are canceled out by other rules. Fearless is too abundant, rendering pinning and fear useless most of the time. Cover is too easily ignored. The rules need better interaction. Just as a suggestion; fearless type rules should bump your leadership up whilst fear type rules should bring it down, just so that both get a shoe in. If that makes sense.
- Too many resolution systems. Vehicles shouldn't be different to everything else, especially when it's apparently OK for Tau battlesuits to share the same stat lines as a Carnifex but Dreadnaughts require a completely separate system.
- The rules are just scattered everywhere. The BRB, codexes, supplements etc. It's too much, and it's not a good way to introduce new players to the game. At least AoS has a very low entry level. Just acquire the free rules and a box of many miniatures you want and you're good to go.
After trying other games (Infinity, bolt action, several historical rulesets such as rapid fire etc...) I must say that the basic ruleset of 40K is incredibly poor. The bloated miriad of rules in codices, warzones etc, makes it utterly unplayable (for me)...
In general, here are the flaws of the core rulebook:
- the IGOUGO model is incredibly outdated and makes for long and boring games.
- the silly functioning of cover (why you cannot stack cover with armor?!?!) which makes the positioning of models not meaningful
- the silly functioning of weapons (with no bonuses or maluses for distance) which makes, again, the positioning of models not meaningful
- the "morale" system which is ported from WHFB and ill-suited to represent sci-fi warfare.
In general the game is extremely lacking in offering to the players meaningful choices. The game is reduced to simply taking the most powerful units and, at most, devise synergies among them. If you do not believe me, take a look at the "tactics" section of this forum. The answer to a problem is almost never : if you face X DO Y. it is always: If you face X TAKE Y.
In the end, this game starts and end at list-building. The actual play is just dice rolling.
Then you have other flaws such as:
- the silly system of allies which opens the door to stupid cheesefest.
- the undeniable and horrible imbalance between codices.
- the huge amount of random rolling (Warlord traits, psychic powers etc.)
- the proliferation of uberweapons and giant toys...
- the ludicrous cost of a playable army.
In the end, WH40K is currently a very poor game. This ruleset was ok 20 years ago, when there were no alternatives to GW products but nowadays I believe that, without a complete overhaul, GW will keep losing customers to the competition.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.
40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.
If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.
Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is
What if you just, like, use really good melee units, eat the incoming fire until you reach melee range, and wipe the enemy out in melee?
Flyers?
Just, like, ignore them. You're not gonna table your enemy anyways, are you?
Tarpitting?
You're not using a deathstar. Ram a melee unit into that tarpit that can deal with those numbers.
Lanrak wrote: Rather than compare over complicated rules of 7th edition 40k, to older editions of 40k.
How many have compared 40k rule set to other rule sets?
When compared to war game rule set written focusing on a specific type of game play 40k rules are over complicated.
40k 7th ed rules are more like sales driven publications inspiring the short term sales of the latest releases.
Well, the last tabletop miniatures game I played before WH40k was MageKnight.
The complete set of rules were included on a single sheet of paper in every starter box.
Every model's stats were, like, part of the model. Because they wrote them on the model.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots
Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.
40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.
If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.
Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is
No one is complaining that they have to take ranged options. They are complaining that some ranged weapons are either too strong for what is supposed to be a company based game, or that some options are too cheap and common for what they do.
Where's the tactics in blowing up a squad a turn, when they have no way of countering it? There's nothing tactical in taking a super heavy, pointing at an enemy unit and saying "remove that unit". Yes, I am aware that there is rolling, but that's just a formality; something will die most of the time.
You might as well play chess with only queens.
Also, a point on 5th ed parking lots - if you are going to build an army without any form of anti tank, you're should lose. I'm sorry but that's how it is.*
*I don't actually agree. 5th ed vehicles were a tad too tough, especially if you didn't have good dedicated anti tank in your army. However, your condescending and dismissive post required some attention.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.
It's also worth noting that until they were made part of the core rules, they saw very little use outside of agreed scenarios, because most players felt they didn't fit the game...
The existence of super heavies isn't the problem. Shoehorning then into a game where opposing armies often have to be specifically constructed to stand a chance against them is the problem.
Yeh, SHV should have stayed in apoc or epic. They do not belong in a game of 40k's scale.
That's probably better than I ever could have put it.
I'll also add in - That attitude is when people make Deathstars.
Can't be done you say? Screw tactical objectives, I'm going to abuse the allies matrix to make an invincible unit that can ignore all your sorry excuses for 'Ranged Support' and boardwipe you.
1. Fixing allies, SHV, Gargantuan creatures, Lords of War, and fortifications. No game under 1000 points should have ANY of these. The combined points for all of these together should never be more than 25% of any force
2. Random rolling. Sheesh, how much of it can you have in one game? Some values should just be set in stone. 6 inches for a charge range, 3 inches for running, terrain slows any movement (movement, running, charging) so that you only move half distance, Wall of Flame should just be 2 hits. In addition, battling out the psychic phase needs to be streamlined. Instead of canceling an enemy power by rolling off, just have the mastery level of your psycher put a modifier on any enemy power within 24 inches. Also, be able to pick warlord traits and psychic powers.
Wall of flame should allow you to use a normal flamer attack. The current version makes no sense. Its still the same attack from using the same weapon, why does it behave different?
And no, "because snap shots" doesn't count as a valid excuse, as it would clearly be an exception.
Elbows wrote: I don't think 40K is too complicated, but rather think it's just a mess as far as what they've ended up with.
I fully support a game being very complex, rich, detailed, lots of rules. On the flip side I love some games which are stunningly simple, but rewarding. What I don't like...is a simple game which is compounded into a complex game by simply heaping loads and loads of additional rules and exceptions onto a simple game framework.
Disclaimer: The below is an obvious exaggeration (barely)
When I watch a 40K battle report this is what I see, as a non-40K player.
Player A: Okay, my squad fires its heavy bolters at your character. (rolls dice) Okay, I got four hits, but I get to re-roll ones...(rolls again) and I have six total hits. These are inferno buttpound shells so they ignore cover and count as Strength six instead of five.
Player B: Okay, roll to wound. I have Mask of the Jelly Troll which boosts my toughness, and Cloak of the Everbiscuit which lets me count as being in cover even if I'm "not".
Player A: (rolls to wound) I score three hits, but I get re-roll any failures because I have Wretch of the Apostasy Sanctum for my Lord of War, which lets me do so. (rolls dice) I score four hits.
Player B: Four hits, gotcha. My detachment rules let me pass half of any successful hits to my character to a nearby friendly unit...so these shots go to my scouts over here.
Player A: Okay, roll your saves.
Player B: I roll my saves (rolls dice) and I fail. However I get to re-roll those and I make (rolls dice) two of them. I suffer two wounds, which would kill me but I get re-rollable invulnerable saves.
Player A: My squad there is lead by a Chaplain and he has the Fisticuffs of Angry Armour which reduces your invulnerable save by one, and if you roll a one you suffer instant death.
Player B: My character also has the Boots of Bee Nectar which means I can roll to ignore instant death on a two or better... (rolls dice) I make one save, so I suffer only one wound.
Player A: My detachment rules allow me to score full kill points if I wound a unit...
It's silly but I swear that is what it looks like in damn near every battle report I watch. Every basic component rule is undone by a half dozen special rules (which in turn are undone by other special rules, or allowed by further special rules). There is nothing attractive about that as a consumer who is in GW's target audience. Nothing...at all.
I've said it in other threads that GW started with a simplified and very streamlined game when they went from 2nd to 3rd...and they've taken that small box or bag and have stuffed it to the point of ripping it in half. They've pushed themselves into a corner with very simple basic rules, which now seem to require a comical amount of special rules to make units different (which admittedly I find they're trying TOO hard to make ever single unit super duper different) or special, or more powerful.
I lmao at this, because this is how it feels. It's a pathetic rendition of DnD in space. I bought a GW book again for the first time in years (Traitor Legions), because I hoped things had changed. Nope same old rubbish.
I'd like the game to focus less on removing your opponents models faster than they're removing yours and instead focus on real tactics and conditions. For starters, a proper suppression system would be nice.
And I'd prefer if 40k went back to the more nuanced subtract from saves rather than wiping them out completely approach that 2nd ed and now AOS utilise. Here's a rough conversion rate I've been working on:
Strength 1-3: no reduction
Strength 4-8: -1 to save
Strength 9-10: -2 to save
AP - to AP 5: no reduction
AP 4 to AP 3: -1 to save
AP: 2 to AP 1: -2 to save
The strength and AP figures are added together. So a boltgun (strength 4 AP 5) is -1 to a save. An auto cannon (strength 7 AP 4) is -2 to a save. And a lascannon (strength 9 AP 2) is -4 to a save.
Make cover simply boost your save rather than being a completely separate thing that often gets ignored anyway and we might be in business. I'm definitely planing to go back to the proposed rules section to develop these thoughts, just as soon as I get some actual free time to do so.
Ionno GW just changes rules like slaanesh changes lingerie. Whatever will get them money they'll do it. I really think Bikes & MCs are going to get hit hard with a nerf bat next edition and the new money making units will be ruled into effect. My advice just keep playing an edition you like, if people don't wanna play it then don't stress move on. If your competitive then your just screwed.
Viridian wrote: Ionno GW just changes rules like slaanesh changes lingerie. Whatever will get them money they'll do it. I really think Bikes & MCs are going to get hit hard with a nerf bat next edition and the new money making units will be ruled into effect. My advice just keep playing an edition you like, if people don't wanna play it then don't stress move on. If your competitive then your just screwed.
Casual game at games store isn't helped either, You have to play what is the local preference.
The main reason 40K is "too" complicated (not quite sure I agree on that but w/e), is the amount of rules that are entirely useless, such as all rules relating to
Morale: who gives a gak, I've got ATSKNF and fearless.
Pinning Tests : but everybody plays a damn bike or vehicles or is immune for some other reason.
Why create a very interesting component of the game only to make it entirely pointless in half the games you play ?
The current edition is complicated and no, this is not conflating anything. Sure, for the most part, the basic rules of the game are fairly simple and easy to apply; what makes the game complex, compared to competing products is in the massive number of special rules, how they interact, and when and how they are applied.
If you compare previous editions with the current, you will easily see that we went from every army having a book to the current morass of army books, sub-army books, expansions, campaigns, digital only rules, box only rules, formations, etc. Some of these are stand alone, others aren't, some replace prior army books, others interact in an unclear manner with their predecessor (agents of the imperium) to the point you don't know if one or both are valid and if you can use them together or have to use them separately. Add into this battle brothers, allies, etc and you have a system wherein it becomes so involved just in order to build an army list to even play the game that the whole thing leaves casual players like me completely in the cold.
To me 40K and AOS are polar opposites in terms of complexity.
* All my opinion, other opinions are equally valid.
morgoth wrote: The main reason 40K is "too" complicated (not quite sure I agree on that but w/e), is the amount of rules that are entirely useless, such as all rules relating to
Morale: who gives a gak, I've got ATSKNF and fearless.
Pinning Tests : but everybody plays a damn bike or vehicles or is immune for some other reason.
Why create a very interesting component of the game only to make it entirely pointless in half the games you play ?
agnosto wrote: The current edition is complicated and no, this is not conflating anything. Sure, for the most part, the basic rules of the game are fairly simple and easy to apply; what makes the game complex, compared to competing products is in the massive number of special rules, how they interact, and when and how they are applied.
If you compare previous editions with the current, you will easily see that we went from every army having a book to the current morass of army books, sub-army books, expansions, campaigns, digital only rules, box only rules, formations, etc. Some of these are stand alone, others aren't, some replace prior army books, others interact in an unclear manner with their predecessor (agents of the imperium) to the point you don't know if one or both are valid and if you can use them together or have to use them separately. Add into this battle brothers, allies, etc and you have a system wherein it becomes so involved just in order to build an army list to even play the game that the whole thing leaves casual players like me completely in the cold.
To me 40K and AOS are polar opposites in terms of complexity.
* All my opinion, other opinions are equally valid.
Yes, these issues are exactly what's wrong with 40k at the moment. Thank you for saying so. I've been trying to say the same thing but I can't think straight at the moment. I'm currently sick.
And at least in AOS the various rules compliment each other rather than cancelling each other out. And a free four page pamphlet and the free rules included with your models are all you need to play a game, making it really easy to get into.
We should be discussing what rules make it too complex.
Personally, I am against anything happening after the roll to decide who goes first. That should decide who wins, with the loser having to buy drinks afterwards.
Of course, Space Marines would still get an extra roll to steal the initiative. This would replace ATSKNF. CSMs would get Warpflame Gargoyles.
Skinnereal wrote: Special rules in 40k 7th ed overlap too much, and are too similar in a lot of cases.
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison.
They still haven't sorted that out yet? :O I used to think that it represented the sniper waiting to get an all-or-nothing headshot but it's actualy a poison rule which never got updated.
Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.
Armourbane isn't even a new thing, it's just a shiny re-packaging of the '+2D6' rule which things like the Eviscerator had. It's certainly less wordy to just say "armourbane" rather than "this weapon adds 2D6 to its armour rolls" but it's just yet another buzzword which covers up and confuses the old core of the rules.
Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.
If there's anything which I disagree with in regards to Fleet it's how it changed to being a speed rule to an assault rule. Perhaps it should instead add an extra dice to the Run roll instead of (or in addition to?) being able to assault when running.
Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.
Rending is a bit of a mess really; it was too powerful in 4th ed but then in 5th they made it roll on wounds which made it more balanced yet it also meant that getting a wound on a 6 wasn't anything special unless it's against something like a Waithlord.
5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.
The half-range thing at least makes the rapid-fire consistant with the weapon being used, as previously I wasn't sure if it was 12" because that represented close-range firing or if it was just another example of the Tau Empire being forgotten and shafted.
GWHQ, 2004:
"Shouldn't the Pulse rifles fire twice at 15" rather than 12"? They do have a 30 inch range afterall.."
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the change to rapid fire was one of the few new rules that I liked. Before it wasn't consistent and was a bit awkward.
The half-range part, yes. But the 'firing while moving', no. It makes the game feel more arcadey and dumbed-down, as if we're too stupid to decide whether to move or shoot so instead we have to be able to do both incase someone finds themselves in the terrible situation of having to make a tactical decision. You could argue that it helps to make the ranged fire feel more modern but the Napoleon/Victorian 40K was all part of the charm; my Tau paint scheme is loosely based on Roke's Drift to suit the fighting style.
Wait, you mean you can't stay still and double tap, like in earlier editions? That's a step back. I forgot about that rule. Then again, I haven't played in a while. Got too disillusioned with the system.
Yeah, I liked ranking up and shooting a volley at point blank range when the enemy got too close. Its one of the charms of playing a gunline. Not that gunlines really work with necrons, anyway; you are supposed to advance. Didn't stop me from trying when I started though
Consolidate into combat was a nightmare, especially when the Harlequins showed up with their ignore-all-terrain-and-good-luck-shooting-me-I-have-nightfight nonsense. It was already bad with infiltrating genestealers with broodlord, but the harlequins would just come straight at you, you can't shoot them due to night fight, they aren't slowed and they just rend your squad to death. It was some bs. Oh, and of course being Eldar they have high initiative, so they will be sure to sweep and consolidate 6" into the next squad, and god help you that its the Eldar turn after. feth Phil Kelly. He killed 4th and 5th ed with his TFG nonsense, which is why we have this mess.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wait, you mean you can't stay still and double tap, like in earlier editions?
You can double-tap but you don't need to stay still to do it. It's in half range regardless of how fast you're moving (unless you're running, of course)
Got too disillusioned with the system.
Join the club
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, I liked ranking up and shooting a volley at point blank range when the enemy got too close. Its one of the charms of playing a gunline.
Not that gunlines really work with necrons, anyway; you are supposed to advance. Didn't stop me from trying when I started though
There could be a Rank Fire rule; only half your models fire, but if they're assaulted in the next turn they fire on BS 5 when overwatching
So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.
What it should have always been is that if you stay still you can double tap at max range, to represent your soldiers aiming and firing precise bursts. If you move you can only double tap at short range, as they don't have time to aim so they burst down whatever is close by, or fire at max range with a single shot, to represent them quickly aiming at a distance target and firing a single aimed round, as they know they wouldn't have time to compensate for the recoil from a burst. Or something like that. The rapid fire rule was always a bit wonky, really.
A fair bit of whats been added over the years is a direct result of 'streamlining' years ago.
E.g. weapons now do one wound, they used to be able to do more, for most models this doesn't matter, they only have one so are dead anyway - but it brought in 'instant death' and 'eternal warrior', just let a las cannon do 1d6 wounds and be done with it - can then use the same system for vehicle damage.
the special movement rules that are a result of the removal of the 'M' stat, the psychology rules that come down to consolidating Ld, Wp, Int & Cl into just Ld.
1st edition had a few issues as the game scaled up, but actually was pretty playable.
At this point I'd just bin it, get the LotR rulebook and a marker pen and add the grim dark stuff to it and use that
I think one major issue is trying to make each unit "type" unique in non-comparable ways, then trying to make each unit within that type unique, and often making models within those units have unique rules as well.
Take the movement phase, and cover. Infantry roll a random distance for movement, and a "less forgiving" random roll if the terrain is especially difficult. "Fast Infantry" like Bikes or Jump Packs lose any sense of self preservation, and continue to plow along at full speed but are sometimes impaled by random tree trunks, rocks, or snowbanks. In particularly difficult terrain, their odds of being impaled go to roughly 33%. But some "Fast Infantry" like horses ignore most effects of terrain slowing them down / becoming impaled, presumably because the Horse knows how to majestically jump around and over trees, boulders, and snowpiles, but lose Initiative while assaulting. While other "Fast Gribblies" ignore everything about terrain altogether. And sometimes it matters if you start/land in terrain, or if you just move over it. Or if you move through it. And why can anyone land on impassible terrain? Shouldn't impassible be, you know, a you-can't-go-here zone for everyone? No, it's cool. We can hover over the volcano because we have a flying motorcycle. Yes, it is several thousand degrees here, but we're Skimmers!
But sometimes those infantry are better at moving through terrain than other people... because figuring out how to not walk into a tree is a special skill. So they roll MORE dice to see how far they can move.
But when we have units that are a lot better at dodging wood, stone, and water, they get to RE-ROLL their suicide attempt. But sometimes, only the random dude in a unit gets to re-roll, while the others are like, "What? Where'd Dave go?" But Leaderman's like, "Screw him! Balls to the walls, Muthaahfukkaaahs!" But sometimes that only applies if it's a specific Leaderman. Or a certain codex, or certain units within that codex.
And sometimes a Vehicle gets stuck and damaged when it drives through a wall. But sometimes a vehicle doesn't get stuck. But if the Vehicle has legs, it gets slowed down like infantry, while a motorcycle can plow through at full speed. But big monsters are better at not being slowed down, rolling extra dice, while the walking bulldozer does get slowed down, because he's... not worried about getting stuck?
And then sometimes some units get to move in other phases, and sometimes not. Sometimes suicidal, sometimes not. Sometimes in reaction to being shot at. Does a blast marker move to continue to cover the targeted model, or does it stay in place? Targeting rules say you target a model's base... and a Hit's a hit... so if the model moves, does the marker move with it? And how they move is different. Sometimes random, sometimes set. And sometimes, your flying motorcycle is faster if ridden by a space elf than it is if it's ridden by a space skeleton. Because exactly two units in the game [Tomb Blades and Deffkoptas] have this "basic rule" while all other Jetbikes are different. Well, I suppose the Dark Angel character with the only remaining Non-elf/robot/ork Jetbike.
Unless you're a flying vehicle, but not a skimmer, because they move differently. Despite Wave Serpents being able to deploy like a drop pod from space, they aren't Flyers. And despite Deffkoptas being helicopters, they don't fly. They jet... what? They're a helicopter. They should be a skimmer, at least!
Um... I'm out of ideas related to how each unit type moves differently to each unit of that type, and how models within those units sometimes move differently to each other, but let's compare that to...
Movement Stat: "X". Your unit moves up to X inches in the movement phase. You may move this distance again in the shooting phase, but if you do, you may not shoot or assault this turn.
Cover Movement Reduction: Each type of cover has a movement reduction value, "Y". If a unit starts or ends it's movement in cover, subtract "Y" from their movement stat. Non-Aerial units moving through cover also subtract this value. For example, a non-Aerial unit moves over a low wall, with CMR value "2". That unit would subtract 2 from its Movement Stat. Movement value can never be reduced below 3". [??]
Aerial: A unit with the Aerial rule may move over other models, so long as they wouldn't need to end their movement on top of another model. A unit with the Aerial rule ignores the Cover Movement Reduction value, if it moves completely "over" the intervening terrain / models.
Agile: A unit with the Agile rule ignores the CMR penalty to movement / Assault initiative penalties.
All unit types use the same movement mechanics, with TWO USR to account for extra-mobile units. Fully granular. Simple. No random dice rolls, no memorizing pages of rules, still allows for variance in how quickly things move around the table, while accounting for terrain / other models.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.
I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.
But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.
Eh, I honestly don't feel the game is *that* much more complicated than it has been. I like the Psychic Phase (as opposed to powers being cast whenever based on the power themselves), removing closest models from shooting (as opposed to "10 Guardsmen are in area terrain, so the remaining 1p that are advancing in the open get 4+ cover"), and I am mostly OK with "multiple detachments" (barring stuff like the Riptide Wing, or other "tax-free" formations for units you wanted to take anyway) as bad FOC organization had crippled armies that had good units otherwise.
More than anything, my main issue with 40k from 6e onwards was making Psychic Powers a random lottery (as opposed to, I dunno, making sure there was internal balance between said powers), and removing "upgrades" in favor of random Warlord traits. This is most notable among Grey Knights and Space Wolves, with the assorted "Grand Strategy" abilities a Grandmaster had being made random traits (meaning you don't have much reason to run a Grandmaster when you could just take a Librarian), and Space Wolves losing the ability to buy Sagas rather than making them Random Warlord traits.
Hell, such Sagas could even have been integrated into 7e objectives system. 5e gave a corresponding oath for each Saga ("Must slay at least 20 foes in melee", "must drive a tank into the enemy Deployment Zone", etc) which was there for fluff alone but didn't actually penalize you for failing to uphold them!
Speaking of random victory points, Maelstrom's implementation is a disaster where you could be tasked with slaying the enemy Psyker when fighting Necrons, or blowing up Tyranid vehicles...
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.
I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.
But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.
Ah, now that rule I remember. That one was introduced in 6th, right? Eh, I'm ok with it. Its a change I would have made. Keep in mind that I would also use to hit modifiers, so it may be a different case.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.
I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.
But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.
Ah, now that rule I remember. That one was introduced in 6th, right? Eh, I'm ok with it. Its a change I would have made.
Keep in mind that I would also use to hit modifiers, so it may be a different case.
Yes, 6th edition when all the stupid started to happen. You could argue that it started in 5th edition with TLOS, but that was merely the seeds of heresy being sown. It wasn't until 6th edition that someone in GW was swayed by a dark apostle.
Talking about RULES complexity, yes... 40k is too complicated.
In terms of STRATEGIC Complexity, 40k is just about perfect (for me at least).
Since 5th edition (the earliest I've played the game) the rules complexity of 40k has increased a lot while competing games have reduced their rules complexity. Basic 40k has added Flyers, Psychic Phase and rolling for physic powers, Super-heavies, Fortifications, and Formations since when I started.
The only game that has more rules complexity is Flames of War... started with 2nd editon there, 3rd was an attempt to clean things up a bit, but just added more complexity as well. Now 4th edition is supposed to be a much simplified version. We'll see. I traded all of my FOW stuff away a long time ago, and I'm not about to buy back in.
On the other side, X-Wing was very refreshing with its lack of rules complexity... Since then though, there have been 10 more waves of product that have only increased the complexity of game as well. I've got a feeling that X-Wing will need a second edition soon.
While I love the idea of formations (take x units for bonus), they are where 7th got complicated. And unlimited detachments, and recently the increasing number of Psychic powers.
Back in 6th, everyone was only allows 1 Force Organization Chart, or 2 at 2000+ pts. You could also have 1 Allied chart per FOC In 7th, that became the CAD and you could have as many as you want.
Then GW did something they hadn't done before. They rapid-fired releases, each with more rules than every before. It soon became impossible to keep track of every new rule for every army.
It's not so much that it's complicated, but needlessly complicated. In my post above, what unit couldn't be covered even if you simply used the default movement values for Movement Stat, and assigned -1" to "light" terrain, -2 to "medium terrain" and -3 to "hard terrain"? Anything that moves through the air gets aerial. Jump Packs, Jet Packs, and Jet Bikes, FMC, and skimmers / flyers. Anything with a movement boosting effect like MTC, Fleet, or being a Beast, gets Agile.
I mean, Warp Spiders, yes. But everything else? You'd lose Jump-Shoot-Jump with is a good thing. Even if it's a powerful ability that people pay points for, it leads to non-interactive gaming, which prevents at least one player from making meaningful interactions with that unit.
This doesn't need to be a "everything needs to be a special snowflake" movement game. The rules could be quite simple, and still be equally tactical, while providing a more predictable / strategic / meaningful choice to the player, rather than hope all my rolls are good this phase, and that for no reason a couple of my dudes slammed into a wall too hard. Now will they slip and fall off the building, and then not jump far enough to get into assault? Random dice rolling instead of meaningful decisions hurts the game, and makes it seem complex without adding any gaming value.
I think 7th edition can be understood... it carries many elements that have been around for many editions.
The main #1 problem is the ability to combine forces that were meant to have advantages and disadvantages that balanced them out.
Being able to mix and match units with psychic abilities makes for too many variables to even try to balance.
But we are discussing "complication" here, I would say it could benefit from a reduction of rules.
The warlord traits should be selected / paid-for or removed completely I would agree.
Random for random sake that takes away from choices is an irritant that makes some of the rules not "make sense" which can give an impression of complication.
I am a huge fan of "Bolt Action" which the rules were made by the same folk who made earlier editions of 40k.
They removed armor saves altogether and it does not seem to be missed.
I would LOVE activation like BA pulling a die for each unit (each army with a colour and number of dice equal to number of units): the I-go/you-go method is too punishing.
I would say 7th is suffering from bloat trying to shoe-horn old rules into new rules as they try to update old codexes which makes for a mess.
I feel that if they CAREFULLY balanced each formation they release with rules that only pertain to the formation could some complication be avoided.
Then ensuring ALL special rules reside only in the big rule book can some of the mess be cleaned up.
AH! #2 main reason for "complication": too many sources of rules.
I used to buy ALL the codexes, pretty much impossible now (or just insanely expensive).
You pretty much have to depend on your opponent to keep track of their rules... read into that how you will.
So, not too complicated but it sure makes it hard to get all the information and make sense of it all... core rules are not so bad, just all the special case rules thrown out there with each new formation release.
In my opinion, GW should publish in WD a bunch of formations mini-codex info as their main army updates.
It makes printings of prior publications relevant and wanted (makes a subscription a wanted thing) so that is how I would handle timely rules as new models get released in batches and we can all be on the same page.
Galef wrote: While I love the idea of formations (take x units for bonus), they are where 7th got complicated. And unlimited detachments, and recently the increasing number of Psychic powers.
Back in 6th, everyone was only allows 1 Force Organization Chart, or 2 at 2000+ pts. You could also have 1 Allied chart per FOC In 7th, that became the CAD and you could have as many as you want.
Then GW did something they hadn't done before. They rapid-fired releases, each with more rules than every before. It soon became impossible to keep track of every new rule for every army.
-
Nothing wrong with unlimited FOCs, I think the bad thing is turning every game into an Apoc game.
IGOUGO needs to go die a silent death in some forgotten corner, the battle brother ally mechanic needs to be tweaked slightly and there are several things that feel clunky and could do with a little streamlining. There are also several glaring balance issues (most importantly the relative weakness of vehicle and assault mechanics) but apart from that 7th seems mostly fine.
But yeah, I wouldn't mind a big general overhaul and streamlining of everything at all. Imo, 7th edition is not too complicated (as in being so complicated it is no longer fun), but it is complicatted enough to slow down games to a crawl at many times. I would love getting faster games.
I know that occasionally people pop up on here and mention the number of special rules currently in 40K (I think it was around 70-80 the last time I saw someone mention it).
I wonder how many of them are special rules aimed at ignoring a basic game rule. I don't play 7th, but I know you have some...
-Ignore leadership or pscyhology tests.
-Ignore pinning.
-Ignore instant death
-Ignore armour saves
-Ignore cover
etc.
I'm just curious what the percentage is. When you have a whole heap of special rules which negate your main rulebook...the rulebook needs to go.
7th Ed. is far from too complicated. It's simply an incoherent mess that, fortunately, could be fixed rapidly given GW ample resources. The main issues about 7th Ed. are balance and formations. The former meaning you need to basically hold a summit with your opponent before every game to have an enjoyable experience, the latter adding ( on top of putting a further layer of balancing issues ) too many (mostly stupid) rules and micromanagement on an already heavy game. Sadly, with the current GW game designers, I won't hold my breath expecting to see any improvement soon. In fact, I kind of expect 8th Ed. to be similar to AoS (which is a major pos in my opinion).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Imo, It should be that you need one CAD variant, and you get another one per 2000 points. You may take 1 Formation OR Allies per CAD you have.
Decurion types need to go. They are an unbalanced attempt by GW to sell you more crap. Like Tomb Blades, which are arse ugly designs.
Each army should only have 3 Formations associated with them.
Like in early apoc, formations should have a base cost in addition to their composition.
That should bring back a semblance of order.
That's just old man talk.
If you want to simplify, everybody unbound and remove all formations, including CAD.
The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units. The imbalance between different armies seems to be the biggest problem with 7th edition, power creep has reached an all time high. Were there one thing I could change, it would be to impose some kind of mathematical formula for the cost of units.
I realize there are a lot of variables that go into the game, and that a mathematical model would not necessarily fix everything. But basing the cost of units around some simple mechanics could go a long way towards ensuring every army could be at least somewhat competitive.
techsoldaten wrote: The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units. The imbalance between different armies seems to be the biggest problem with 7th edition, power creep has reached an all time high.
Err... no.
1) this is talking about complexity
2) 40K has never been as balanced - other editions were vastly worse.
techsoldaten wrote: The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units.
Because this thread is discussing complexity, not balance.
But for what it's worth, a mathematical formula for what you want doesn't work. A lascannon is not worth the same amount to an assault marine as it is to a devastator, or a gretchin. The formula required to cover all of the relevant variables would be insane.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Imo, It should be that you need one CAD variant, and you get another one per 2000 points. You may take 1 Formation OR Allies per CAD you have.
Decurion types need to go. They are an unbalanced attempt by GW to sell you more crap. Like Tomb Blades, which are arse ugly designs.
Each army should only have 3 Formations associated with them.
Like in early apoc, formations should have a base cost in addition to their composition.
That should bring back a semblance of order.
That's just old man talk.
If you want to simplify, everybody unbound and remove all formations, including CAD.
But then it would cease being a wargame and more of a contest of "who can spam the most OP stuff without getting hard countered"
You might as well play rock paper scissors or tik tac toe instead.
techsoldaten wrote: The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units.
Because this thread is discussing complexity, not balance.
But for what it's worth, a mathematical formula for what you want doesn't work. A lascannon is not worth the same amount to an assault marine as it is to a devastator, or a gretchin. The formula required to cover all of the relevant variables would be insane.
Sure it would work. No it wouldn't be perfect and yes it would require some $$$ to get going (thankfully, GW is a multi-million company so hiring some statisticians wouldn't cripple them) but it would be worlds better than the imbalanced mess we have now.
It really wouldn't. There are too many variables, and you'd need to be a math genius to come up with something workable. Even then it will take a while to process all of the different combinations, which are subject to change.
What one could do is price the equipment based on who needs it. So heavy weapons squads get heavy weapons for cheap, CC specialists gets assault and cc weapons for cheap. Armies who don't have many sources of anti-tank weapons don't pay as much as those who have lots of sources of anti-tank weapons, you get the idea.
In many ways the current state of 40k is quite similar to how it was at the end of 2nd edition.
At that time the game had outgrown its original design as some sort of RPG/skirmish/wargame hybrid and moved towards being a wargame dealing with company level combat. The rules were extremely clunky for 2000 point games with detailed rules for all types of weapons, vehicle damage etc.
Now we have a company-level game that's had a whole bunch of extra elements added on top that don't really fit with the basic rules (SHV, GMC being the main ones). I've always thought you can tell a lot about the suitability of a class of units for a game system by looking at how many of the core rules they have to ignore in order to work. SHV and GMC fall into this category with the way they interact with damage, shooting and movement. Incidentally this is also a problem is other systems like X-Wing with its Epic ships and WH/H with Colossals (though I'm not too familiar with how they work in the new version of the game).
One thing that strikes me when watching a game of 40k is the number of dice rolls involved. At its core the game seems to just be about 3 dice rolls per attack: hit, wound, save. In reality you need to add on to that rolling for extra saves like FNP and rolling dice in batches because the first 2 guys have a SS and the next one is a character who wants to LOS, or the first 4 models are in cover but the next 2 aren't. Just looking at how wound allocation and casualty removal works the game would seem to be about skirmish-level combat but at the same time we have regular games with mini-Titans involved. It's a complete mess.
There are also a lot of re-rolls and extra randomness that doesn't achieve much other than extend the game. Preferred Enemy, various other "re-roll 1s" rules, formation extra rules that add re-rolls to certain things...the list goes on.
Army building is a problem too. I don't mind formations and Decurion-style meta formations but the spread of rules is now so vast it's almost impossible to stay on top of it all. I found out the other day there are about 6 or 7 formations for my Blood Angels army that I didn't even know existed. It's got to the point now that someone could show up with an army and claim it all got 2+ FNP saves in the first 2 turns of the game due to the interaction of special formation rules spread across 8 different sources and I'd probably just shrug and say "seems legit".
I think the problem is 40k has no overall guiding hand. There doesn't seem to be a design bible or set of basic rules to follow when creating new units. There also doesn't seem to be enough clarity on what an army's strength and weaknesses should be and how that is reflected in game. But that's straying into design and balance territory, which is a little off topic.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Imo, It should be that you need one CAD variant, and you get another one per 2000 points. You may take 1 Formation OR Allies per CAD you have.
Decurion types need to go. They are an unbalanced attempt by GW to sell you more crap. Like Tomb Blades, which are arse ugly designs.
Each army should only have 3 Formations associated with them.
Like in early apoc, formations should have a base cost in addition to their composition.
That should bring back a semblance of order.
That's just old man talk.
If you want to simplify, everybody unbound and remove all formations, including CAD.
But then it would cease being a wargame and more of a contest of "who can spam the most OP stuff without getting hard countered"
You might as well play rock paper scissors or tik tac toe instead.
I dare you to find something unbound that is more fethed up than what is played in current tournaments.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Imo, It should be that you need one CAD variant, and you get another one per 2000 points. You may take 1 Formation OR Allies per CAD you have.
Decurion types need to go. They are an unbalanced attempt by GW to sell you more crap. Like Tomb Blades, which are arse ugly designs.
Each army should only have 3 Formations associated with them.
Like in early apoc, formations should have a base cost in addition to their composition.
That should bring back a semblance of order.
That's just old man talk.
If you want to simplify, everybody unbound and remove all formations, including CAD.
But then it would cease being a wargame and more of a contest of "who can spam the most OP stuff without getting hard countered"
You might as well play rock paper scissors or tik tac toe instead.
I dare you to find something unbound that is more fethed up than what is played in current tournaments.
Agreed. When Unbound was first revealed as a thing I remember people going crazy. "We'll have nothing but armies of Wraithlords", "It'll be 5 superheavies and nothing else" they'd say. Now we're almost worse than that because there are formations that let you do these sort of things but provide additional bonuses on top too!
The game itself is wonderful and even balanced, also not complicated at all as you can learn 90% of the general rules in less than an hour and in just a single small game. Learning and understanding the game is very easy, is thinking about a competitive list and run it efficiently that is difficult and requires time and experience, but i think it's fair and this is a game focused on the hobby so a beginner should only think in learning how to play and painting his/her models, not to win games. Also it's not difficult to choose an army, pick the one you like the most and you can afford, as some armies are much more expensive than other ones, dont' think about the strenght of some race or the supplements, those are for experienced players. Having hundreds of different units and many possible upgrades among 20ish armies means that something is better than something else, too many possible choices to make the game 100% balanced. I mean, the real issue is not the game and its rules, but the possibility to take some units that are way better than the average. Avoid D weapons, superheavies, T7/8 models and some decurions (necrons and SM mostly), reduce some super effective psychic phase, and the game would be much more balanced. AOS really sucks, don't make 40k like that thing.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No, I would go to a system that actually has an army structure.
That serves no purpose except to annoy the vast majority of players and hobby enthusiasts looking to field either the best combo they can think of or the miniatures they like most.
In a system with no structure, you're welcome to add your own. Why do you need everyone else to be constrained by some arbitrary no fun rules ?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.
I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.
But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.
Ah, now that rule I remember. That one was introduced in 6th, right? Eh, I'm ok with it. Its a change I would have made.
Keep in mind that I would also use to hit modifiers, so it may be a different case.
Yes, 6th edition when all the stupid started to happen. You could argue that it started in 5th edition with TLOS, but that was merely the seeds of heresy being sown. It wasn't until 6th edition that someone in GW was swayed by a dark apostle.
Ruin wrote: TLOS has been in every edition of 40k just FYI.
I wouldn't be so sure.
I remember something about terrain in 4th edition where people couldn't shoot you if you were more than 2" from the outside of the base, but you could still shoot - or something like that.
Maybe its because the "arbitrary no fun rules" actually imposed a sense of balance and required actual choices to be made during list building, rather than just spamming whatever broken combination you wanted.
I acknowledge that there are those who want to explore new army compositions or trying to follow fluff. That's fine.
What's not fine are those who use that way of list building to spam their most powerful entries, so as to trounce whoever isn't ready. You might see the fun in that, I don't. Just because Formations exist and are broken, doesn't mean you can't abuse unbound as well.
Also, for rules that are not "fun", having an army structure sure didn't stop people in 3rd, 4th and 5th ed or people playing other systems from having fun.
Ruin wrote: TLOS has been in every edition of 40k just FYI.
I wouldn't be so sure.
I remember something about terrain in 4th edition where people couldn't shoot you if you were more than 2" from the outside of the base, but you could still shoot - or something like that.
Yeah, Area Terrain. You can't shoot more than 6" past Area terrain, iirc. That got removed in 5th.
There was definitely one edition which had a systematic LOS set-up with different troops types and terrain having different heights. Think it was 4th. TLOS as we have it now has not always been a thing.
Just because Formations exist and are broken, doesn't mean you can't abuse unbound as well.
.
Not every formation is broken, i use Bullyboyz and Blitzbrigade with orks, Wyrdstorm bortherhood and Wulfen murderpack with space wolves, Grotesquerie, Dark artisan and Corpsethief claw with dark eldar and none of them seems broken or impossible to defeat in my opinion. But i only play balanced games, i don't care about being the most competitive, a game is fun only if open to any result till the end of the game. I won't even think about playing unbound or against an unbound list, this is a tactical game and every army should have weaknesses and variety of models.
Slipspace wrote: There was definitely one edition which had a systematic LOS set-up with different troops types and terrain having different heights. Think it was 4th. TLOS as we have it now has not always been a thing.
4th edition when Fish of Fury ruled. I could drive (float?) my devilfish full of firewarriors up the field, drop them out the back and just blast away without fear of being assaulted from the front since the devilfish was in the way.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No, I would go to a system that actually has an army structure.
That serves no purpose except to annoy the vast majority of players and hobby enthusiasts looking to field either the best combo they can think of or the miniatures they like most.
In a system with no structure, you're welcome to add your own. Why do you need everyone else to be constrained by some arbitrary no fun rules ?
My opinion is that you have that backwards. A game best serves a larger audience by presenting a "tight" ruleset which can then be broken by whomever wishes to do so.
Slipspace wrote: There was definitely one edition which had a systematic LOS set-up with different troops types and terrain having different heights. Think it was 4th. TLOS as we have it now has not always been a thing.
4th edition when Fish of Fury ruled. I could drive (float?) my devilfish full of firewarriors up the field, drop them out the back and just blast away without fear of being assaulted from the front since the devilfish was in the way.
Yeah, that was pretty goofy. At least vehicles were fragile back then, so you could destroy the fish.
Slipspace wrote: There was definitely one edition which had a systematic LOS set-up with different troops types and terrain having different heights. Think it was 4th. TLOS as we have it now has not always been a thing.
4th edition when Fish of Fury ruled. I could drive (float?) my devilfish full of firewarriors up the field, drop them out the back and just blast away without fear of being assaulted from the front since the devilfish was in the way.
Yeah, that was pretty goofy. At least vehicles were fragile back then, so you could destroy the fish.
Disruption pods were better back then. I had a 4++ against shooting which made it a pretty durable vehicle so, more often than not, I could wash, rinse, repeat.
Interesting point on having so many special rules that neuter basic rules.
Perhaps 40k should just do away with fear, pinning, morale and so on and just make it an ork special rule that whenever a mob wants to do something (or something happens to them) they take a leadership test or bad thing happen. Seems to be a close enough approximation of the current system, but really cuts down on rule book bloat!
techsoldaten wrote: The thing I don't hear people talking about is the relative cost for units.
Because this thread is discussing complexity, not balance.
But for what it's worth, a mathematical formula for what you want doesn't work. A lascannon is not worth the same amount to an assault marine as it is to a devastator, or a gretchin. The formula required to cover all of the relevant variables would be insane.
I respect that comment, and get the point that a lascannon is worth more to a devastator than an assault marine.
My perspective is the root cause of much of the complexity in the ruleset comes from a need to balance the game. What GW tries to accomplish through mechanics could be more easily accomplished using math. Not saying this would be a perfect system, or that it can entirely replace USRs and things like that, as there are a lot of variables and some imbalances are desirable.
But let's say the cost model is based on an individual part of a unit.
- You have a formula for character traits that takes into account T, S, A, Ld, giving each some weight.
- You have a formula for firepower, which takes into account S, AP, number of shots, distance, etc, and applies some modifier based on class of weapon.
- You have a formula for assault, which also takes into account S and AP, and applies some modifier for things like Power, Force and other special rules. Each SR could have it's own modifier.
- You have a formula for saves, which takes into account Saving Throws, Invulnerable, and a modifier for things like FNP.
- You have a formula for vehicles, which takes into account hull points, distance it can move, and applies a modifier for class of vehicle.
- You have a cost for USRs, which typically act as force multipliers, which is based on some factor like average unit size for the faction or unit. This counts for the fact a squad of Ork boys will not benefit from the USR the same way a squad of Havocs might.
- You have a cost for Psychic Mastery levels, which also act as force multipliers, which is based on a weight related to the types of powers the faction has access to. This counts for the fact Eldar can benefit from psychic powers more than Tyranids.
- You apply the five formulas to units of each faction to arrive at a cost that is balanced across each.
- You work out the cost for USRs and Psychic powers based on the faction, and maybe the units in the faction.
Using the example cited above, while a lascannon might work out to cost 25 points universally, the cost of the model also affects what happens. That Devastator model itself would have a cost that works out to more or less than the Assault Marine, while the cost of the gun would be isolated based on other factors relative to the cost of all weapons.
This would give a pretty interesting projection of the relative power of any individual unit in the game with a small number of variables. It would not be perfect in every use case, but it really don't need to be. 40k mechanics are more like horseshoes, where it's important to be in the range than to achieve some cathedral to perfection, This would simply eliminate the more egregious imbalances that exist, like the ones that lead to the need for more rules or massive changes to the way units perform between new editions.
Anyways, it's a way of getting into the genesis of rules moreso than the individual ones that get added with each new edition.
Martel732 wrote: You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.
We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Martel732 wrote: You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.
We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
I think a game with as many variables as 40K is NP hard. Also, your math formulas aren't taking combos into account.
I think "on topic" is "do you think 7th edition is too complicated."
Getting into points costs is not on topic unless you like to interpret it as "too complicated to assign points values fairly".
I would agree that for every codex rule that works around a BRB special rule or main rule does add complexity (or "jumbled mess" as pointed out).
I had high hopes that all rules could be contained in the BRB since there were a fair number of them and we could pick and choose for each army unit but that got cast aside rather quickly.
So "too complicated" in regards to being "hard to understand", "no fun" or just "hard to keep track of it all"?
I would say hard to keep track of it all is my biggest challenge.
IG-YG, too much random or bad points values bring different issues to the game.
Martel732 wrote: You can't compute points costs. They have to be determined empirically.
We can somehow calculate the weight of stars, movement of planets, and how many particles of matter inhabit a particular space/time but you're saying that it's mathematically impossible to compute point costs in a game. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
I think a game with as many variables as 40K is NP hard. Also, your math formulas aren't taking combos into account.
40k may be EXPTIME hard, but it's not NP hard. There are a finite number of actions that can be made by any pair of armies, it's the number of turns and lack of predictable placement of pieces that make it hard to observe this phenomenon.
Probability alone is not something that takes some actions outside the NP range, which is usually the justification people use when they make this claim. Eventually, with enough trials and the right instrumentation, it would be possible to demonstrate the outcomes of every move in every combination along with the probability some combination will lead to the winning outcome in 5 - 7 turns. No one has the interest in / resources for creating such a demonstration.
Go is now generally considered EXPTIME hard, after having been considered NP Hard for a long time. Google built an AI bot that has been beating Go world masters. What's interesting about the AI is the fact it makes decisions based on the historical knowledge about games it has learned by playing itself. Once a move is made, it knows the outcome of every possible move someone could make in response, and uses that to beat other players. There is some interesting talk about this going on right now.
Let's say, theoretically, 40k was an NP Hard game. All this means is that the consequences of some actions cannot be effectively modeled in a predictable fashion. Fine. Take the elements of the game that can be predicted and build a model around them, it will account for 99.99% of the actions any player will ever take. The other 0.01% will never happen, or people not notice when they do. Put some assumptions into the model, such as people are always playing on a 4x6 table, or that people are always playing with a specific mission, and that 0.01% becomes more like 0.001%.
EXPTIME is a little easier when you have a move that is absolute like chess or go.
The random variation built into the 40k game in many elements escalate the complexity to those calculation to the point of being meaningless.
40k is rather rife with random results to a choice.
Moving through cover, assault moves, slow and purposeful... whole bunch of variable moves, never-mind the various blast templates.
There is a reason why you hear about chess or go "masters" and very little to with games that depend on chance heavily.
It IS too complicated to make a library of known opening moves with any certainty since there are so many dependencies for them to pay off.
Deep striking a knight or infiltrating a bishop on a random turn would certainly make chess "interesting" to say the least.
Why does it feel like sacrilege even uttering 40k in the same breath as chess?
<edit> I find 40k is more a lesson on trying to mitigate the random elements so that a more "known" outcome can be achieved.
Preventing units from coming under fire, AP, getting re-rolls, use of templates (flamer type) remove dice rolling at least for some elements.
Talizvar wrote: EXPTIME is a little easier when you have a move that is absolute like chess or go.
The random variation built into the 40k game in many elements escalate the complexity to those calculation to the point of being meaningless.
40k is rather rife with random results to a choice.
Moving through cover, assault moves, slow and purposeful... whole bunch of variable moves, never-mind the various blast templates.
There is a reason why you hear about chess or go "masters" and very little to with games that depend on chance heavily.
It IS too complicated to make a library of known opening moves with any certainty since there are so many dependencies for them to pay off.
Deep striking a knight or infiltrating a bishop on a random turn would certainly make chess "interesting" to say the least.
Why does it feel like sacrilege even uttering 40k in the same breath as chess?
<edit> I find 40k is more a lesson on trying to mitigate the random elements so that a more "known" outcome can be achieved.
Preventing units from coming under fire, AP, getting re-rolls, use of templates (flamer type) remove dice rolling at least for some elements.
True, the number of possible moves in Chess is a lot less complex than 40k. But we live in the world of big data.
Google's AI Go bot has beaten 50 Go masters straight in the last 50 games, baseball's PECOTA system picks ERA and OPS with a tiny margin of error, HRC's campaign was simulating the election 400,000 times nightly for 6 months before the election, etc.
I would say there's a lot more chance involved in baseball than in 40k. Are you saying this factor makes it impossible to model?
While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.
From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.
Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.
40k is substantially more numerous than that.
Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.
If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.
greatbigtree wrote: While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.
From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.
Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.
40k is substantially more numerous than that.
Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.
If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.
Stars move, different stars move at different speeds; planets move, different planets move at different rates and in different orbits, the same for moons. Somehow we're able to calculate those seemingly endless variables.
But really, you need not be that granular in calculating the representative point value of a unit's mobility as it won't be based on how far the model could possibly move but rather how far and in what manner it is capable of moving which, in the current game, is fairly limited.
Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.
Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.
The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.
Lascannons can take them out long before they get within range, though. Without invis, they are rather sitting duckish. Now, if they got storm shields like the space puppies, this changes a lot. Which is why space puppies can run over entire lists without trying hard.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, Gravcents are only perfectly fair in a relative sense. Im sure units like Obliterators, Terminators, Paladins, etc would strongly disagree.
Relentless rerolling grav cannons really do bring a somewhat absurd level of firepower and versatility into play.
Yes and you're also paying 240 points for 3 of them and their range is maxed out at 24".
greatbigtree wrote: While I'm not familiar with EXPTIME or the other assessment tools... Movement capability should have a value assigned to it, as a more mobile unit is more able to engage / avoid it's targets.
From there, you have infinite gradients of movement distance and direction. And you have multiple units moving over the course of several turns... so you wind up with infinite probabilities exponentially expanding other infinite possibilities exponentially changing based on exact positioning vs survival vs... etc etc.
Baseball focusses on a small selection of opposed stats. On Base Batter percentage vs Pitcher's ERA, sort of thing. This distances a runner must make are fixed. At any given time, there are always 9 defensive units, while there are 1 to 4 offensive units on the field. You have two units, one with 9 models and one with between 1 and 4 models interacting.
40k is substantially more numerous than that.
Hypothetically, you could break movement down into 10 degree increments, and assume "whole number" movement in inches, leaving a typical infantry unit with 216 possible positions, each movement, altered by terrain potential... assuming no further movement was made, like running. An Eldar Jetbike has a potential 60" of movement, if I recall. Even assuming that there are only 36 directions it could choose from, it would have 2160 positions it could move to, presuming the entire squad maintained formation! Admittedly, the board isn't that big, so many of those positions would be illegal, taking you off the board, but still.
If they started in the centre of the board, they could for example move to any 1" square coordinate. If so, it would have 48 x 72 = 3456 potential movement positions, assuming all members of the squad maintained formation. [In fairness, exclude a handful at the edges as models would fall off the board...] but that over 7 turns is 24 000 potential movements. With 4 such units, you'd have combinations of those 24 000, leading to 331 QUADRILLION movement combinations... for one player with 4 units. No dice rolled. Just horribly, super-sloppy estimated movement combinations, with an infinitely large board allowing for positions outside the 4x6 board... but the point stands. Numbers beyond belief would be generated.
Stars move, different stars move at different speeds; planets move, different planets move at different rates and in different orbits, the same for moons. Somehow we're able to calculate those seemingly endless variables.
But really, you need not be that granular in calculating the representative point value of a unit's mobility as it won't be based on how far the model could possibly move but rather how far and in what manner it is capable of moving which, in the current game, is fairly limited.
Respectfully, what I suggested is breaking the game down into a set of 7 categories to measure relative value of units. The point was this may be superior to the current system, which is Matt-Ward-types making stuff up as they go along with limited playtesting.
It seems like you are suggesting this could never work because it's impossible to model every variable.
Perhaps this attitude towards math is the reason we have rules bloat.
I've been on Proposed Rules, ranting about ways to make "pre-game powers" non-random, as my view is and always will be that sort of thing belongs in army creation.
Do that, and the game moves so much faster as you don't have so much setup to deal with!
For me, I don't view it as complexity as much as over-done. While there is a thoughtful strategy game buried in 40k, a lot of the game feels like you're playing against the game rather than your opponent, as though you were playing Chutes & Ladders but have to roll a die to roll a die to roll a die to see where you land.
I think AOSification would work if it was 10 pages. We would need things on points costs, detachments, FOCs and the like. Warscrolls would have to be bigger as well because of all the upgrades.
Respectfully, what I suggested is breaking the game down into a set of 7 categories to measure relative value of units. The point was this may be superior to the current system, which is Matt-Ward-types making stuff up as they go along with limited playtesting.
It seems like you are suggesting this could never work because it's impossible to model every variable.
Perhaps this attitude towards math is the reason we have rules bloat.
I don't recall "movement" being one of your categories, and my point was that it would be rather difficult to set a relative value for a unit that could move to any point on the board, vs one that can't. Without being able to determine a relative value to that movement [having been on the using and used against side of things] a living Jetbike unit can move to any point on the board. Given that many games require the claiming of objectives, what's the relative value between being able to potentially claim any objective, vs being able to claim an objective within 12" max? I'm saying that's a critical value you are ignoring in your setup.
Thus, it would be impossible to determine a value based on your proposed setup, as it does not factor a critical facet of the game.
Even a Wraith Knight's Initiative 5 is crucial to its value. Particularly when dealing with other SHV or Gargantuans. Not at all factored into your setup.
Your last comment is utterly meaningless. For one thing, I love statistics. I do them for fun. [Yeah, I'm that exciting.] My enjoyment of statistics has nothing to do with rules bloat. I'd humbly suggest you take some time to learn how to craft a reasoned argument. The statement doesn't even have functional sense, much less prove a point.
Measuring the movement of stars and planets is surely possible. They move predictably. No unexpected d6 rolls causing sudden collisions between planets as they pass through difficult terrain. All movements are measurable and predictable. One planet doesn't suddenly accelerate to 1.667 times it's velocity [Sorry Atmosphere, I'll miss you!] because I decide to run in the movement phase and roll a 4. Again, you aren't comparing the same thing. A planet's movement is as predictable as Chess, within less than a percentage point. The movement of units, much less models, is not. You compare Apples to the Warp.
Soooo.... yeah. It could be done, but is SUBSTANTIALLY more complex than mapping star movements. When something is completely unpredicatable, as in the movement capability of the Eldar Jet Bike to move anywhere on the table, you create near-infinite, yet equally possible outcomes. Resulting in useless data, when all possibilities are equal. How does movement impact offensive capability, this turn, and into the future? How valuable is it to be able to move to a perfectly secure location? If your opponent can't "catch" you, you are 100% invulnerable. What's the value of a 1+ rerollable save?
Anyhow, it could be done, but is insanely complex and would require much more time to calculate than to playtest for... a decade? I'm being facetious, but the point is accurate. Heuristically, creating such a program would be impractical.
Marmatag wrote: Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.
Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.
The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.
I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.
My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.
Marmatag wrote: Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.
Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.
The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.
I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.
My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.
So I totally agree that the rules could be simplified, and simplicity would make the game easier to balance. Your example of fear is a perfect one. Additionally, they could get rid of some of the "one off" style rules, for example, Hellfrost.
I'm all for anything that makes the game more balanced.
That said, I don't think mathematical formulas are the best way to achieve this. I used MTG as an example because they do exactly this and there are always game breaking glaring balance issues. Type 2 exists because they gave up attempting to balance type 1 as the card pool got bigger and bigger. Blizzard, the kings of math analysis in video games, ultimately did the same thing with hearthstone, for basically the same reason, because after a point it becomes such an onerous task to have balance when you're looking mostly at math instead of just rigorous playtesting.
I guess my argument would be, the game would be better served if they simplified and streamlined the rulesets, removing certain rules that aren't applicable, merging them, what have you, and they did some serious play testing. Spending a ton of time creating formulas to encapsulate all that is 40k would be a waste.
Marmatag wrote: Evaluating units in a vacuum can be done but it doesn't produce meaningful results. Magic the Gathering has a system like this, and yet they're always releasing errata because broken cards get created because of combos, that are simply not caught in any kind of formulae. For instance, Tolarian Academy was a card wherein a turn 1 kill was possible. No formula caught that, though, because it required multiple cards to execute.
Additionally there are key "non stat" variables which impact every single game and decision. All your calculations would be made without factoring in terrain, for instance. Units that move with ease over difficult terrain have empirically more value in a situation where the entire board is difficult terrain.
The best way to catch imbalances is rigorous playtesting of complex rulesets, and even that isn't perfect. Choice - which is derived from complexity - make the game fun.
I don't disagree with you, I just think it's possible to produce a more balanced rules-set and too easy to say, "nah, it's too hard/impossible." Saying something can't be calculated is a cop-out and gives GW a pass for their current lazy method of game development. The fact is that there will inevitably be a Tolarian Academy but where it's a minimum in many games, it's rampant in 40k.
My first question would be, do the rules need to be so complicated? I agree with others who have put forward that if they're spending all of their time making units immune to certain basic rules (i.e. fear), just get rid of that mechanic. If the bulk of the special rules are exemptions from the base rules, there's internal balancing issues that need to be addressed.
So I totally agree that the rules could be simplified, and simplicity would make the game easier to balance. Your example of fear is a perfect one. Additionally, they could get rid of some of the "one off" style rules, for example, Hellfrost.
I'm all for anything that makes the game more balanced.
That said, I don't think mathematical formulas are the best way to achieve this. I used MTG as an example because they do exactly this and there are always game breaking glaring balance issues. Type 2 exists because they gave up attempting to balance type 1 as the card pool got bigger and bigger. Blizzard, the kings of math analysis in video games, ultimately did the same thing with hearthstone, for basically the same reason, because after a point it becomes such an onerous task to have balance when you're looking mostly at math instead of just rigorous playtesting.
I guess my argument would be, the game would be better served if they simplified and streamlined the rulesets, removing certain rules that aren't applicable, merging them, what have you, and they did some serious play testing. Spending a ton of time creating formulas to encapsulate all that is 40k would be a waste.
Well sure, but I think we can agree that the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Math it out as far as you can but then perform extensive playtesting and fine tune. That still won't be a cure all but I guarantee it won't be any more broken than the game currently is.
The issue with having a formula to create 40k point costs is not that it's impossible to do, it's that the time and effort required to make a formula is significantly more than the time required to balance the game through the conventional approach of iterative playtesting. It doesn't matter if you could theoretically dump more than GW's entire annual revenue into funding an advanced AI program to make a 40k equivalent to the chess/go/etc AIs and get a successful result, it's not a practical solution.
To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
techsoldaten wrote: I would say there's a lot more chance involved in baseball than in 40k. Are you saying this factor makes it impossible to model?
As has been pointed out: you need to select the degree of precision you want to have with your model.
You touched on some 7 categories, it is good to set a limit but that (arbitrary?) number could make the model not fine enough to come up with a meaningful outcome/result.
Baseball has a settled-on number of stats for players that make the components of a team.
Then each team compared against another known team and it's various players and their stats.
We typically are more concerned with how well a pitcher can strike-out the various batters of the opposing team.
And the relative ability of the upper tier batters being able to get runs.
It REALLY simplifies matters greatly that these skills play-out one at a time rather than all at once.
With some consideration of how well the basemen/fielders are able to catch if the hit is not a home run.
We do not concern ourselves so much with placement or the "field conditions" but I am sure there are some considerations for heat or rain.
It does not fall as neatly into place with 40k.
Through army selection the "roster" can radically change within that "team".
Their strengths change a fair bit depending on points values.
The game type being played.
The objectives / points and how they work.
Plus we can have "other teams" interact as allies.
Plus all the various components of the "players" come into play all at once or at certain intervals.
I really hate to use words like impossible but it would be simpler to model the majority of Solar System heavenly body gravitational interactions in a "meaningful" way than to model a tabletop game, BUT Dawn of War Soulstorm comes pretty close!
<edit> I have conducted a fair bit of statistical work and "math-hammer" and would try brute-force massed simulated dice rolls just as a sanity check against my equations.
Nothing to say you could not set up simple instructions for individual units / models and varying plans carried out and then simulated thousands of times for a win/lose result with statistics of what "plans" worked or not. You may not get a good yes/no answer but more like "if you do this, it will work, but will not if your opponent does this...".
I can pretty much judge how difficult something is to tackle when many of the answers lead to the phrase "Well, that depends...".
There's nothing inherently wrong with the rules. Are there areas where they could be improved? Sure. As for the game being complex, that will depend on who you ask, some people like me, love complexity and think the game could use some more complexity. Other people will think it's too hard. The problems with balance in the game have nothing to do with the rules, the rules apply to all armies evenly. Balance issues come in when armies don't get the same treatment. The real issue with balance is, GW does not have a standardized point system. They create a mini, give it some rules then decide after some play testing till they decied what the points should be. But that method is all subjective.
The only way to ever balance this game, is to assign all skills, stats, and wargear a single point cost. The old VDR was a good attempt at this. But until this is done, it doesn't matter what rule set you use.
The calculating points value talk is interesting. The point on what combinations you take (and what the opponent takes) will alter the relative worth of your units.
Basically you don't know exactly how many 'points' your army 'should' be 'worth' until both you and your opponent have already chosen your armies.
It would be neat if you could make a system where you enter the models both you and your opponent have picked and that system works out the relative worth of those two armies and then applies some kind of handicap to 'balance' the game (maybe one player starting at a Victory Point deficit, getting a multiplier to how many VPs they earn or whatever). Of course that would probably be pretty impractical in reality, though.
nareik wrote: The calculating points value talk is interesting. The point on what combinations you take (and what the opponent takes) will alter the relative worth of your units.
Basically you don't know exactly how many 'points' your army 'should' be 'worth' until both you and your opponent have already chosen your armies.
It would be neat if you could make a system where you enter the models both you and your opponent have picked and that system works out the relative worth of those two armies and then applies some kind of handicap to 'balance' the game (maybe one player starting at a Victory Point deficit, getting a multiplier to how many VPs they earn or whatever). Of course that would probably be pretty impractical in reality, though.
While such solution would indeed increase "balancing value" of point system (by making it dynamic 1-on-1 calculation you get rid of a lot of "meta environment" problems), it does not solve at least two other problems with balancing 40K through point values:
- 40K have huge range of different victory conditions, many of which shift relative value of units taken. If you also allow assymetric victory conditions all your dynamic balance at list building stage goes out the window - you will have to include those in handicap evaluation, increasing difficulty of it.
- second problem requires a bit more extreme example: playing on "planet bowling ball" is considered acceptable but basically invalidates all assault armies. Now consider exactly opposite terrain setup: standard 6'x4' table, with only two 4" strips of flat ground along longer edges so you can legally place models on the table, and a single, huge, 40" wide LOS blocking, impassable mountain between deployment zones. Scatterlaser/WraithKnight/WarpSpider army on such table can do exactly nothing and loses to simple Biovores/Spore Mines spam (spore mines are used to fill up space in Tyranid deployment zone to deny Eldar Deep Strike abilities), because Barrage is the only abilitiy that matters. And now thrash tier codex stomped the absolute top build. Every IRL terrain setup lands somewhere between those bowling ball and impassable mountain examples but is not really quantifiable in any meaningfull way to inculde terrain dependancy into point system...
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
Don't shoot a tank with a sniper rifle. Don't take a gimmicky army instead of something well rounded. Fixing unit costs only addresses a part of the problem, it's not a cure all, the rest has been addressed in this thread by others (army composition, rules, etc).
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
Don't shoot a tank with a sniper rifle. Don't take a gimmicky army instead of something well rounded. Fixing unit costs only addresses a part of the problem, it's not a cure all, the rest has been addressed in this thread by others (army composition, rules, etc).
So you are saying if we cut a bunch of the lists (IG tank company, SM sniper scouts or bust) and stuff 40k becomes easier to balance, but that it is impossible to do so in the current game state.
Here was I thinking you were on the side in favor of a "balance formula".
Ravingbantha wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong with the rules. Are there areas where they could be improved? Sure. As for the game being complex, that will depend on who you ask, some people like me, love complexity and think the game could use some more complexity. Other people will think it's too hard. The problems with balance in the game have nothing to do with the rules, the rules apply to all armies evenly. Balance issues come in when armies don't get the same treatment. The real issue with balance is, GW does not have a standardized point system. They create a mini, give it some rules then decide after some play testing till they decied what the points should be. But that method is all subjective.
The only way to ever balance this game, is to assign all skills, stats, and wargear a single point cost. The old VDR was a good attempt at this. But until this is done, it doesn't matter what rule set you use.
The old VDR is a good example of why this doesn't work, or at least why it's more difficult than most people seem to believe. It was easily possible to create an absolutely monstrous tank using those rules through exploitation of loopholes and unforeseen combos. I know because my group had a good laugh breaking trying to come up with the most broken vehicles we could using that system. Sure, you could attempt to close every loophole and mathematically model the interaction of every weapon, point of armour and special rule but it quickly gets beyond the scope of what's practical (not necessarily what's possible, just practical).
It's patently untrue that the only way to balance the game is through your method of assigning costs to stats, skills wargear etc. There are other methods, the main one being empirical testing.
I also disagree that the rules are inherently sound. While imbalances between and inside the armies is the single biggest contributor to the problems in 40k right now I think there are certain fundamental issues in the rules themselves that could do with fixing. Assault is just far too difficult, for example, for very little reward in most cases. Take Dark Eldar Wyches as an example. They're a bad unit, yes - overcosted for sure. However, one of the biggest problems they have is more that the core rules make units like them unusable to the point where the concept of a semi-elite, extremely fragile close combat unit is simply not viable because of the core assault rules, including issues such as Overwatch, assaulting through terrain and the relative amount of damage an assault unit can achieve in a game versus what a similarly costed shooting unit can achieve. That's just an example - there are many other similar areas IMO.
I don't think people here are really arguing against complexity. Complexity is what creates interesting situations in a game. It's complication that's the problem. The layering of rule upon rule upon rule and roll upon roll upon roll that slows the game down and adds no real depth is the issue.
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
Don't shoot a tank with a sniper rifle. Don't take a gimmicky army instead of something well rounded. Fixing unit costs only addresses a part of the problem, it's not a cure all, the rest has been addressed in this thread by others (army composition, rules, etc).
So you are saying if we cut a bunch of the lists (IG tank company, SM sniper scouts or bust) and stuff 40k becomes easier to balance, but that it is impossible to do so in the current game state.
Here was I thinking you were on the side in favor of a "balance formula".
Or play to the mission. Look, at some point anyone can make a game unplayable; by tossing the old force org out the window, GW created an environment conducive to gimmicky lists. If you show up to play against an IG player with all snipers though, the problem isn't the game. If you show up with all snipers and you don't know who you're playing, the problem isn't the game. A game can be supremely balanced and still be unable to think for people.
It is foolish to think that one could properly model 40K.
There are serious important things that need modeled which are ten times easier, so why would anyone spend the time on 40K...
The only thing that would make sense is an iterative system where feedback is used to refine point values within a specific rules context and specific terrain style and mission type....
Even that is incredibly complex so ... it's probably better to give up right now.
morgoth wrote: It is foolish to think that one could properly model 40K.
There are serious important things that need modeled which are ten times easier, so why would anyone spend the time on 40K...
The only thing that would make sense is an iterative system where feedback is used to refine point values within a specific rules context and specific terrain style and mission type....
Even that is incredibly complex so ... it's probably better to give up right now.
One might argue that GW does this with each new rules iteration. The problem lies in their need to generate revenue in between rules editions which results in a tacked-on mishmash of additional rules, exceptions, formations, etc which are not strictly aligned with the original product. The fault could lie in the dependence on rules editions rather than a living rulebook model, either that or do a better job balancing the supplements.
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
Don't shoot a tank with a sniper rifle. Don't take a gimmicky army instead of something well rounded. Fixing unit costs only addresses a part of the problem, it's not a cure all, the rest has been addressed in this thread by others (army composition, rules, etc).
So you are saying if we cut a bunch of the lists (IG tank company, SM sniper scouts or bust) and stuff 40k becomes easier to balance, but that it is impossible to do so in the current game state.
Here was I thinking you were on the side in favor of a "balance formula".
Or play to the mission. Look, at some point anyone can make a game unplayable; by tossing the old force org out the window, GW created an environment conducive to gimmicky lists. If you show up to play against an IG player with all snipers though, the problem isn't the game. If you show up with all snipers and you don't know who you're playing, the problem isn't the game. A game can be supremely balanced and still be unable to think for people.
Right so the question remains: how would you write a formula to determine a Sniper Rifle's points cost? Would this formula take enemy models into account? Do you price it a lot because it can be a major PITA against a Carnifex or are sniper rifles free upgrades because they can't touch a Steel Host formation? Does your formula somehow take the average of its effectiveness against all unit types? Oh wait sniper rifles are still effective against vehicles because they can kill Scout Sentinels etc. so would a points formula charge them more or less? What if the enemy never brings scout sentinels? What about against an entire army of Gaunts? Are sniper rifles better than bolters?
There is way too much going on for a balance formula to work.
The reason why many people say it's to complicated is becuase of reasons like:
-broke a working system: Pyker powers
-over lap in rules: things like SaP and relentless being only slightly different as an example
-To many special rules equivalent to the school yard "well I have a shield that stops that, but I have a super powerful thing that ignores that, duh uh!" Arguments
-to many incidents where RAI vs RAW can mean 2 completely different things: gates of infinity power with vengeful strike, or the Deathwing formations with land raider transports
-to many times were you need to consult the rule book or roll off to see what you do.
-To much left up to interpretation
-no consistency between dexs
- no official hierarchy or rule authority, I.E. Rules In dex supersede BRB or vice versa
GW just expanded the game way to much. The rules now Imo are to bloated for the size of games that are the norm now.
I think the biggest problem is the lack of actually usingUSRs.
For example, Games Workshop wanted Wulfen to be good at CC, so they came up with a variety of rules that does this. However, there are plenty of rather functional USRs already that are quite similar, such as Fleet (a USR which is "this unit is speedy"), Furious Charge/HoW (which I think are basically the same rule and says "this unit likes to charge), and Rage ("this unit is frenzied and angry rawr!").
Instead they made a bunch of special-snowflake special rules that are basically "this unit is speedy, likes to charge, and is frenzied and angry!" but decided that USRs were too 'universal' and made up their own.
You can see the opposite of this effect on Khorne Berzerkers. "These guys like to charge and are angry!" *slaps on Furious Charge and Rage and calls it a day*.
So you have units like Heavy Battle Servitors from Cult Mechanicus that have the Heavy Battle Servitor Rule: "Relentless, but can't run." Okay, GW, I get it, they're on treads and can't physically run in the traditional sense. Seriously though, it would be less demanding and artificially complex if they simply put 'relentless' under special rules on the profile and that was that. It's not like removing a single random D6 roll from the unit's movement is going to make them suddenly broken or remove some tactical options or something.
I guess my TLDR point is: "USR's aren't actually universal because they're not 'special' enough, so GW comes up with basically the same rule (or a rule meant to be an abstraction of the same effect, e.g. being angry = Rage, being angry also = Death Frenzy) and adds it to a single unit in a single army and that's just a headache."
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
Don't shoot a tank with a sniper rifle. Don't take a gimmicky army instead of something well rounded. Fixing unit costs only addresses a part of the problem, it's not a cure all, the rest has been addressed in this thread by others (army composition, rules, etc).
So you are saying if we cut a bunch of the lists (IG tank company, SM sniper scouts or bust) and stuff 40k becomes easier to balance, but that it is impossible to do so in the current game state.
Here was I thinking you were on the side in favor of a "balance formula".
Or play to the mission. Look, at some point anyone can make a game unplayable; by tossing the old force org out the window, GW created an environment conducive to gimmicky lists. If you show up to play against an IG player with all snipers though, the problem isn't the game. If you show up with all snipers and you don't know who you're playing, the problem isn't the game. A game can be supremely balanced and still be unable to think for people.
Right so the question remains: how would you write a formula to determine a Sniper Rifle's points cost? Would this formula take enemy models into account? Do you price it a lot because it can be a major PITA against a Carnifex or are sniper rifles free upgrades because they can't touch a Steel Host formation? Does your formula somehow take the average of its effectiveness against all unit types? Oh wait sniper rifles are still effective against vehicles because they can kill Scout Sentinels etc. so would a points formula charge them more or less? What if the enemy never brings scout sentinels? What about against an entire army of Gaunts? Are sniper rifles better than bolters?
There is way too much going on for a balance formula to work.
I'm the first to admit that I'm not an expert here but my armchair angle on this is that you point out units without weapons, price weapons separately, etc. You then game it out and adjust accordingly. Obviously it would work better than what they do now or anything with a D weapon would be pointed astronomically high since it is equally useful against everything.
It doesn't even really need to be overthought. You start with 3s across the board for a model's stats (except leadership which would be a 7) which would cost a base number of points, for argument's sake, let's say 7 points. Every stat that increases costs one more point, every stat that decreases costs one less. Since the game makers are ideally setting out to not munchkin the heck out of the system they're making, you won't see BS0 WS10 Beserkers, rather, you'd see 5 pt IG/AM squaddies since they'd have a two worse armor save.
You then pare down your special rules and assign pt costs based on how much they break the basic rules of the game; not every unit needs to be its own special snowflake outside of army-wide embellishments. Something that adds something to the unit and doesn't break a basic rule, like orders for IG/AM would cost a point or two per model; something that breaks a rule like ATSKNF or Fearless would costs substantially more (3-5pts?); obviously not all special rules are created equal and some would need to cost substantially more because they interact differently with other special rules.
After that, you point out the weapons available to each unit. Since not every unit in an army has access to every weapon (or limited access), you're less worried about spamming. In cases where spamming is possible, you'd rework the unit to prevent it. Special weapons aren't special when everyone can have them. Use the humble lasgun as the base and cost it at one or two points then do the same as with units adding a point for increases and deducting a point for decreases again using common sense to prevent internal abuse. Then look at special characteristics for weapons and adding further.
The difficult thing, really, is that 40k has so many special rules that things become needlessly complicated; we go back to, do you really need fear in a game where nearly every unit/army has a way to negate it? That said, once you arrive at what things cost, you apply them equally across all armies which will result in point values looking drastically different than they do now. If a unit costs too much, there's likely too much crud tacked onto it for little or no reason. Does X unit really need 10 special rules? Do those rules really need to exist? Those are design conversations that need to be held amongst the design team.
There is no perfect system but, in my opinion, almost anything would be better than what we see now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the biggest problem is the lack of actually usingUSRs.
For example, Games Workshop wanted Wulfen to be good at CC, so they came up with a variety of rules that does this. However, there are plenty of rather functional USRs already that are quite similar, such as Fleet (a USR which is "this unit is speedy"), Furious Charge/HoW (which I think are basically the same rule and says "this unit likes to charge), and Rage ("this unit is frenzied and angry rawr!").
Instead they made a bunch of special-snowflake special rules that are basically "this unit is speedy, likes to charge, and is frenzied and angry!" but decided that USRs were too 'universal' and made up their own.
You can see the opposite of this effect on Khorne Berzerkers. "These guys like to charge and are angry!" *slaps on Furious Charge and Rage and calls it a day*.
So you have units like Heavy Battle Servitors from Cult Mechanicus that have the Heavy Battle Servitor Rule: "Relentless, but can't run." Okay, GW, I get it, they're on treads and can't physically run in the traditional sense. Seriously though, it would be less demanding and artificially complex if they simply put 'relentless' under special rules on the profile and that was that. It's not like removing a single random D6 roll from the unit's movement is going to make them suddenly broken or remove some tactical options or something.
I guess my TLDR point is: "USR's aren't actually universal because they're not 'special' enough, so GW comes up with basically the same rule (or a rule meant to be an abstraction of the same effect, e.g. being angry = Rage, being angry also = Death Frenzy) and adds it to a single unit in a single army and that's just a headache."
There you have it. I agree with this completely. You don't need murderfang to have a special rule called murderrage (or whatever) if giving him furious charge and rage basically equals the same thing. Once the rules writers realize the value of consistency, the game will immediately become less of a PITA to play.
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
in a way, this is why skew/spam lists are so good.
An army of entirely fliers / vehicles / nonvehicles / whatever is good because it overwhelms the enemy's ability to deal with a certain target type. You can't balance that in GW's current damage resolution system using only points.
nou wrote: To all those postulating creation of formula for 40K point cost and discussing computational difficulty, I have only one simple question:
- how you envision taking ENEMY models into account when calculating point costs? Straightforward example: Poison is worth absolute zero points when facing IG armoured list and Haywire USR is totaly useless against Tyranids.
One would have to assume some sort of "meta enviroment" of matchups probability to balance this, which is totaly unrealistic outside of tournament scene, and even within tournament scene point costs would have to be recalculated after every meta shift...
in a way, this is why skew/spam lists are so good.
An army of entirely fliers / vehicles / nonvehicles / whatever is good because it overwhelms the enemy's ability to deal with a certain target type. You can't balance that in GW's current damage resolution system using only points.
It's already naturally balanced by being utterly nuked by another skew list and some other very strong lists.
In general though, the strongest force bringing everything into balance is the missions.
Of which I believe the ones in the book should be played more instead of each tournament having its own artificial setting.
People whine about full flyer armies ? give them the real mysterious objectives and let's see how many turns an all-flyer list will make.
The rulebook missions are nowhere near balanced nor are they intended to be, hence why most events use their own missions. The Maelstrom missions are randomness for its own sake that heavily emphasize MSU spam generalist armies like SM's and Eldar that can do meaningful stuff in every single phase, while the Eternal War missions have a ton of problems, KP's being a stupid victory mechanic, scouring and big guns making FA and HS units liabilities for no commensurate benefit because GW copypasta's the 6E missions without thinking about the changes they made to how scoring units work, etc.
Likewise just because some types or armies have hardcounters doesnt mean they are balanced, having a game where you practically autowin or autolose depending on opponents build is not balance.
I consider a game too complicated if I find no-one can get through a round without forgetting something, I need aids other than tokens for bookkeeping, there are several rolls a turn that very rarely matter and/or there is more than one "layer" of special rules (i.e. special rules that ignore or interact with special rules, rather only the core rules.)
I think they need to strip the game back to some simple core elements and then work with them with regards to the units. No core rule should undo another one. Instead they should work together. And they should try to focus on the dice roll. Rules should add or subtract from the dice roll with the occasional re roll there too.
And at the risk of starting an argument...we could probably stand to lose the templates as well. They always slow the game down for me, and they also undo the though ballistic skill mechanism which again is a common problem with 40k these days (rules undoing other rules).
I think they should make it faster on models being removed for instance in rogue trader each weapon had a negative modifier to an armor save. A bolter was a -2(so a terminator with a +2 save, minus the bolters -2 gave it a save of +4/ and a model with a +5 save was just removed). Different weapons had different modifiers a Las cannon had a -6 modifier for example.
I think the biggest complexity comes from people with no idea what they're talking about spreading their ignorance like paint.
Murderfang has -
Furious Charge
Rage
Rampage
It Will Not Die
All of which are BRB rules.
Murderfang has two unique things like most unique chharacters do.
Murderlust is a much better version of Extra Armour.
Murderclaws are Relic Dreadnought Claws.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I think the biggest complexity comes from people with no idea what they're talking about spreading their ignorance like paint.
Murderfang has -
Furious Charge
Rage
Rampage
It Will Not Die
All of which are BRB rules.
Murderfang has two unique things like most unique chharacters do.
Murderlust is a much better version of Extra Armour.
Murderclaws are Relic Dreadnought Claws.
My, quite poetic, aren't we? "spreading ignorance like paint."
Why does one model need all of that? I know it seems like characters should have extra "stuff" since the regular units have so much tacked-on but if you remove a lot of the glitz from the regular units, you make the game simpler so that a casual player isn't forced to absorb so many things. Some of us don't live and breath 40k, some people have lives outside of a game that they can only play a few times per year and for us the game just becomes more progressively a morass of special building on special.
Here's an example. Get rid of FnP and replace it with an extra wound for the model. Get rid of IWnD and replace it with an extra point of armor save or armor. Instead of making more special rules, work within the confines of what already exists.
irondestroyer wrote: I think they should make it faster on models being removed for instance in rogue trader each weapon had a negative modifier to an armor save. A bolter was a -2(so a terminator with a +2 save, minus the bolters -2 gave it a save of +4/ and a model with a +5 save was just removed). Different weapons had different modifiers a Las cannon had a -6 modifier for example.
Oof, definitely not -2 for bolters. Remember we have whole armies of those now. Maybe -1 or something.
irondestroyer wrote: I think they should make it faster on models being removed for instance in rogue trader each weapon had a negative modifier to an armor save. A bolter was a -2(so a terminator with a +2 save, minus the bolters -2 gave it a save of +4/ and a model with a +5 save was just removed). Different weapons had different modifiers a Las cannon had a -6 modifier for example.
Oof, definitely not -2 for bolters. Remember we have whole armies of those now. Maybe -1 or something.
You're speaking my language. Why have all these rules when it would be easier to work with the models core stats?
Exactly. The whole rules for the sake of 'narrative' has really bloated everything to the point of the game nearly being unplayable, for me anyway. Getting rid of a large number of them would also serve to make the game less complicated to the point where a greater number of exploits could be removed. The problem is that the game designers are approaching this from how they play the game, a narrative, quasi-rpg experience, while they would be better off taking it back to Rogue Trader when it was one if that's what they really want us all playing.
To me rules like FnP, rerollable saves, and RP are issues as they take fun out of the game and really slow it down. One player rolls to hit, accounting for all the various adjustments there, then rolls to wound, the the opponent rolls their armor/cover save then gets to roll again and sometimes even another time on top of that. So, I get one chance to wound and you get 2 or 3 chances to save, yeah. Take those out and the game just got noticeably shorter.
As someone who's having to learn 7th edition after not being active in the tabletop club scene since 4th/5th edition, the rules-bloat certainly doesn't help with picking it up again. What makes it even harder is that along with the extra rules you also have things like Unwieldy, Armourbane, Shreading etc which already existed in older editions but without the fancy buzzword.
And the psyker rules; I've played a good few games in 7th now and I still have no idea where this "witch" is and how I'm supposed to deny her sultry advances.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I think the biggest complexity comes from people with no idea what they're talking about spreading their ignorance like paint.
Murderfang has -
Furious Charge
Rage
Rampage
It Will Not Die
All of which are BRB rules.
Murderfang has two unique things like most unique chharacters do.
Murderlust is a much better version of Extra Armour.
Murderclaws are Relic Dreadnought Claws.
My, quite poetic, aren't we? "spreading ignorance like paint."
Why does one model need all of that? I know it seems like characters should have extra "stuff" since the regular units have so much tacked-on but if you remove a lot of the glitz from the regular units, you make the game simpler so that a casual player isn't forced to absorb so many things. Some of us don't live and breath 40k, some people have lives outside of a game that they can only play a few times per year and for us the game just becomes more progressively a morass of special building on special.
Here's an example. Get rid of FnP and replace it with an extra wound for the model. Get rid of IWnD and replace it with an extra point of armor save or armor. Instead of making more special rules, work within the confines of what already exists.
Wannabe graphic novelist actually, poetry is accidental at best.
I agree with you for the most part - a lot of rules really can be dropped to a regular numerical statistic rather than a special rule, but I don't agree with dropping the special rules altogether. Simple is nice but I love combo plays.
IWND and FnP are confered by other models as often as they are static on individual models.
Likewise Rage and Rampage are both situational, so they only apply under certain circumstances.
As an example a Vehicle is a difficult model to simplify into numbers because bumping up its armour would make it straight up immune to large amounts of opposing models, Murderfang in particular because so many of his rules are situational.
Since the FAQ Murderfang packs 6 attacks which is great but it really becomes impressive when its controller manages to charge into a unit of two or more models; 8-10 attacks at S8 is massacre country. On the flip-side an opponent who can make the charge on Murderfang with a single model Rage, Rampage and Furious Charge become irrelevant.
Same with Murderlust, if your opponent rolls explode the ability to ignore shaken and stunned results doesn't matter a bit and nor should it.
That said, I don't like the vehicle damage table anyway.
agnosto wrote: Instead of making more special rules, work within the confines of what already exists.
Pretty much this. Our current iteration of 40k is based on 18 years of tacking stuff on to what was originally a reasonably simple ruleset (3rd edition).
In addition to that I just think the core rules are poorly written. Way too many pages and too much bloat, the rules are spread too thinly instead of being clear and concise and instead of building on a solid core there's rules which interject themselves on existing rules.
SDFarsight wrote: As someone who's having to learn 7th edition after not being active in the tabletop club scene since 4th/5th edition, the rules-bloat certainly doesn't help with picking it up again. What makes it even harder is that along with the extra rules you also have things like Unwieldy, Armourbane, Shreading etc which already existed in older editions but without the fancy buzzword.
And the psyker rules; I've played a good few games in 7th now and I still have no idea where this "witch" is and how I'm supposed to deny her sultry advances.
Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.
http://the-difference-between.com/shred/rend wrote:"As verbs the difference between rend and shred is that rend is to separate into parts with force or sudden violence; to tear asunder; to split; to burst while shred is to cut or tear into narrow and long pieces or strips."
Clearly different rules are required to capture that distinction.
SDFarsight wrote: As someone who's having to learn 7th edition after not being active in the tabletop club scene since 4th/5th edition, the rules-bloat certainly doesn't help with picking it up again. What makes it even harder is that along with the extra rules you also have things like Unwieldy, Armourbane, Shreading etc which already existed in older editions but without the fancy buzzword.
And the psyker rules; I've played a good few games in 7th now and I still have no idea where this "witch" is and how I'm supposed to deny her sultry advances.
Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.
http://the-difference-between.com/shred/rend wrote:"As verbs the difference between rend and shred is that rend is to separate into parts with force or sudden violence; to tear asunder; to split; to burst while shred is to cut or tear into narrow and long pieces or strips."
Clearly different rules are required to capture that distinction.
That's a really good point. Re-rolls to wound (Shred) could be called "Anatomical Precision" or something like that. Something that indicates having literally anything to do with wounding a living thing and not hurting a vehicle.
Also a returning player, and I get confused by how many of the buzzwords are near synonyms - e.g. "Rend" and "Shred". Makes it that much harder to keep track of them all.
In a similar situation, good god yes. So many rules, many of which are just renaming of other rules or combinations of them. Or rules that interfere with other rules. The USR section of the rulebook is astoundingly large (and apparently not even very 'universal'), and the special rules sections of each codex is now similarly bloated. The game of 'Strange Formations and Where to Find Them' also does not make for an encouraging situation.
There's so much bloat right now, it just seems all so impenetrable.
Having returned to the game after an absence since 5th ed, overall i think its good except for:
The psychic phase - i think its waayyyy too convoluted. Surely psychic powers could just be absorbed into other phases. ie a power which affects movement is able to be used in the movement phase, a power that projects an attack in the shooting phase, summoning happens when reserves are rolled for etc. Also i think there needs to be a rethink of the whole warp charge dice pool as this punishes players who dont run psychics.
Charge phase - There should be a minimum charge distance ie it used to be 6 inches. I get rolling for further but it a) slows and complicates that part of the game and b) just doesn't make sense that some units will not be able to charge eg if you roll under 3 or 4.
Fight phase - while not to simplify too much, there are just too many rules/stats going on here to make it intuitive or fast. These include WS, Initiative, strength, toughness, AP, and a myriad of special rules. If you could tighten fights to be more like shooting it would be so much better. I just feel there are too many steps so my (working) suggestion would be to remove iniative steps and maybe give higher iniative models an iniative save or a to hit modifyer?
Also as too many special rules which are really similar.
I don't have thw answer but it just seems too convoluted.
Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.
In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.
Fafnir wrote: Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.
In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.
Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".
Which doesn't necessarily make it a good solution.
It'd be much better to develop assault armies and general rules systems around tools that would allow them to land the charge based off of the merits of good planning and movement, rather than the patented GW solution of simply throwing dice at the problem.
I'm also a bit sore about most of my last 40k games before I stopped playing being spent with my assault units angrily staring at an enemy unit 3 or 4 inches away because they just couldn't be arsed to put in a little hustle. All before being summarily blown to pieces or countercharged in the subsequent turn, of course.
As an example a Vehicle is a difficult model to simplify into numbers because bumping up its armour would make it straight up immune to large amounts of opposing models, Murderfang in particular because so many of his rules are situational.
That said, I don't like the vehicle damage table anyway.
I personally hate 6th/7th idea of "everybody gets Overwatch but vehicles for some totally illogical reason.
That and "CC always hits rear because it's easy to hit a small spot on a tank".
The first one is just " we have no idea what Overwatch on vehicle could do so we're removing it from the game".
The second is "somehow, it's easy for everyone to drop a grenade in the 10x10cm left air intake on a tank moving at 120kph+".
It makes CC against vehicles auto win when there is no reason for it - a rule that worked PERFECTLY in prior editions, where fast moving vehicles were very hard to hit (I dare you to land an axe hit on a Bike zooming past at 200kph), and immobile vehicles were easy to hit.
At the same time, surrounding a Dreadnought still means nobody gets to hit its rear... lmao.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spudasaurous wrote: Having returned to the game after an absence since 5th ed, overall i think its good except for:
The psychic phase - i think its waayyyy too convoluted. Surely psychic powers could just be absorbed into other phases. ie a power which affects movement is able to be used in the movement phase, a power that projects an attack in the shooting phase, summoning happens when reserves are rolled for etc. Also i think there needs to be a rethink of the whole warp charge dice pool as this punishes players who dont run psychics.
Actually it's the exact opposite, players who don't run psykers have a decent amount of dice, whereas people who bring lots of psykers don't get many more dice for it.
When I play psykers and you don't, and I roll 6 for the psychic phase, it puts me at a disadvantage - and it never hurts you.
Fafnir wrote: Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.
In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.
Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".
That makes sense, but clearly charging 3" makes no sense, so a mix of both would be a good thing.
Something like 6+ 1d3 (+1d3 if the first d3 hit 3).
Fafnir wrote: Which doesn't necessarily make it a good solution.
It'd be much better to develop assault armies and general rules systems around tools that would allow them to land the charge based off of the merits of good planning and movement, rather than the patented GW solution of simply throwing dice at the problem.
I'm also a bit sore about most of my last 40k games before I stopped playing being spent with my assault units angrily staring at an enemy unit 3 or 4 inches away because they just couldn't be arsed to put in a little hustle. All before being summarily blown to pieces or countercharged in the subsequent turn, of course.
Or make existing game mechanics actually work. Imagine if assault armies had access to pinning weapons and the pin mechanic actually had a chance of working instead of it being yet another USR that every army is immune to in some way.
I actually like the fact there's a Psychic Phase in 7e. I remember 5th, how Psychic powers were an ambiguous mess, right down to casting powers in the enemy turn. Warp Charge creates a system that allows for resource allocation/risk management and I like that too.
The thing I dislike, as mentioned, is the logarithmic scaling in power/the way the game does "pooling." If the game was "2 Warp Charge per Mastery Level, but models may only use their own Warp Charge" or something along those lines, it would probably make more sense overall.
The other issue is powers and denial are both "all or nothing". I cast a WC 3 summon with 4 successes, my opponent needs to roll 4 sixes to deny. Roll 3...nope, that summon goes off. If powers were effective based on number of successes (Scouring Flame does more if you manifest with 4 successes instead of 1, etc), and denial reduced the number of successes instead of it being match the number of successes, it would feel more "measured" overall and less of a complete crapshoot.
* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.
* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.
* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.
Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.
Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:
Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375
Total: 1500 points.
That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.
Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.
This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.
MagicJuggler wrote: Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:
Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375
Total: 1500 points.
That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.
Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.
This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.
That looks like a ScreamerStar got cancer and the HoTz cells just took over the entire body.
MagicJuggler wrote: Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:
Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375
Total: 1500 points.
That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.
Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.
This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.
wtf, why is that a thing. -_-
Dammit GW, just because its chaos doesn't mean you have to give them superfluous random nonsense.
I really sat down and read the 40k rulebook for the first time recently and the issue with it isn't really that the game is that complicated; its simply not particularly well organized.
I'd blame the Codex system for this personally. Maintaining compatibility with rulebooks written for previous editions creates a very patchwork ruleset where little unnecessary differentiation exists between similar models, leading to situations where understanding the total compilation of "what this does" involves checking a half dozen places across 2-3 different books. There really aren't THAT many rules in actual play, its just that they're not presented together in a way that instructs players intuitively.
The game could probably really benefit from some simplification, though not of special rules, but of model types (ie things like Jump and Bikes could have their rules moved to the units themselves). Beyond that though, I think the game really just needs to be app based so that players can quickly see all the rules associated with a model rather than try to figure out how they all go together.
MagicJuggler wrote: I actually like the fact there's a Psychic Phase in 7e. I remember 5th, how Psychic powers were an ambiguous mess, right down to casting powers in the enemy turn. Warp Charge creates a system that allows for resource allocation/risk management and I like that too.
The thing I dislike, as mentioned, is the logarithmic scaling in power/the way the game does "pooling." If the game was "2 Warp Charge per Mastery Level, but models may only use their own Warp Charge" or something along those lines, it would probably make more sense overall.
The other issue is powers and denial are both "all or nothing". I cast a WC 3 summon with 4 successes, my opponent needs to roll 4 sixes to deny. Roll 3...nope, that summon goes off. If powers were effective based on number of successes (Scouring Flame does more if you manifest with 4 successes instead of 1, etc), and denial reduced the number of successes instead of it being match the number of successes, it would feel more "measured" overall and less of a complete crapshoot.
I'll disagree by saying that the psychic phase it pretty dumb. They took an old WHFB mechanic that didn't work all that well and applied it to 40k where it faired even worse. I agree with others that they should just roll the powers into being applied to other phases of the game. Summoning something? Do that in the reserves phase. Shooting a unit? Do that in the shooting phase. Moving somewhere? Do that in the movement phase. The psychic phase is exactly the same problem as the copious amounts of USRs; it could all be done in an existing part of the game but they decided to tack on an extra, time consuming, phase just for...reasons?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I really sat down and read the 40k rulebook for the first time recently and the issue with it isn't really that the game is that complicated; its simply not particularly well organized.
I'd blame the Codex system for this personally. Maintaining compatibility with rulebooks written for previous editions creates a very patchwork ruleset where little unnecessary differentiation exists between similar models, leading to situations where understanding the total compilation of "what this does" involves checking a half dozen places across 2-3 different books. There really aren't THAT many rules in actual play, its just that they're not presented together in a way that instructs players intuitively.
The game could probably really benefit from some simplification, though not of special rules, but of model types (ie things like Jump and Bikes could have their rules moved to the units themselves). Beyond that though, I think the game really just needs to be app based so that players can quickly see all the rules associated with a model rather than try to figure out how they all go together.
I agree, the basic rules themselves, outside of useless USRs, aren't the biggest issue. The biggest problem is that the army books focus completely on negating certain aspects of the game. I can get on board with special characters having their own rules to some extent, though it starts to look like herohammer, but basic grunts don't need 3 USRs and additional special snowflake rules that break other USRs.
MagicJuggler wrote: Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:
Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375
Total: 1500 points.
That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.
Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.
This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.
No, that's willfull idiocy on the part of the army-building user. If I applied the logic of that post to another product, like hammers, I'd get something like this: "Theoretically, I can buy a hammer at my local hardware store, and then swing it at my own head! That really hurts! That's why GW shouldn't sell hammers."
I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?
recalcitrantQ wrote: I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?
It's to make it harder for someone to photocopy just what you need to play an army. Seriously, check your codex. Actual rules are usually 20-30 pages, everything else is fluff, pictures, and other filler to make the book big enough to sell for that premium price. So by putting half of a unit's rules (USRs, etc) in the unit description while putting points/equipment in the army list, you now need to copy twice the number of pages...
MagicJuggler wrote: Thanks to Wrath of Magnus, I can theoretically make this following Daemon list:
Heralds Anarchic x 2:
Herald of Tzeentch w/ ML 3 and 3 Lesser Gifts: 125
Copypaste 11 more times: 1375
Total: 1500 points.
That's 72 rolls for pre-game powers. 36 Lesser Gifts and 36 Psyker powers. With each one, you can waste a minute to go "uhh, do I want an Etherblade" or "uhh...do I want summoning?" Oh, and a Warlord Trait.
Proceed to put all but 1 Herald in reserve and wait to be tabled in 5 minutes.
This is why I say remove random pregame powers, period.
No, that's willfull idiocy on the part of the army-building user. If I applied the logic of that post to another product, like hammers, I'd get something like this: "Theoretically, I can buy a hammer at my local hardware store, and then swing it at my own head! That really hurts! That's why GW shouldn't sell hammers."
The difference being someone (or a group of people) could hypothetically bring a list like this to a event just to grief other players. After all, how can you be booted for slow play when the round finishes before the game even began?
Also, how does putting all powers in one phase slow down the game exaxtly? If anything, it should speed things up since the system favors one or two big powers rather than spamming tons of small ones.
recalcitrantQ wrote: I agree, GW's layout for their rules is atrocious. First example that comes to mind: why in the Emperor's name are a unit's unique special rules given in completely the opposite end of the book from that unit's actual composition and cost?
It's to make it harder for someone to photocopy just what you need to play an army. Seriously, check your codex. Actual rules are usually 20-30 pages, everything else is fluff, pictures, and other filler to make the book big enough to sell for that premium price. So by putting half of a unit's rules (USRs, etc) in the unit description while putting points/equipment in the army list, you now need to copy twice the number of pages...
Which still doesn't work IMO, it may have worked 20 years ago but in the age of pdf documents and cheap home printers, not so much. If someone wants to do it illegally, they'll do it and still not spend as much, if your take on it is accurate, GW is punishing the people who purchase the books just for spite.
If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.
Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)
Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.
the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.
Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.
Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)
* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.
* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.
* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.
Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.
I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the second one. How do you think that would look? Would you still include saves in this system or would you scrap them? Personally I like saves because they give your opponent something to do doing your own turn. It helps to keep them interested.
* There are just too many universal(!) "Special" rules. You get marginal benefits, but have to remember the exact difference between over a dozen of similar rules for just one army. If you want to differentiate Units, give them better - or worse - values, Points changes, whatever. But having to remember that you can reroll Charge range in the first round against an Inquisitors Player in July and against Orks when it's full moon is just not worth it. Yeah, the big, rare, unique character may have the odd Special rule, but not every grot and their pet squig.
* The game process is too damn slow. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save. Reroll applicable rerolls. Roll for feel no pain. Roll for some resurection protocols or whatever your army may or may not have. By the time you are done with one Action, your Opponent is asleep.
My Suggestion: A unit has a ranged and a melee attack value and a defence value. Cover, Actions, Equipment, bubbles etc. increase or decrease said value. The attacker rolls his attack rolls against the defence value. Everything that hits, hits. End of Story.
* Random tables. Random tables everywhere! Especially if you Play something chaosy. Roll for your warlords, roll on the chaotic Environment, roll for your psyker skills, roll on the boon, roll this, roll that... The process sucks and if you get precisely what you want least, it sucks double, since the model paid the Price for the potential good stuff and ended up with something you wouldn't take for free.
Remove that and suddenly you are able to Play a game within 2-3 hours without needing a small library too look up whether you may deploy an assault squad within 23,8 inches distance of the objective when it is Held by both a carnifex and an allied necron Lord.
I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the second one. How do you think that would look? Would you still include saves in this system or would you scrap them? Personally I like saves because they give your opponent something to do doing your own turn. It helps to keep them interested.
Keep saves but if you need granularity make FnP and RP a save (if you don't like just giving an extra W), not a save on top of a save. Example: FnP allows saves versus any weapon that's less than 2x the model's T value instead of "roll your armor, now roll FnP, now...." It's special but not roll dice forever special; the same with RP, get rid of RP and make it FnP. Extra granularity is in the save value. Regular troops get a 4+ with FnP, characters a 3+, etc.
I would keep saves. It gives your opponent a chance to survive if he gets alpha striked (in theory, anyway. One will have to limit the availability of long ranged AoE weapons that ignore armor)
Make RP more like how it was in 3rd and 5th ed (there was actual counterplay then), make FNP only available if the model cannot use his save and if the blow will not instantly kill him.
I find it odd how FNP is more effective at keep models alive than invulnerable saves.
It should be armor -> FNP -> Invul
Cover should be a negative hit modifier. Because its cover; it stops you from getting hit.
leopard wrote: If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.
Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)
Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.
the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.
Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.
Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)
This.
I would love something like this.
Before the first dice is even rolled things have already been made simpler.
Fafnir wrote: Charge distance just needs to go back to 6". Making it random adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, and only takes away the reliability of a reward for actual planning and tactics.
In general, there's just way more dice rolling than there needs to be, and most of it serves no purpose other than to add randomness for narrative's randomness sake. GW's designers also need to understand that 'narratives' aren't forged through random chance that players have no control over, but through events influenced by their own actual agency. There needs to be less ineffectual randomized crap, with a greater focus on a smaller number of more meaningful actions that actually involve the player. Because the huge glut of random ends up mostly just coming off like a list of steps to be followed through with off a checklist, rather than actually engaging and playing the god damn game.
Actually random charge distances were added to help assault armies, believe it or not. When premeasuring was added to the game, it was assumed that players would be able to accurately calculate charge distances down to the micron (which is true) and therefore shooting armies would deftly be able to step out of way of assault armies by .00000001" every single turn (or so the argument goes). With random charge distances, uncertainty is introduced and shooty armies are not able to make 100% sure they are out of assault range unless they stay outside of 18", which is considerably further than staying outside of 12".
There are a couple major offenders and a ton of minor offenders. I'd generally put the problems into two categories: time wasters and rule complicators. These are things that make the game tedious without adding gameplay value.
1. It is possible for models to move, run or charge, pile-in, and consolidate (or end of combat pile in) all on one turn. That means that on a fairly typical turn players might have to physically move a model 1 to 4 times. For armies with lots of models like Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc, this gets downright tedious for everyone involved. It would not be very hard to consolidate all of that movement (and rolling) into a single move. Instead of having up to four movements and rolling for things like run/charge/consolidate/terrain, models should only move once per turn with all running and charging done in the movement phase. Running and charging should be a fixed modifier (like initiative) added to the model's base movement, and terrain should be a fixed -2" or -3" to a move. This removes a lot of wasted time, since rolling for every unit to run or move through terrain also adds unnecessary actions. The specific modifiers can be debated, but the point is that models should only need to be moved once (or at most twice!) per turn, and you should not have to roll a die for simple movement actions.
2. Excess rolling. For instance, giving weapons re-roll to hit or wound instead of just increasing BS or S. A good example of this is the Eversor Assassin's poison gauntlet which wounds on a 2+ and then re-rolls failed to-wound rolls. You're forcing players to roll against a 97.3% event, it's mostly a waste of time. You'd be better off making it insta-wound and bumping his points cost slightly. Snap shots are another example, rolling overwatch for Imperial Guard is a chore, you load up buckets of dice and then you miss them all. Units had a chance to shoot in the shooting phase, get rid of overwatch.
3. Rule complicators are wonky rules that require too much parsing or allow players to exploit certain rules. Shooting at units with mixed toughness and armor saves, close combat with units with mixed WS, using look out sir to selectively tank or pass off wounds depending on whether its a plasma bolt or a lasgun, etc. I think a lot of these ones are based around independent or named characters. Rather than simply buffing a unit or nearby units, they are inevitably loaded down with tons of special rules and wargear that require a whole 5 minute explanation to the opposing player. This is a bit more of a tricky problem and comes down more to game design. 40k is a game where you're fielding dozens or a hundred plus models, a single character should not have a tome's worth of special rules that apply to just him. In my opinion, characters should be more like unit or army buffs, not one-man game-breakers.
4. All the charts, as so many people have pointed out. I tend to think that every chart in the game could be simplified down to either a d3 or a simple x+ roll. The perils of the warp and the vehicle damage tables are all very neat and wonky, but it's just a slog when you need to constantly check to see what a "3" on perils is, or whether after a "6" the transported unit disembarks from a vehicle or not. You could keep in the more complicated rules for a kill team or specialized smaller games, but it's quite silly to be tracking weapon destroyed for my 35 point sentinel in an 1850 point game. Better to have it be, on a penetrating hit roll a die, on a 5+ it does two hull points of damage, and the vehicle always suffers -1 BS next turn. Simple, easy, and effective, no need to remember which vehicles are immobilized, which weapons are gone, whether this vehicle is stunned versus shaken, etc.
This is an early idea for abstraction, but why not an "exploding" system or so? Like, "for every 3 points you succeed on hitting or wounding, you inflict an additional hit or wound?" So if you hit on 3+, you inflict 2 hits on 6. If you have BS 8, you automatically score one hit, you get 2 hits on a 3+, and 3 hits on a 6". Etc?
You can abstract it as "trick shots"/ricochets/etc?
Lower overall rates of fire and add some mechanic to reinforce destroyed units/make recycling easier to compensate.
MagicJuggler wrote: This is an early idea for abstraction, but why not an "exploding" system or so? Like, "for every 3 points you succeed on hitting or wounding, you inflict an additional hit or wound?" So if you hit on 3+, you inflict 2 hits on 6. If you have BS 8, you automatically score one hit, you get 2 hits on a 3+, and 3 hits on a 6". Etc?
You can abstract it as "trick shots"/ricochets/etc?
Lower overall rates of fire and add some mechanic to reinforce destroyed units/make recycling easier to compensate.
I would almost go for something simpler. E.g. a rapid fire weapon only fires one "shot", but gives the soldier +1 BS or something. Obviously it would require some points rework, but I think that kind of approach would greatly simplify the shooting phase.
TheSilo wrote: There are a couple major offenders and a ton of minor offenders. I'd generally put the problems into two categories: time wasters and rule complicators. These are things that make the game tedious without adding gameplay value.
Spoiler:
1. It is possible for models to move, run or charge, pile-in, and consolidate (or end of combat pile in) all on one turn. That means that on a fairly typical turn players might have to physically move a model 1 to 4 times. For armies with lots of models like Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc, this gets downright tedious for everyone involved. It would not be very hard to consolidate all of that movement (and rolling) into a single move. Instead of having up to four movements and rolling for things like run/charge/consolidate/terrain, models should only move once per turn with all running and charging done in the movement phase. Running and charging should be a fixed modifier (like initiative) added to the model's base movement, and terrain should be a fixed -2" or -3" to a move. This removes a lot of wasted time, since rolling for every unit to run or move through terrain also adds unnecessary actions. The specific modifiers can be debated, but the point is that models should only need to be moved once (or at most twice!) per turn, and you should not have to roll a die for simple movement actions.
2. Excess rolling. For instance, giving weapons re-roll to hit or wound instead of just increasing BS or S. A good example of this is the Eversor Assassin's poison gauntlet which wounds on a 2+ and then re-rolls failed to-wound rolls. You're forcing players to roll against a 97.3% event, it's mostly a waste of time. You'd be better off making it insta-wound and bumping his points cost slightly. Snap shots are another example, rolling overwatch for Imperial Guard is a chore, you load up buckets of dice and then you miss them all. Units had a chance to shoot in the shooting phase, get rid of overwatch.
3. Rule complicators are wonky rules that require too much parsing or allow players to exploit certain rules. Shooting at units with mixed toughness and armor saves, close combat with units with mixed WS, using look out sir to selectively tank or pass off wounds depending on whether its a plasma bolt or a lasgun, etc. I think a lot of these ones are based around independent or named characters. Rather than simply buffing a unit or nearby units, they are inevitably loaded down with tons of special rules and wargear that require a whole 5 minute explanation to the opposing player. This is a bit more of a tricky problem and comes down more to game design. 40k is a game where you're fielding dozens or a hundred plus models, a single character should not have a tome's worth of special rules that apply to just him. In my opinion, characters should be more like unit or army buffs, not one-man game-breakers.
4. All the charts, as so many people have pointed out. I tend to think that every chart in the game could be simplified down to either a d3 or a simple x+ roll. The perils of the warp and the vehicle damage tables are all very neat and wonky, but it's just a slog when you need to constantly check to see what a "3" on perils is, or whether after a "6" the transported unit disembarks from a vehicle or not. You could keep in the more complicated rules for a kill team or specialized smaller games, but it's quite silly to be tracking weapon destroyed for my 35 point sentinel in an 1850 point game. Better to have it be, on a penetrating hit roll a die, on a 5+ it does two hull points of damage, and the vehicle always suffers -1 BS next turn. Simple, easy, and effective, no need to remember which vehicles are immobilized, which weapons are gone, whether this vehicle is stunned versus shaken, etc.
I would agree with this. There are a lot of needless unique rules and rolls that have a minimal overall impact on the game but slow the game down a lot. It just makes it a mess in terms of book keeping and makes it hard to have timely turns. Instead of adding new rules all the time, it's really time to have a proper re-write of the rules and consolidate things down.
1) They oversimplified in the transition between 2nd and 3rd edition, forcing them to rely on universal special rules to correct the lack of detail
2) The core gameplay is still built around a few units of individual models supported by one or two larger models, while the modern game can have an army of <5 superheavies face several hundred infantry models.
3) Rules are terribly organized, at least spread out across an entire book, if not across several books
4) When they add a new idea, they don't replace anything, they just built upon the old systems
5) They never stick with a design paradigm long enough for it to spread to every faction, so we have 2 or 3 different design philosophies within a single edition
6) Poor editing and playtesting leads to different interpretations of how rules and mechanics interact with each other
One of the issues is simply basing a game on D6 dice pools. As popular as it is, when D6's are resolved individually, there's just not a lot of variance that produces a good reliable variance.
Realistically, the only target numbers that should be used are probably 3+, 4+, and 5+. After that, you've reached the point where the curve doubles/halves, which is generally the point where a game can very easily accidentally break down.
It just leaves the game in place where there's only so much meaningful variance that can be created on the statline and puts extra demand on special rules to make models unique.
leopard wrote: If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.
Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)
Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.
the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.
Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.
Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)
Or, you know, just free electronic format with indexes, search and all that. It's been more than a decade since the first kindle.
I haven't thought about this as i usually play orks or csm - you know, the ones who usually don't have a ton of fancy rules. But than the new legion rules came out and i decided to run Alpha legion warband + Alpha legion lost and the damned (respawning cultists). And than i rolled the warlord trait that allows to swap your warlord with another character but it's written in a way that they don't change squads - they just change locations and if you swap your warlord with a regular character - not independent, this character and his squad would have to run towards each other to regain coherency.
And than there's a bunch of some extra special rules for the alpha legioneers. And a few extra for the cultists. And than the alpha special respawning cultists and how it interacts with the cultist's own respawning ability. And so on, and so forts.
And the opponent was playing cult mechanicus - and it was the first time i played vs them. So he had to explain a whole lot of new special rules. And than he was running formations that gave extra. And they were gathered together to form a super-formation to get some extra.
All in all, we spent 40 minutes JUST EXPLAINING THE SPECIAL RULES that our armies possessed.
Maybe it's not such a big issue as we were both unfamilliar with the rules on the whole and we'd get used to them eventually. But i'm not sure it's good game design to get SO many special rules on top of each other. Most often than not it's better to have fewer things to remember. And army distinctions can be easilly done with just a few tweaks that are fast and easy to explain.
For example. A new unit that has been introduced: Tzaangors. When you want to describe them to an opponent that hasn't faced them yet, you say: they're T4 cultists with MoT (6++) that cost 7 ppm. That's it. Sure, they have an odd rule that gives them preferred enemy vs relic-wielding models. But it's a mostly excessive rule. All in all, it's still quick and easy to explain - everyone knows meq, geq, ork boy statlines. You just add a few tweaks to them. And now try to explain skiitari rangers with carabines taken as part of war convocation. Guardsmen with bs4, 4+ armor and 6+++ (good so far). Their weapons are 3-shot lazguns that deal 2 wounds on a roll of a 6 regardless of toughness. Than you have to explain that those wounds have to be saved separately as it's not just a wound pool but 2 wounds dealt for each failed one. Than they have specific bonuses for being skiitari - you name them all (6 of them iirc) and than they get affected by war convocation bonuses. And they also get scout.
It's taken 6 times longer to explain a single unit that's supposed to be basic!
They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20. They need to get rid of the 3 (sometimes 4) step process of killing a model.
Warzone had it perfect, roll to hit, roll to wound. Done.
Want more armor? Want harder to hit? Increase the statlines, that's all. No need for a billion special rules.
And it's DOABLE because it's on a D20. On a D6 you can't do anything.
A space marine hits on a 3. After that, the next highest accuracy is a 2! There's nothing after that! The D6 can't support it. So then GW does a second roll or re-rolls. It's just mind-numbing.
GW please... switch to alternating unit activations (away from I GO YOU GO), and switch to the D20. Get rid of this archaic garbage that was inferior 20 years ago.
Whitebeard wrote: They need to ditch the D6 and go to the D20. They need to get rid of the 3 (sometimes 4) step process of killing a model.
Warzone had it perfect, roll to hit, roll to wound. Done.
Want more armor? Want harder to hit? Increase the statlines, that's all. No need for a billion special rules.
And it's DOABLE because it's on a D20. On a D6 you can't do anything.
A space marine hits on a 3. After that, the next highest accuracy is a 2! There's nothing after that! The D6 can't support it. So then GW does a second roll or re-rolls. It's just mind-numbing.
GW please... switch to alternating unit activations (away from I GO YOU GO), and switch to the D20. Get rid of this archaic garbage that was inferior 20 years ago.
Sounds an awful lot like Infinity... Which is a good game.
D6 system is workable, but the resolution of 40k is off for the game size.
D12s and D20s roll a long way, and lobbing buckets of them would mean spending 10 minutes finding them all.
"I go you go" is bad for armies if these sizes, but using initiative could be worse. Getting most of an Eldar army's turn done before an Imperial one, every game, would get annoying.
Including modifiers to avoid an unit set on overwatch (or similar) might help there, but having a hard-set modifier to turn order would not be popular.
Would it be complicated to have a system more like this
D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:
Eldar Guardian might be WS 0, BS 0, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 5+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5+
Guardsman might be WS 0, BS 0, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 4+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5+
Veteran Guard WS 0, BS +1, Defence (WS) 4+, BS 4+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 5
Marine might be WS +1, BS +1, Defence (WS) 5+, (BS) 4+, S4, T4, W1, A1, LD 8, Armour 3+
Wych might be WS +2, BS 0, Defence (WS) 6+, (BS) 5+, S3 T3 , W 1, A1, LD 7, Armour 6+
Genestealer might be WS +2, BS -, Defence (WS) 6+, BS 5+, etc
Hive Tyrant might be WS +2, BS +1, Defence (WS) 5+, BS 3+, etc
Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)
So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,
So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)
"I go you go" is bad for armies if these sizes, but using initiative could be worse. Getting most of an Eldar army's turn done before an Imperial one, every game, would get annoying.
Initiative as a stat would change a lot with that sort of change. It could be based more on unit role than an army-wide rule - things like Rangers, Pathfinders, Scouts and Sentinels would act earlier in the turn, things like Terminators, Dark Reapers, or Broadsides would act near the end the of the turn.
Or do something along the lines of pilot skill in X-Wing, less agile units do their movement first, more agile ones move second (so your Wyches can move out of the way when an Imperial Knight is closing in on them), then the order is reversed in the shooting phase and the ones with better reaction times can squeeze their shots off first.
It could also breathe some life into little used units like Ork Kommandos - who would have much more of a role in reacting and responding to threats.
I agree with just the few posts I bothered to read. 40k present day looks like a massive mess. I came back to play after a long hiatus. 5th edition seemed like a lot of fun. 6th edition started to feel more confused or complicated. I haven't even played a game of 7th due to other obligations, but it just looks so complicated now.
I despise these current loopholes to make extremely hard to beat units. I don't care how you slice it, a 2++ with a re role sounds like frustration, not fun. AoS is looking more and more my cup of tea. Basic, easy, and fun.
40k is my favorite of the two storylines and all the armies and characters involved. I'll really be hoping 8th edition follows AoS lead and makes me want to come back. I don't know whether I'm in the majority or the minority, but 7th edition just seems stupid to me now. End the ability to make these all powerful lists and units...
I guess I do need to play it and give it a chance, but I'm going to do the same with AoS. This is just my observation as an onlooker for the last year or so. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after I give it a chance.
Mr Morden wrote: Would it be complicated to have a system more like this
D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:
Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)
So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,
So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)
just thinking....
Since the stat system is already based around 10 as the max, I'd like a similar system but using a D10, which I think would allow for a bit more variety in unit ability without necessitating additional special rules. Instead of To Hit, To Wound, Armor Save you'd simplify it to Attack and Defense. The shooter would roll one D10 for attack (BS +/- weapon modifier) and the target would roll one D10 for defense (T +/- armor modifier). So weapon strength and ap would be replaced with an attack modifier, while armor save would be replaced with a defense modifier.
For example, a guardsman shooting a guardsman might attack with attack 3, needing to roll 1-3 on a D10 to hit/wound. The target guardsman might defend with Defense 3, needing a roll of 1-3 on a D10. Then special weapons would apply +1 or +2 or more to attack, while armor upgrades would add to defense. That way you can also easily build in other modifiers like cover saves in your example, or even bonuses for shooting a squad from the flank or rear (based on the orientation of the squad leader), and ignores cover weapons or blast weapons apply negative modifiers.
OrkaMorka wrote: It's hard to tell whether or not my opponent is cheating because I'm not familiar with their codex.
That's a good point. There's so many rules now it's easy to start abusing them if you're inclined to do so. That's why I'd stick to a small core set as much as possible. If everyone knows all the rules it's harder to cheat them.
OrkaMorka wrote: It's hard to tell whether or not my opponent is cheating because I'm not familiar with their codex.
That's a good point. There's so many rules now it's easy to start abusing them if you're inclined to do so. That's why I'd stick to a small core set as much as possible. If everyone knows all the rules it's harder to cheat them.
I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I was playing upstairs at my FLGS when we heard from the 40k game in the basement below one of the players say he hoped his oppponent got cancer after some janky rules shenanigans.
Mr Morden wrote: Would it be complicated to have a system more like this
D6 roll
Each unit has base Chance to be hit (melee or Missile) - Defence
Each unit then has modifier so:
Then Cover is a modifier to your Defence (BS)
So light +1, Medium +2, Heavy +3,
So a Marine trying to hit a Eldar Guardian needs 3+ in melee and 4+ in missile, a Guardian hitting back would need 5+ / 4+
A Wych hitting a guardsman needs 2+ in melee and 4+ missile, a Guardsman fighting back would need 6+ / 5+ (veteran would be 6+,/ 4+)
just thinking....
Since the stat system is already based around 10 as the max, I'd like a similar system but using a D10, which I think would allow for a bit more variety in unit ability without necessitating additional special rules. Instead of To Hit, To Wound, Armor Save you'd simplify it to Attack and Defense. The shooter would roll one D10 for attack (BS +/- weapon modifier) and the target would roll one D10 for defense (T +/- armor modifier). So weapon strength and ap would be replaced with an attack modifier, while armor save would be replaced with a defense modifier.
For example, a guardsman shooting a guardsman might attack with attack 3, needing to roll 1-3 on a D10 to hit/wound. The target guardsman might defend with Defense 3, needing a roll of 1-3 on a D10. Then special weapons would apply +1 or +2 or more to attack, while armor upgrades would add to defense. That way you can also easily build in other modifiers like cover saves in your example, or even bonuses for shooting a squad from the flank or rear (based on the orientation of the squad leader), and ignores cover weapons or blast weapons apply negative modifiers.
Judge Dredd had a similar system of opposed roles:
So you had your shoot stat +D10 vs Agility +D10 modified by skills, weapons, cover etc, multiple shots from a single gun gave you multiple dice and all those that exceeded the agility score of the target hit. Worked quite well.
Ruin wrote: I was playing upstairs at my FLGS when we heard from the 40k game in the basement below one of the players say he hoped his oppponent got cancer after some janky rules shenanigans. True story.
Well, then there is just plain janky gamers, do not blame the game rules.
BUT unclear rules (or just plain so many) certainly add that extra level of frustration to allow less than ideal outbursts to happen.
The game reminds me of work.
Someone would say "You seem flustered or stressed."
I would reply "The work is NOT difficult, it the just the amount is more than the day allows, which is the true problem."
People want to play for an hour or two and come to end about in that timeframe.
40k does not lend itself well to that.
Any means of addressing time hogs in the game would be almost a direct means of dealing with "complication".
An opponent taking too long is a typical complaint in 40k.
1) GW forgot that they have USRs - Rather than units being given these to make them fluffy and everyone knowing what they are and what they do, units now have to have their own rule that does the same as 1 or more of these, and this slows the game down as this needs explained.
2) Pre-measuring - while this was a change that I initially liked, it does slow the game down as players spend time measuring out loads of ranges, rather than just making a guess and going for it.
3) Formations - The introduction of formations with all the bonuses and extra rules they came with also slowed the game down
I liked how a unit was more "the model" which makes for speed (5th edition).
Add a sergeant, special weapon, heavy weapon and away you go.
The Joe-troops act as hit-points and we do not get concerned with closest to closest or any of those other rules.
Individual model targeting rules work for skirmish, 40k kinda evolved out of that due to unit size and quantity.
I must admit, I agree the pre-measure has been license for insane fussing.
Requiring guessing until the move is performed and measured makes sense for cutting down too much physical analysis paralysis.
I think there is certain threshold for patience when you decide "They are going to shoot at them!" and then how long it takes until models get scraped off the table.
The Roll to hit - roll to wound - roll for save - roll for feel no pain OR Jink - roll for reanimation protocols - roll for leadership check... with various possible modifiers in-between.
I have come to appreciate many games that boil it down to "hit" then "damage/kill" and possibly some leadership / catastrophic damage (getting gimped) and constrain all modifiers within those elements.
Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.
The problem is the level of detail, differentiation, and scale/special rules 40k has tried to pack in on the D6. D6's don't work so fine there, and is part of the reason why there's so much bloat in those respects, because a D6 just doesn't cut it when trying to portray that, particularly when 90% of things use just 2 or 3 values and 16% of results are auto-fails. Either the detail, scale, and differentiation need to be toned down, or greater granularity of results is required, or both.
That said, D20's are probably a bit much either way, D10's would probably be the ideal solution.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
Exactly. One thing, basic troops don't necessarily need a whole raft of USRs to make them different, the stats and gear should do that for them. USRs should be applied to things outside of the troops section of the army.
I don't think it is too complicated. That said, it could certainly do with rules being consolidated, and I would love to apply STC (Society for Technical Communication) standards to the rulebook.
Vaktathi wrote: The problem is the level of detail, differentiation, and scale/special rules 40k has tried to pack in on the D6. D6's don't work so fine there, and is part of the reason why there's so much bloat in those respects, because a D6 just doesn't cut it when trying to portray that, particularly when 90% of things use just 2 or 3 values and 16% of results are auto-fails. Either the detail, scale, and differentiation need to be toned down, or greater granularity of results is required, or both.
That said, D20's are probably a bit much either way, D10's would probably be the ideal solution.
I hear ya, for sure. But I'd rather simplify the types of differentiation by cutting down on the special rules and sticking with the D6s than go with the D10s. I'll use the example of 4th Ed. which worked beautifully IMO, and still had everything on the D6, and way fewer special rules.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
Exactly. One thing, basic troops don't necessarily need a whole raft of USRs to make them different, the stats and gear should do that for them. USRs should be applied to things outside of the troops section of the army.
The big question then becomes - Why bother taking them? - the same question we struggle with now, good formations put troops on the field but a lot of people don't like them.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
Exactly. One thing, basic troops don't necessarily need a whole raft of USRs to make them different, the stats and gear should do that for them. USRs should be applied to things outside of the troops section of the army.
The big question then becomes - Why bother taking them? - the same question we struggle with now, good formations put troops on the field but a lot of people don't like them.
Martel732 wrote: D10's are exactly 10% on each increment. This gives us more dynamic range and easier math. I think D20s are overkill.
Whilst I agree, I can tell you from experience of playing lots of Void 1.1 that rolling handfuls of D10s is a major ballache.
"Cocked Dice"
Outside of D6 the cocked dice rule becomes a major pain in the butt.
I use a biscuit tin with felt glued to the bottom, nothing to cock on but other dice and doesn't bounce far.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
Exactly. One thing, basic troops don't necessarily need a whole raft of USRs to make them different, the stats and gear should do that for them. USRs should be applied to things outside of the troops section of the army.
The big question then becomes - Why bother taking them? - the same question we struggle with now, good formations put troops on the field but a lot of people don't like them.
Martel732 wrote: D10's are exactly 10% on each increment. This gives us more dynamic range and easier math. I think D20s are overkill.
I would agree - Frostgrave uses D20's and we found it too random and too high a range of results, we switched to 2D10 but even then it can be a bit overpowering.
Here's a random thought; what if objective secured used the number of models to determine who controls an objective rather than just the unit as a whole? Like, it's whoever has the most models within x" inches of the objective controls it. The way I see it, hoard armies might become viable again because they can now win by using their sheer size to literally take the board. Meanwhile single or small number death star units become almost useless at it.
Would this be too complicated? I think it isn't simply because instead of needing to know the objective secured rule and any other rules like it in their formations etc, you could simply look at the board and say "well, I clearly have more models around the objective, therefore I currently control it".
I like some of the other ideas put forward here too. Like the pre measuring thing. It does slow things down. Also, contrary to what I just suggested with exact model numbers, I think a game like 40k does require a certain degree of abstraction.
TheSilo wrote: I think that's the biggest indictment against the current state. The game is so complicated that it's almost impossible to imagine two players agreeing on all the rules interpretations.
And that really takes the fun out of it altogether.
I have one fear though; simplifying the game might dilute the differences between all the different factions. But I think this can be avoided. Hell, if done correctly it could help diversify the game. It did so for AoS.
I think this is an important point, balance is key. I would like to see a game design that focuses more on faction-specific mechanics (positive and negative), and less on the current "here are twelve faction-specific bits of wargear".
I think any effort to refine the game would also need to further develop the less utilized game mechanics like positioning and morale, to add new dimensions and tactical depth. Firing from an elevated position or at an enemy's flank should confer bonuses. 80% of units should not be immune to morale in the way that they currently are. Seeing a nearby squad wiped out should be unnerving and give players opportunities to destabilize the enemy line.
Talizvar wrote: I liked how a unit was more "the model" which makes for speed (5th edition).
Add a sergeant, special weapon, heavy weapon and away you go.
The Joe-troops act as hit-points and we do not get concerned with closest to closest or any of those other rules.
Individual model targeting rules work for skirmish, 40k kinda evolved out of that due to unit size and quantity.
How I would love for them to remove all that stupid IC tanking for unit insipid boring 2 rolls by 2 rolls (including one extra roll for LoS of course) bs...
That mechanic is pointless, utterly slow and against the fluff.
Why would an important character step in front of measly soldiers until he's on the verge of death?
I would like it to go the following way: normal troops die, special weapons die, sergeants die, ICs die.
And that's it. bucket of dice all the normal troops, special weapon and sergeant (because they have the same save usually), then bucket of dice the IC and feth those one-by-one rolls.
Let the game move on.
Plus, it prevents quite a few deathstars, which is an excellent thing.
Its not a fantastic game for people who don't get regular games like me, find myself reading a lot despite reading codexes and painting mostly since 2007
Nubgan wrote: Its not a fantastic game for people who don't get regular games like me, find myself reading a lot despite reading codexes and painting mostly since 2007
Yeah, due to family and work commitments, I'm only able to get a game in every once in a great while...maybe 3-4 times per year, lately it's gotten so convoluted with all the supplements that I don't know where to start in building an army list so I wind up just meeting some friends at a bar for board games and beer instead. Beer and pretzels this game is not.
Yes, they've completely forgotten about the beer and pretzels. This isn't a jokey statement by the way. It's actually a very valid point. Nobody will play your game if it's a chore that you have to dedicate yourself to. It's supposed to be fun after all.
Talizvar wrote: I liked how a unit was more "the model" which makes for speed (5th edition).
Add a sergeant, special weapon, heavy weapon and away you go.
The Joe-troops act as hit-points and we do not get concerned with closest to closest or any of those other rules.
Individual model targeting rules work for skirmish, 40k kinda evolved out of that due to unit size and quantity.
How I would love for them to remove all that stupid IC tanking for unit insipid boring 2 rolls by 2 rolls (including one extra roll for LoS of course) bs...
That mechanic is pointless, utterly slow and against the fluff.
Why would an important character step in front of measly soldiers until he's on the verge of death?
I would like it to go the following way: normal troops die, special weapons die, sergeants die, ICs die.
And that's it. bucket of dice all the normal troops, special weapon and sergeant (because they have the same save usually), then bucket of dice the IC and feth those one-by-one rolls.
Let the game move on.
Plus, it prevents quite a few deathstars, which is an excellent thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The 4th Ed. casualty removal (majority unit for toughness and armor, owner chooses casualties) was so much smoother.
It makes squad moving and placement easier (you don't have to worry about individual model placement as much), it makes shooting faster (fewer split-rolls for wound allocation), it stops the use of barrage weapons for sniping (owner chooses casualties) and makes assaulting easier (casualties can be taken from the back of the unit).
Talizvar wrote: I liked how a unit was more "the model" which makes for speed (5th edition).
Add a sergeant, special weapon, heavy weapon and away you go.
The Joe-troops act as hit-points and we do not get concerned with closest to closest or any of those other rules.
Individual model targeting rules work for skirmish, 40k kinda evolved out of that due to unit size and quantity.
How I would love for them to remove all that stupid IC tanking for unit insipid boring 2 rolls by 2 rolls (including one extra roll for LoS of course) bs...
That mechanic is pointless, utterly slow and against the fluff.
Why would an important character step in front of measly soldiers until he's on the verge of death?
I would like it to go the following way: normal troops die, special weapons die, sergeants die, ICs die.
And that's it. bucket of dice all the normal troops, special weapon and sergeant (because they have the same save usually), then bucket of dice the IC and feth those one-by-one rolls.
Let the game move on.
Plus, it prevents quite a few deathstars, which is an excellent thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The 4th Ed. casualty removal (majority unit for toughness and armor, owner chooses casualties) was so much smoother.
It makes squad moving and placement easier (you don't have to worry about individual model placement as much), it makes shooting faster (fewer split-rolls for wound allocation), it stops the use of barrage weapons for sniping (owner chooses casualties) and makes assaulting easier (casualties can be taken from the back of the unit).
This is exactly the point where my group started to split from GW. The 5th Ed. rules wedged in its stupid wound allocation nonsense, and even if one agreed with it in principle GW had the gall to say it was faster than 4th Ed. Now whether or not their 5th Ed system was better or not is debatable, but for them to say it was faster than just having the defender pick his casualties was a flagrant lie they repeated in their White Dwarf issues. So right then they were either flagrantly lying or just amazingly stupid (probably a combination of both) so we realized it was time to make rules for ourselves and get off the carnival ride.
Yes, my friend wanted for us to play 5th with some updates in case we wanted to play some new codexs, I cringed a bit but said OK.
I did a direct comparison of 7th edition and 5th with matching rules or ones that existed the other did not (excel spreadsheet with page number references).
7th I found had some GREAT rules that made a few things more fun (look out sir, snap-fire, precision shots) that little bit of detail 5th did not have BUT it is too much detail that hurts 7th.
I can honestly say I can appreciate a few really good rules in this BRB.
5th seemed more elegant for wound allocation, even using the vehicle rules seemed better, the less fussy 5th edition core mechanics allowed the more "characterful" rules of 7th to shine a bit. 5th also had some really smart rules put in it that I feel is a shame to have lost for change sake.
As a last touch to this "Frankenstein" we added Bolt Action activation.
The command dice are awesome to see what each unit did and what one activated, it is rather nice to not have the "I-go, you-go" first turn alpha-strike that 40k is known for.
Why say all this?
By using mainly GW rules that they made, I can mix and match a pretty good game (so it appears at this point) and be rather excited about it.
Why re-create the wheel?
They tried so hard to have some backwards compatibility so why not just make 8th edition a "greatest hits" of what came before?
Being neck-deep into this I can say it looks possible to make a smooth competitive game out of this.
All it would take is a smart game designer who is a master of copy/paste editing with some heavy emphasis on deleting things.
A greatest hits sounds great. It sounds like I need to go dig up my copies of 4th and 5th.
Just one question; would you guys be ok with sniper type weapons allowing the player to pick their own casualties rather than their opponent doing it? Would that slow things down too much?
Future War Cultist wrote: It sounds like I need to go dig up my copy of 4th ed.
Just one question; would you guys be ok with sniper type weapons allowing the player to pick their own casualties rather than their opponent doing it? Would that slow things down too much?
Ha! I believe the "precision shots" rule is the very reason for doing this.
It still is quite useful in 4th or 5th edition.
I would suggest you allow the "look out sir!" rule as well.
Since you do not want to make it too easy to take out characters.
There has to be some way for the defender to lose a special weapon or sergeant before the other dudes though. If that literally never happens, why give them a Leadership stat at all?
It seems silly to me that every battle in the 41st millennium is won by a group of sergeants milling about after literally everyone else has been killed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There has to be some way for the defender to lose a special weapon or sergeant before the other dudes though. If that literally never happens, why give them a Leadership stat at all?
It seems silly to me that every battle in the 41st millennium is won by a group of sergeants milling about after literally everyone else has been killed.
This is where I think someone mentioned 5th started down the road of complexity.
5th made it so you had to apply a wound to each model in the unit (for complex units) and then apply a second set... etc.
So then the saves were made in a pool for the generic guys and the Sgt and other special guys would have a save or two they had to make.
Say Orks manage to wound 20 times on some 10 Marines, you would apply to wounds for each model so the Sgt would have to make 2 saves.
I think 4th did not go that far.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There has to be some way for the defender to lose a special weapon or sergeant before the other dudes though. If that literally never happens, why give them a Leadership stat at all?
It seems silly to me that every battle in the 41st millennium is won by a group of sergeants milling about after literally everyone else has been killed.
This is where I think someone mentioned 5th started down the road of complexity.
5th made it so you had to apply a wound to each model in the unit (for complex units) and then apply a second set... etc.
So then the saves were made in a pool for the generic guys and the Sgt and other special guys would have a save or two they had to make.
Say Orks manage to wound 20 times on some 10 Marines, you would apply to wounds for each model so the Sgt would have to make 2 saves.
I think 4th did not go that far.
4th had torrent of fire (or blows for HTH) so of those wounds the Orks caused on the marines they could allocate one of them to say, the Sgt with the power fist as they scored more wounds than there were squad members. Range and LOS could also be used to snipe special weapons/Sgt. out of squads as you could only remove casualties that were within range and LOS.
Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.
The problem is the level of detail, differentiation, and scale/special rules 40k has tried to pack in on the D6. D6's don't work so fine there, and is part of the reason why there's so much bloat in those respects, because a D6 just doesn't cut it when trying to portray that, particularly when 90% of things use just 2 or 3 values and 16% of results are auto-fails. Either the detail, scale, and differentiation need to be toned down, or greater granularity of results is required, or both.
That said, D20's are probably a bit much either way, D10's would probably be the ideal solution.
Thing is you go to a D20 and suddenly you don't need to roll a bucket of them. have a look up table, the dice result is across the top, the number of 'actions' is down the side, roll the dice, check, oh look you have 'x' successes, be that hits or whatever. Yes you have a table, you now roll one dice, or one dice for every 1-20 weapons say, 25 units acting, roll two dice, one for 20 and one for 5.
Seen this in several historical games, it works well, you can easily add dice modifiers so the top scale can be larger than 1-20.
Different skill levels are just a dice modifier to make it so you get more successes or otherwise.
Reducing the number of dice rolled, while making the ones you do roll matter more also helps avoid simply crushing by the law of averages, and by removing the need for re-rolls on some dice but not others etc you can probably make the game a lot faster.
Heck you could even take advantage of the 'no splitting of fire' rule to combine everything a unit fires at a single target into one dice, more weapons is a + shift, a better target defence a - shift, that you have a delta gun is a further + shift etc - point it you will know when you create your army what the +/- shift a unit has at full strength and how it drops.
can't see it coming in GW love the D6, and love people rolling them by the bucket for some reason, if a unit has to act as one, why not have it roll as one?
leopard wrote: If they are going to keep with the exploding number of supplements I seriously wish they would go back to something they have done before, and do it properly.
Drill the books, have a binding like a pad of paper (i.e. peals off) and sell ring binders with dividers. (codex Titanic, the Space Marine rulebook etc)
Now have a logical way of identifying sections, and number the rules - you buy you 'whatever' codex, the fluff bit goes in this folder, on a shelf, where it stays, the paint pictures go here where they also stay.
the units description pages go into that units section of the big army book of lists, or the part of it you take with you to use, any actual new rules are integrated into the rulebook - even if largely on a blank sheet of paper they go in the right place.
Instant updatable rulebook, write so there is whitespace on each page and your errata could actually be a collection of pages to print and swap out.
Plus gets so everything to do with a model moving is under 'M' (for example)
Or, you know, just free electronic format with indexes, search and all that. It's been more than a decade since the first kindle.
Would be all for a free downloadable pdf, searchable, indexed, cross linked version of the rules.. with modern authoring tools the cross linking should be pretty much automatic via whatever is making your index once you set the index up.
Just can't quite see it somehow, pity a ruleset that updates when a new supplement is put out would work, have the rules as a freebie, the books are for the fluff and artwork, good ones will sell, dross won't, cut a naff book won't hurt sales of decent models when the rules are free
Unit1126PLL wrote: There has to be some way for the defender to lose a special weapon or sergeant before the other dudes though. If that literally never happens, why give them a Leadership stat at all?
It seems silly to me that every battle in the 41st millennium is won by a group of sergeants milling about after literally everyone else has been killed.
This is where I think someone mentioned 5th started down the road of complexity.
5th made it so you had to apply a wound to each model in the unit (for complex units) and then apply a second set... etc.
So then the saves were made in a pool for the generic guys and the Sgt and other special guys would have a save or two they had to make.
Say Orks manage to wound 20 times on some 10 Marines, you would apply to wounds for each model so the Sgt would have to make 2 saves.
I think 4th did not go that far.
4th had torrent of fire (or blows for HTH) so of those wounds the Orks caused on the marines they could allocate one of them to say, the Sgt with the power fist as they scored more wounds than there were squad members. Range and LOS could also be used to snipe special weapons/Sgt. out of squads as you could only remove casualties that were within range and LOS.
Can confirm "Torrent of Fire" in 4th Ed. Though it wasn't a bolded/breakout rule so it could be easy to miss, but it's right there in the Remove Casualties section.
The most interesting difference is that 4th Ed. lumps all the wounds from all the weapons being fired into that "wound pool". Then the defender decides which wounds to take first, and which wounds (Lascannon or Boltgun, for example) to apply to the singled-out model. So it's easy to force a save on a particular model, but hard to hit them with a powerful weapon.
In contrast, 7th Ed. does the hit-wound-save on a per-weapon basis. I.e. Boltguns hit/wound opponent saves, Plasmagun hits/wounds opponent saves, Lascannon hits/wound opponent save, all in the order the "shooter" wants.
When you compare the two and also consider wound allocation, there is more control/decision making for 7th. The shooting order of the attacker gives him a little more control over the damage he can do, and he could game the model position of the defender a bit. Also, because of wound allocations rules, an attacker can flank a squad to avoid the "tanker". It seems like an attempt to make squad vs. squad combat more interesting. That said, I'm really not a fan. I mostly find it cumbersome. For me, determining which unit fires at which enemy unit is control enough, much less which model.
On the flip side, the 4th Ed. version means that if I have a ten-man Tactical Squad with two Meltas land in front of some Broadsides, the Broadsides unit could take the Meltaguns on the Drones instead of the Marine player firing all his Boltguns to clear away the Drones, then using the Meltas on the Broadsides.
I was just messing around with my old fantasy artillery dice. Remember those? Anyway, I came up with a weird system for using it. It basically went like this:
Models would have two numbers needed to be hit and to be wounded. These would be 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10. To hit or wound you need to roll equal to or more than the models number. For example, a guardsman would be hit on an 8 or 10 but wounded on a 4, 6, 8 or 10. A space marine however would be hit on a 6, 8 or 10 but only wounded on an 8 or 10. The misfire symbol on the die is like a wildcard that can be used for whatever the situation calls for.
For example, plasma guns and other get hot weapons. If you roll a ! when rolling to wound, you score an automatic wound (so they have a better chance of wounding things in general) but you must then roll a dice yourself. And if the number equals your to wound number you too are wounded. So if a space marine who initially rolled a ! on the to wound roll then rolled an 8 or 10 they would also suffer a wound.
I was inspired by the special dice used in the Betrayal at Calath game. This sounds so complicated when trying to explain it but it is so easy when it's demonstrated.
EDIT:
In that broadsides with drones example, would be possible to reconstruct the system in a way so that the attackers can 'layer' their attacks to prevent that? Like, the marine player declares that the tacticals are targeting the crisis suit squad, and they're using their boltguns first. And that attack is completely resolved first before moving onto the melta guns? So they can try to clear away the drones using their weakest attacks before moving onto the big guns? Whilst still using majority saves and toughness too? That way, it might take 7-8 boltguns just to get rid of those two drones.
A couple easy things to make the game go faster are the following: get rid of the possibility of a 7th turn (make it a 4+ to go to turn 6); eliminate Overwatch or make it so units must pass an Initiative test to perform Overwatch; no more random Psychic powers and Warlord traits; Run moves should be another typical movement distance; and Cover needs to become a negative modifier to BS thus eliminating all those cover save throws (get rid of Jink except for Flyers). These things should speed up the game tremendously right off without sacrificing complexity.
Wow, my "want to play 5th edition" friend found "One Page 40k" here.
I would say looking at those rules certainly highlights how the 40k flavor can still be had with less complication.
Let us hope GW does not see them or the AOS treatment may come sooner to 40k (or is that a good thing... jury still seems out on this).
One thing that makes it difficult is the reinvention of rules modified from the main book that goes to my original point of not knowing the rules of other books.
Why not create all the special rules, put them in the brb, and then draw those special rules from the brb?
That way there's not six different ways to call fearless "fearless".
The way the brb reads it looks to be that intent, but every new codex just started to create new rules that were minor word changes than whats in the brb. I should be able to reference an ability my opponents character has out of my brb without having to look at his book.
Talizvar wrote: Wow, my "want to play 5th edition" friend found "One Page 40k" here.
I would say looking at those rules certainly highlights how the 40k flavor can still be had with less complication.
Let us hope GW does not see them or the AOS treatment may come sooner to 40k (or is that a good thing... jury still seems out on this).
Although I'm not an AoS player, it seems to me that the "AOS Treatment" only had a couple of really fundamental problems when it was applied to WHFB:
1) Mangling the fluff for the purpose of easier trademarking/copy protection. I understand that GW doesn't want another financial disaster like the CH lawsuit, but they could accomplish this by simply not being so overly-litigious (and also having a better understanding of how a 3rd-party after-market actually benefits their business).
2) Shipping the product without any sort of force organization/balance system. (Note, this did NOT have to be points - but there needed to be some kind of structure to provide a baseline expectation of "We've agreed to play at level X, Y, or Z, and everyone understands what this means." Lacking this kind of structure, the playerbase fractured almost immediately, to the point that there's now "factions" of players who are only willing to play "their" way, whether it be with the GHB or one of the competing sets of house-rules).
If they don't make these two mistakes, an AOSification of 40k might actually be pretty reasonable. Not gonna hold my breath though...
Talizvar wrote: Wow, my "want to play 5th edition" friend found "One Page 40k" here.
I would say looking at those rules certainly highlights how the 40k flavor can still be had with less complication.
Let us hope GW does not see them or the AOS treatment may come sooner to 40k (or is that a good thing... jury still seems out on this).
Although I'm not an AoS player, it seems to me that the "AOS Treatment" only had a couple of really fundamental problems when it was applied to WHFB:
1) Mangling the fluff for the purpose of easier trademarking/copy protection. I understand that GW doesn't want another financial disaster like the CH lawsuit, but they could accomplish this by simply not being so overly-litigious (and also having a better understanding of how a 3rd-party after-market actually benefits their business).
2) Shipping the product without any sort of force organization/balance system. (Note, this did NOT have to be points - but there needed to be some kind of structure to provide a baseline expectation of "We've agreed to play at level X, Y, or Z, and everyone understands what this means." Lacking this kind of structure, the playerbase fractured almost immediately, to the point that there's now "factions" of players who are only willing to play "their" way, whether it be with the GHB or one of the competing sets of house-rules).
If they don't make these two mistakes, an AOSification of 40k might actually be pretty reasonable. Not gonna hold my breath though...
Don't forget the list of stupid rules
e.g.
Braying Warcry: Red-hot rage festers in the savage minds of Wargors, their only desire to rend and destroy. You can add 1 to all hit rolls made for a Wargor if, before rolling the dice, you let loose a primal warcry. Your warcry must use no actual words, but angry grunts and raging snorts are encouraged.
Pride of the Reiksguard: Helborg's skill is as legendary as his moustache is magnificent. You can re-roll any failed hit rolls when attacking with the Runefang so long as you have a bigger and more impressive moustache than your opponent.
The Mad Count: Marius Leitdorf is an exceptional swordsman, even if he is totally insane. If, during your hero phase, you pretend to ride an imaginary horse, you can re-roll failed hit rolls for the Averland Runefang until your next hero phase. If you actually talk to your imaginary horse you can re-roll failed wound rolls as well.
You can only make one first impression. AoS turned a lot of potential customers away when it asked them to talk to an imaginary horse for a bonus to wound. I don't blame those customers for not coming back to see if it has changed.
I've had an idea about precision shot. Would it be easier to resolve it at the "to wound" stage rather than at the "to hit" stage?
I thought this up while messing around with my old artillery dice. This idea also assumes that to hit and to wound have been merged together, and that any damage inflicted on a unit is allocated by its owner. The sequence would go like this:
1. Player A declares target.
2. Player A measures range.
3. Player A rolls to inflict damage.
4. Player B takes saves.
5. For failed saves, the player B allocates the damage caused. However if the save result is a ! (or a 1 on a regular die) player A allocates the damage caused by that result instead, and before player B allocates their damage.
So for a demonstration, a unit has to take four saves from a sniper unit attack, so they roll four dice. They pass on two dice and fail on the other two. One of the failed die was a 1, the other wasn't a 1 but is still a fail. The damage from the 1 result is allocated by the attacking sniper player first, and the damage from the other failed result is allocated by the target's player immediately after.
Is this making sense? I definitely feel like I'm making this sound more complicated than it is.
EDIT:
I will admit that those joke rules were silly but can't we have a sense of humor about it?
Talizvar wrote: Wow, my "want to play 5th edition" friend found "One Page 40k" here.
I would say looking at those rules certainly highlights how the 40k flavor can still be had with less complication.
Let us hope GW does not see them or the AOS treatment may come sooner to 40k (or is that a good thing... jury still seems out on this).
Wow, that looks really good. I wouldn't mind an AoS treatment (rules only... leave the fluff, for the love of god), so long as it gave us a quality reboot of the rules. It wouldn't even have to simplify it as much as the above example, just so long as things were at least workable. We've come to the point where everything's so unsalvageably bloated that we might as well burn those bridges down and start anew anyway. Those who want a better game would appreciate the movement in a new, fresh direction without all the baggage, and those who are content with the game as it is are usually the kind of people who'll be happy with anything GW puts out anyway.
Hello. I'm a 40k player for quite some time now. I quit just when 6th edition got released and started playing again less than half a year ago. Learning 7th edition was absolutely brutal.
- Formations were an entirely new thing for me, as well as list building with CAD/Allied Detachment(I still wonder why this one exists)/Formations. For more than a month after reading my Codex and Rulesbook, I still couldn't figure out how exactly I could modify my lists.
- As I started to get the grasp of formations and list building, I then started, as always, to learn the meta. I tried to find all competitive lists and read a lot of codices. What I soon came to understand, was that codices were useless. People were using all kinds of books I had no idea about. I was looking at different lists all containing formations I could not recognise or find in the codices. When I'm playing 40k, I really like to dwelve in all the armies, build lists for every army and learn just about almost all the armies. I really enjoy that process, it's something I have fun with. It also helps me stay on the competitive side and understand everything I get to meet on the table. I'll tell you something. It's half a year later, and I still haven't made it. There's so many books, formations, armies. It's endless. I've learnt most of what's competitive and most of the armies that appeal to me but I still feel like I'm scratching the surface. Also, it's impossible to get all the books. It's an absolute mess. The rules for this one game are spread SO much in like 1000 different books, that it's impossible to keep up. I really am not going to complain about game length or rules, there's people who played this edition way more than me capable of doing that. But, the way the rules are spread, it's just impossible for someone to get in. A very good idea would be, maybe keep the supplements! BUT, add an official GW Armybuilder than contains all of the rules for every army, or something along these lines. Maybe, create an online codex that gets all the rules updated everytime a supplement is released. Whatever. It's just impossible to keep track of this mess.
necr0n wrote: The rules for this one game are spread SO much in like 1000 different books, that it's impossible to keep up. I really am not going to complain about game length or rules, there's people who played this edition way more than me capable of doing that. But, the way the rules are spread, it's just impossible for someone to get in. A very good idea would be, maybe keep the supplements! BUT, add an official GW Armybuilder than contains all of the rules for every army, or something along these lines. Maybe, create an online codex that gets all the rules updated everytime a supplement is released. Whatever. It's just impossible to keep track of this mess.
I am a bit of a completionist and 5th edition was the last one (since 2nd edition) that I had all the codex's.
I agree it is nearly impossible to get hold of all the rules (or prohibitively expensive to obtain through GW).
I do not like depending on my opponent to be the only one who knows the rules for his army.
I have caught many a cheat or lapse/misremember of my opponent due to doing my homework.
Plus it makes a faster game if we can help each other remember everything.
I had high hopes for formations for allowing contained and balanced rules easy to publish but that is not working out so well.
They should publish a more expensive White Dwarf and use it to release rules for models launched that month so them and us do not need to wait and the power creep can be kept somewhat equal.
They would about annually publish a compilation of WD articles so then they are not stuck publishing back issues forever (and can charge moar!).
Just a thought on trying to consolidate varying information.
Reminds me of the days before cellphone/texting: You had voice mail, email, fax and a pager, any number of which someone would contact you on separate devices.
Having one point of contact is hugely easier.
Well they should definitely use white dwarf in that capacity. It would make it essential (which it should be) and it would allow all players access to everything.
Would you guys be cool with warscroll type documents free to access and download so that everyone can see any units abilities whenever they want?
Would you guys be cool with warscroll type documents free to access and download so that everyone can see any units abilities whenever they want?
Cool with it? This is the sort of thing that GW should have been doing nearly a decade ago. If GWreally wants to use the rules as a vehicle to sell models, than they should focus on making those rules as easily and freely available as possible. The whole gameplay aspect of a model's 'marketing' has no value if the people potentially interested don't have access to it.
I really don't see White Dwarf thing working. What if I join the hobby now and all the previous White Dwarf issues have the rules? How am I supposed to find earlier issues?
If they're going to make many updates, like they do, they should release, together with the supplements, an internet version that includes just pure rules. And, make it free and available to everyone. Or even available for a smaller fee, I don't know. I just don't want to be searching for old WD issues, Supplements and other books everywhere. I just need all my rules for my game to be available at all times easily. It really is not that fuckin much, is it?
necr0n wrote: I really don't see White Dwarf thing working. What if I join the hobby now and all the previous White Dwarf issues have the rules? How am I supposed to find earlier issues?
If they're going to make many updates, like they do, they should release, together with the supplements, an internet version that includes just pure rules. And, make it free and available to everyone. Or even available for a smaller fee, I don't know. I just don't want to be searching for old WD issues, Supplements and other books everywhere. I just need all my rules for my game to be available at all times easily. It really is not that fuckin much, is it?
Find out what issue and grab it at any game store that has a GW display. Guarantee they have a backlog of White Dwarf magazines that they're forced to buy but can never sell.
As someone who only gets to play occasionally, my main beef is how spread out some of the formations are, and the relative imbalance between races.
I'm a weirdo completest and have most of the books (need that Angels book and Traitor's Hate though), yet not being game familiar, when I do play I sometimes have eyebrow raising at the formations that get deployed.
The formations/detachments thing is definitely a major issue. GW really needs to make all of the rules for these available for free on their website. Even if they don't want to do that they should at least have a master list of all of them and where to find them.
A good example of the problems with the game right now can be seen by watching a YouTube battle report (if you have the stamina!). 2 things stand out to me when watching a game, which are sometimes hard to spot when playing yourself:
1. The pre-game stuff takes too long. Even explaining how your army is constructed can take a few minutes - is it a CAD + Allies? Or double-CAD. Or collection of formations.... What rules do those formations get? Then you have the warlord traits, psychic powers, combat drugs etc.
2. So many dice rolls. Watching a single unit resolve an attack against a single enemy unit is torturous. Between rolling for different weapons, re-rolling all misses for TL, or just 1s for Preferred Enemy, then rolling to wound it can take a while just to get your wound pool. Then you have individual saves to take because you have a character 3rd in line to take wounds and you have to decide how many LoS you want to take assuming he even has to take saves. Obviously that's an extreme example but I would say it happens often enough to not be a rarity.
The 2nd issue can easily be solved by reverting to older rules. Majority Toughness and saves is good enough and if you remove special models last who cares as long as the game moves along?
I admit, one of my biggest hopes so far for 8th edition, are free basic rules, and data slates for EVERY unit from all the codexes that will be considered valid for the new edition. This would be lov3ly to have all of this on ONE single app. I have a ton of the codexes for 7th already on my tablet but I can't open several dexes all at once, I have to close the current one out and open up a different one to see the rules from that book. I still love having them on tablets much more than hard copies though. Much easier to wrangle that around then having like 4-6 books with me all at once.
Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.
That is essentially the problem. GW would have to make the game a smaller, skirmish-level game.
They wouldn't sell as many models. The D6 keeps their pockets lined as it allows giant armies and ease of play. They are stuck with it, and will always be stuck with an inferior and archaic set of rules.
Oh god no. D6s are cheap, common, easy to see results on from across the table, and I don't want to roll an "ork number" of D20s. D6s are fine.
That is essentially the problem. GW would have to make the game a smaller, skirmish-level game.
They wouldn't sell as many models. The D6 keeps their pockets lined as it allows giant armies and ease of play. They are stuck with it, and will always be stuck with an inferior and archaic set of rules.
Are you essentially saying that big, non-skirmish games are automatically inferior and archaic because they can't use weird dice?
I can't see GW going with D10s. They have their merits of course but I think their design philosophy is to stick with D6s.
Also, I finally got my own simplified system for 40k going. It gives every model seven basic stats and every weapon four stats. Long story short, everything is just "roll d6 and add A to get B. If B equals or beats targets C then it's successful". I hope to post it soon.
I can't see GW going with D10s either. They'd come up with a special Games™ Workshop™ Citadel™ FineDice™ D11™ and then sue anyone who tries to make their own D11s.
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.
Whitebeard wrote: Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.
)
