Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 05:43:18


Post by: drbored


Just a little poll to see how people feel about the state of the game.

In my opinion, it's become a bit arduous to play. You've already got a unit's faction abilities, subfaction abilities, the keywords, some units get Core, some don't, which affects auras, and then you've got the stratagems and unit upgrades, wombo-combos... and THEN you've got your secondary and primary objectives and keeping track of loads of points... I love the models but have zero motivation to work on them to play the game because of how much there is to learn and keep track of.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 05:44:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Complex or complicated?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 05:51:17


Post by: Wyldhunt


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Complex or complicated?

This. I voted, "Yes, but I deal with it," but it's less that the game is "complex" and more that it's just busy. Like, in the sisters 'dex, you can have buffs from...

* Innate unit abilities/options (Sacresants)
* Character auras
* Strats
* Miracle dice
* Litanies (or whatever their equivalent is called)
* Targeted character buffs
* Order Traits (your chapter tactic equivalent)
* Sacred Rites
* A couple other subsystems if you're playing a Crusade game.

That's a lot of (somewhat redundant) subsystems and floating special rules to cram into a single army. You could probably ditch half of those and still have plenty of design space for a satisfying amount of complexity and mechanical depth. As is, it feels like GW is throwing a few too many systems at the wall at once, and I suspect that most of them won't be around in five years.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 05:57:05


Post by: Marshal Loss


I don't think so. Some books (like the Adeptus Mechanicus) take things too far but by and large I don't think this edition is complex at all, and inexperienced friends seem to be enjoying it. That isn't to say that it's perfect, though.

edit: I'm with the above two posters on the "complex vs complicated" distinction.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:17:11


Post by: Eonfuzz


It's not complex, it's the lazy card like design approaches games workshop have taken.

That and new DLC and models being clearly better than old options (Ork Codex, I'm looking at you!).

Stratagems are the worst addition they could've possibly done.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:24:46


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Eonfuzz wrote:
It's not complex, it's the lazy card like design approaches games workshop have taken.

That and new DLC and models being clearly better than old options (Ork Codex, I'm looking at you!).

Stratagems are the worst addition they could've possibly done.

I've given stratagems a fare shake since they were introduced. They're not a terrible way to go, but the execution has never felt quite right either. Now, we have both stratagems and a huge pile of other subsystems all present in a given game.

At this point, GW should probably start looking at ditching "stratagems" and just switch to using CP to fuel some character buffs and unit abilities. Spending CP to have my autarch actively issue commands that make my army fight better makes more sense than spending CP to do a barrel roll (Lightning Fast Reactions) anyway, and ditching the stratagem section of the book would reduce the number of floating special rules dramatically.

The way the new AoS command phase works makes me think they're already considering making that switch.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:39:17


Post by: AduroT


Too many Stratagems. Gotchas. I prefer the new AoS system where there’s just a handful a global ones, and a few on specific characters.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:39:36


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:42:08


Post by: Wyldhunt


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.

Yep. Now consider, if you will, a world in which they eliminated all but, let's say, 4 army-wide stratagems, and all other strats were CP fueled abilities tied to specific datasheets. So you can still do cool, cinematic things and still have CP as an incentive for not souping, but you don't have a literal deck of cards full of special rules to whip out at any given time. Tying it to characters could help reduce some of the game's buff-related lethality too.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:44:31


Post by: BrianDavion


No it's not complex at all, once you break the game down over all the mechanics are pretty simple.
you have the to hit numbers, to wound is easily caluclated (to the point where if it's an issue at all that's a "you problem")

the real only "complexity" is in the form of stratigiums, and that's not complex so much as there's a LOT of them and thus it's damn near impossiable to know all of them. but that's not complexity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.

Yep. Now consider, if you will, a world in which they eliminated all but, let's say, 4 army-wide stratagems, and all other strats were CP fueled abilities tied to specific datasheets. So you can still do cool, cinematic things and still have CP as an incentive for not souping, but you don't have a literal deck of cards full of special rules to whip out at any given time. Tying it to characters could help reduce some of the game's buff-related lethality too.


I'd not mind unit specific strats just being tied to the datasheet rather then being grouped as a strat. so terminators, for instance, would on their datasheet have "One terminator unit in your army, per turn, may for 1 CP add +1 to attack rolls" mechanicly it's the same thing as fury of the first but is slightly "cleaner"


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:56:45


Post by: ccs


Well, to paraphrase a buddy who gave 9e a try for our 2020 Crusade after having not played for several editions....
" , there's more rules about playing my Marines than there are about playing the game! WTF?"
He was not impressed.

I tend to agree with him.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 06:58:42


Post by: Insectum7


The game mechanics are simple (possibly too simple). Stratagems add unnecessary complication/irritation, they could reduce them by 80-90% and the game would be a better place. They could remove them altogether and I wouldn't miss them, really.

There are also too many bespoke rules. More "generification" would be greatly appreciated.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 07:21:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 07:54:27


Post by: Wyldhunt


 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


Yeah. I've never been all that impressed with 40k as a competitive game. I've found myself wondering if it would be better off foregoing some of the game slowing rules in favor of something lightweight, cinematic, but not especially balanced. Basically, rules to capture that smashing action figures together type feeling. Narrative rules that help to tell a story and capture an army's feel rather than just being a less-balanced version of Matched Play. That sort of thing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:02:38


Post by: Slipspace


H.B.M.C. wrote:I think there are too many systems.


That's the heart of it for me. We've got multiple different detachment types for building our army, stratagems, relics (and SM have Special Issue Wargear, which is similar but different), warlord traits, character upgrades, unique character equipment we pay for instead of it being a relic, Core as a fairly arbitrary designation, army-wide buffs, sub-faction specific buffs, aura buffs, non-aura buffs...and probably a lot more. In some cases it's obviously a result of a lack of depth in the core rules but a lot of those systems are just unnecessary. The problem GW has had for a while is a lack of direction. Nobody seems to be sitting down at the start of an edition and mapping out how things will work and then applying that to every army. So we get Core varying wildly between "pretty much everything" and "these 5 units". We get anti-tank weapons that switch from D6 damage in the first few Codices to D3+3. We get arbitrary caps on the number of mortal wounds a strat can do (sometimes 3, sometimes 6, sometimes more).

AnomanderRake wrote:It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


This has been 40k's core gameplay problem for a while. There's just not enough to it despite all the layered systems in play. The combination of IGOUGO, near-perfect information and shallow rules makes playing the game a weird combination of simple yet time-consuming. Most "tactics" in the game boil down to remembering to do stuff and constantly measuring distances, while resolving actions takes forever due to the buckets of dice and proliferation of re-rolls of various types.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:09:25


Post by: AnomanderRake


Slipspace wrote:
...
AnomanderRake wrote:It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


This has been 40k's core gameplay problem for a while. There's just not enough to it despite all the layered systems in play. The combination of IGOUGO, near-perfect information and shallow rules makes playing the game a weird combination of simple yet time-consuming. Most "tactics" in the game boil down to remembering to do stuff and constantly measuring distances, while resolving actions takes forever due to the buckets of dice and proliferation of re-rolls of various types.


And to me 30k/3e-7e do a much better job of being the straightforward smashing-action-figures-together cinematic ruleset than 8e/9e trying their hardest to be Warmachine and failing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:12:20


Post by: Wyldhunt


Slipspace wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think there are too many systems.


That's the heart of it for me. We've got multiple different detachment types for building our army, stratagems, relics (and SM have Special Issue Wargear, which is similar but different), warlord traits, character upgrades, unique character equipment we pay for instead of it being a relic, Core as a fairly arbitrary designation, army-wide buffs, sub-faction specific buffs, aura buffs, non-aura buffs...and probably a lot more. In some cases it's obviously a result of a lack of depth in the core rules but a lot of those systems are just unnecessary. The problem GW has had for a while is a lack of direction. Nobody seems to be sitting down at the start of an edition and mapping out how things will work and then applying that to every army. So we get Core varying wildly between "pretty much everything" and "these 5 units". We get anti-tank weapons that switch from D6 damage in the first few Codices to D3+3. We get arbitrary caps on the number of mortal wounds a strat can do (sometimes 3, sometimes 6, sometimes more).


I've wondered about tying some of the systems to specific game sizes and/or changing how they work at different game sizes. So maybe you DO get relics, warlord traits, and all that character customize-y stuff in Incursion-sized games where your cutsomized character isn't sharing the spotlight with a ton of units. But then at 1500+ point games, you simply don't get access to relics and warlord traits but instead gain access to doctrines or advanced chapter tactics or whatever. Maybe chaplains can choose specific litanies in 1,000 point games, but just get a single generic litany that you don't roll to activate in 2,000 point games. That sort of thing.

To take the idea a step further, you could use some of the freed up design real-estate to give armies flavorful rules that work at a given game size but would be fiddly or too powerful at other game sizes. So like, maybe tyranids have a bunch of rules for respawning horde units in larger games but not in smaller games where the resulting points advantage could be too powerful. Instead, maybe they get access to more Adaptations in smaller games so that you can customize ur dudez and savor their uniqueness.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:13:28


Post by: Vector Strike


I wouldn't say complex... but it's certainly clunky.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:30:38


Post by: Cyel


I think you may misunderstand WH40K complexity problem. It may be not that complex in general but it is far too complex for what it offers - a simplistic game with few impactful decision points (outside purchasing decisions) and extremely heavy upkeep element. Such a simple game should have simple, elegant rules.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:45:29


Post by: kirotheavenger


Cyel wrote:
I think you may misunderstand WH40K complexity problem. It may be not that complex in general but it is far too complex for what it offers - a simplistic game with few impactful decision points (outside purchasing decisions) and extremely heavy upkeep element. Such a simple game should have simple, elegant rules.

Definitely, I play games with more complex mechanics than 40k and enjoy them because you feel that complexity born out in dynamics.
I also play simper games with simpler dynamics than 40k and enjoy them because they have correspondingly simple mechanics and don't pretend to be greater.
Although in general simple mechanics that great elegant and dynamic gameplay are rules that I looove. 40k is the exact opposite of this.

I think 40k really suffers from feature creep. Every new book or codex needs to be selling something new. That's why they've layered on rules after rules after rules. They don't ever want to cut anything as players don't like having things taken away, so it just builds up and up.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:49:37


Post by: mrFickle


All I know is that about the age of 13 I got into 40K around 2nd or 3rd Ed and worked it all out pretty easy and knew the rules like the back of my hand. Now I’m 40 and returned to the hobby around the switch from 8th to 9th and I don’t know what’s going on.

I possibly don’t have as much time to invest in it but to be honest it feels like the whole game is about clever application of buffs to stats via strategems and other methods and I can’t be bothered with it.

But maybe my old brains doesn’t work as well as it used to.

I would prefer it if all the rules were in the units data sheet and war gear section of the codex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 08:59:09


Post by: kirotheavenger


I used to spend every lunch time with my friends reading each other's codexes and chatting about the game. I used to write army lists for basically every possible theme, unit, and/or combination imaginable.
Thems were the days.

Nowadays, I don't have that time. I play maybe once a week, sometimes less. I might have an hour or two to write up a list before the game, but generally I'm reusing the same list over and over.
There's just too much information for me to learn and track before and during games now.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 09:04:57


Post by: Sim-Life


mrFickle wrote:
All I know is that about the age of 13 I got into 40K around 2nd or 3rd Ed and worked it all out pretty easy and knew the rules like the back of my hand. Now I’m 40 and returned to the hobby around the switch from 8th to 9th and I don’t know what’s going on.

I possibly don’t have as much time to invest in it but to be honest it feels like the whole game is about clever application of buffs to stats via strategems and other methods and I can’t be bothered with it.

But maybe my old brains doesn’t work as well as it used to.

I would prefer it if all the rules were in the units data sheet and war gear section of the codex.


I'm in the same boat. I know it's not my brain because I have a 50+ board game collection where I could pull out any game and I'd probably only need a quick refresher on the more complicated ones to get playing, but I don't think I've played a game of 40k since 8th got its codexes where I've remembered everything well. I have a friend who has an entire spreadsheet and checklists made up to make sure he gets everything right. You really shouldn't need spreadhseets to play 40k.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 09:18:23


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
I have a friend who has an entire spreadsheet and checklists made up to make sure he gets everything right. You really shouldn't need spreadhseets to play 40k.


Lol, I've got a friend like that as well. He plays SoB - & has this arcane looking flow chart made up that he references at the start of each turn.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 09:23:07


Post by: Vatsetis


Is not complex at all but its very bloated and cumbersome which is even worse.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 09:46:15


Post by: Fergie0044


Voted for Yes - But I deal with it anyway.

I like complex games, bare bones early 8th edition for too simple for me. But it's becoming too much of a headache now to deal with everything. I'd prefer the core rules were more complex (maybe even bring back USRs?) and then scale back the add ons that each codex has.

I also don't like how each codex having so many rules created gotcha moments, as I don't have the head capacity to commit every army to memory. My own is hard enough! I'm really sick and tired of having to explain my army to my opponent each time;
"So this warlord trait switches off re-rolls, so this guy makes you fight last etc etc."


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 09:48:21


Post by: Deadnight


I've found games like infinity and warmachine were far more complex and had far more moving parts than 40k. So I think 'complex' isn't the right term.

I think, likewise, complicated isn't the best term to use. 40k has an excess of dice rolling and a huge amount of bloat, that's not the same thing as 'complicated'.

Personally I think it's fairer to say 40k is 'excessively bloated' and 'excessively clunky' in resolving in-game actions. Kind of like going back to some 90s era early playstation games. The controls did their job, but the Control interface was far clunkier than what we'd expect now.






Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 10:04:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think you're right Deadknight. Neither word is sufficient.

BattleTech is an intensely complex game with rulebooks out the wazoo, but it's far easier to play it than 40k. At the same time, 40k isn't really complicated in that it isn't difficult to play.

There's just so much of it though.

So... unwieldy then.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 10:12:43


Post by: Semper


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... unwieldy then.


I think that's the perfect word. Unwieldy.

Between the constant updates (which, in a vacuum are fine), the ever expanding rules (flavour, in a vacuum is fine), the increasing supplements (which, now and then is fine) and the expanding rosters of units and factions it's all just so much when combined and for an adult with a full time job, kids a partner and other areas of life, it starts to make the game inaccessible. I can't imagine it being very good for younger players either.

I literally have to make excel reference sheets to play as otherwise i'm flipping through book after book, app after app every phase and it's maddening and extends the game length to laughable proportions in a way that's not fun.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 10:20:02


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 10:43:08


Post by: Blackie


Big no, it's not complex at all, it's really the easiest edition I've ever played, along with 8th maybe. And in my opinion that's a positive thing.

However it is actually over complicated by the sheer amount of datasheets and rules bloat. Most of the codexes could easily have a third of those without losing anything. Not a big deal, there's no reason to keep in mind all the rules and the possible combinations of every factions. Still, when half+ the rules/datasheets are constantly ignored it means that GW could have done a better job.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 10:59:45


Post by: Strg Alt


No, it's not complex.

The game became too simple for my tastes when they deleted modifiers to hit rolls. This happened in 3rd. Tells you what they think of their customers:
Morons which shouldn't be burdened with minor additions and subtraction to a roll.
And they tried to sell us that change with "speeding up play". As if you couldn't do basic math in a heartbeat.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 11:06:16


Post by: Overread


As others have said its not the actual rules which are complex, but more how GW presents them

The fragmented nature of multiple expansion books and such, even if each one is only adding a warscroll worth of rules, makes it harder to see the big picture when you're flipping between multiple reference points to build an army.

FAQ/Errata are fine, but the more documents you have to update the more of them you end up wtih so instead of one per codex and one for the core rules, you also end up with more additions as well for the sub books and such.


Another thing is how GW presents information within the books. There was a time that everything for a unit was on the page for it; points, weapon profiles everything. Even if it meant the same weapon got its profile repeated multiple times.

These days GW presents the codex more like an update sheet, one reference for many things, which means each model has fragmented information in different places. It might be easier for GW to update in the back, but it makes it harder when you have ot flip around the book more. It's not as bad as it was - there was a time every unit had two profile pages in the book not to mention points and weapon and upgrade profiles elswhere.


Most things are simple - its just the way GW presents the information that makes it complex to take in






Finally we've the issue of how GW writes rules. They establish core rules, then a codex which changes some of those core rules, then another codex whcih also changes them. Then you play the two together and it can be complicated working out who has priority and what overrides take place and when. Sometimes these are a simple case of sorting out the order of how things happen, which is sort of there in the rules but not often spelled or presented clearly.



Finally there's complexity through edition change. Old players remember bits of previous editions and get confused because a rule that used to work one way now works another way; or a rule that used to be called one thing is now called something else. This can lead to confusion because you're miss remembering how something works. Especially if how it used to work was "better" and how it works now is "worse".



In the end GW doesn't help the rules help themselves; fragmented presentation; loose writing and edition changes make the game feel far more complicated than it really is.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 11:06:53


Post by: Aash


I think the previous poster who referred to 40k as unwieldy has it right.

I don't think complex or complicated are quite the right description, but unwieldy and inelegant for sure.

I would prefer to see 40k with a solid, elegant core rules system which provides a framework for the game. Special rules etc should work within this framework. At present there are too many exceptions to rules or special rules that could be represented by fully utilizing the core rules (such as stat blocks rather than special rules), and there are far too many auras, buffs, strategems, exceptions etc in my view.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 11:09:05


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think you're right Deadknight. Neither word is sufficient.

BattleTech is an intensely complex game with rulebooks out the wazoo, but it's far easier to play it than 40k. At the same time, 40k isn't really complicated in that it isn't difficult to play.

There's just so much of it though.

So... unwieldy then.


agreed 100%. I laugh when people complain that 40k is too complicated (hell during the days of 6th/7th edition when people said 40k was too complex and needed to...... well basicly be turned to 8th edition) I laughed because yeah I got into table top through battletech and the game is MUCH more complex, but at the same time it's also more elegantly designed so it runs fairly smooth. (there's a reason the game has barely changed in 30 years)
IMHO 40k suffers from not being complex eneugh so in an attempt to add some depth etc. they just layer things on. I mean at the end of the day every stratagum etc in the book can be summed up as "+1 or -1 to a roll (or otherwise modify things), re-roll something, deal mortal wounds etc)

I mean the movement modifers to battletech add a whole new dimension to the tactics.

I enjoy 40k, don't get me wrong, but 40k is not a complex game, and IMHO the lack of complexity makes it suffer.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:13:15


Post by: ccs


 Strg Alt wrote:
No, it's not complex.

The game became too simple for my tastes when they deleted modifiers to hit rolls. This happened in 3rd. Tells you what they think of their customers:
Morons which shouldn't be burdened with minor additions and subtraction to a roll.
And they tried to sell us that change with "speeding up play". As if you couldn't do basic math in a heartbeat.


And here in 8e+, with the elimination of vehicle facings/fire arcs the morons get a pass on telling Left/Right/Front/Back apart.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:31:11


Post by: Vankraken


The decade leading up to 8th was a mixture of simplistic core gameplay with some tactical depth and niche mechanics that added to the complexity of the game. It became quite bloated with a ton of rules within rules going on which make it difficult for some to get into the game and made referencing rules annoying without a good memory or a cheat sheet. There where a lot of little things that could change the outcome of a battle beyond just which way the dice happen to go, even if they where often times clunky in execution.

After 8th all the bits of depth went away while the core game became even more simplistic. Still ended up with a lot of rules bloat between memorizing all the stratagems and the layering of bonuses on top of bonuses. 8th was a barren wasteland of meaningful complexity or strategy while 9th seems to have added a bit more to the basically non existent terrain rules (seriously how the zog did GW look at 8th's terrain rules and think "this is fit for purpose") as well as adding a bit more depth than "shoot all the things" but it still pales in comparison to what could be done in past editions.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:40:31


Post by: Sunno


Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:49:32


Post by: kirotheavenger


I find this many layers of bloat terrible for a 'beer and pretzels' game.
Beer and pretzels mean I don't want to care enough, or invest enough, to be able to learn this many army rules. If I need a spreadsheet or a printout to remember the majority of my rules (despite playing fairly regularly still), that's way too much to be taking casually.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:54:16


Post by: PenitentJake


I voted yes but I like it.

Playing for synergy- ie. using a strat for unit in overlapping auras that synergizes with a subfaction trait to swing a game through a critical story event is just awesome to me.

As others have pointed out, base rules are fairly simple- it's the layering of buffs/ debuffs from multiple sources that adds complexity to the simple rules.

I also like the way rules are done in layers- it gives a dedicated group of players looking to create stories a lot of tools because you can strip away certain categories of rules more easily. It's easier, for example, to say "This is a pariah Nexus game, so Beyond the Veil abilities are on but Charadon abilities are off" than it is to go through a list of USRs to figure out which specific ones should/ should not be available to create a particular story effect in game.

Theatres of War are another nice layer that can be added, changed or stripped to reflect not only the geography in a battle, but also when in the sequence of a prolonged campaign a particular battle occurs.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 12:59:26


Post by: Las


The core rules mechanics are quite elegant (movement, psychic powers, shooting, fighting, wounding, resolving etc).

The problem is that it's a game of overwhelming exception. Knowledge of those original mechanics are far less important than rote memorization of modifier and mechanic skipping effects and powers.

I played consistently from 5th to the first day of 8th. Coming back now is pretty damn daunting. Which is unfortunate because I like the general streamlining of the core mechanics. It's everything else on top that makes the game difficult to wrap your head around.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 13:33:23


Post by: catbarf


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I find this many layers of bloat terrible for a 'beer and pretzels' game.
Beer and pretzels mean I don't want to care enough, or invest enough, to be able to learn this many army rules. If I need a spreadsheet or a printout to remember the majority of my rules (despite playing fairly regularly still), that's way too much to be taking casually.


Pretty much this. I think OnePageRules Grimdark Future is currently doing a better 40K than 40K is.

I like complexity, but I really don't like complexity from bloat.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 13:51:56


Post by: mrFickle


To those people who say it’s not complicated - how much time do you have to put into the hobby

When I was a teenager I used to read and re read codexes and rule books and was pretty well immersed.

Now I have a demanding job and a baby I don’t have time to read the literature over and over again.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 13:58:16


Post by: Pancakey


Complex definition - composed of many interconnected parts.

GW has purposely removed depth from the game added layers and layers of complexity to try and hide the shallow nature of the new design ethos.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 13:59:05


Post by: the_scotsman


 catbarf wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I find this many layers of bloat terrible for a 'beer and pretzels' game.
Beer and pretzels mean I don't want to care enough, or invest enough, to be able to learn this many army rules. If I need a spreadsheet or a printout to remember the majority of my rules (despite playing fairly regularly still), that's way too much to be taking casually.


Pretty much this. I think OnePageRules Grimdark Future is currently doing a better 40K than 40K is.

I like complexity, but I really don't like complexity from bloat.


if only it wasn't somehow deadlier AND more imbalanced, lol.

Can someone pretty please make a ruleset we can use with 40k minis that doesn't have the durability of every model be basically equivalent of butter under an industrial blowtorch? For some reason someone looked at all these minis wearing super high-tech space armor and thought "you know what will really convey the fantasy of this setting is EVERYTHING DYING THE SECOND SOMETHING LOOKS AT THEM FUNNY"


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:05:49


Post by: Nurglitch


It's weird how little happens on the board given all the work needed to work out what happens on the board.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:13:32


Post by: Pancakey


 Nurglitch wrote:
It's weird how little happens on the board given all the work neede Complex definition, composed of many interconnected partsed to work out what happens on the board.


This is the result of purposely removing depth and adding complexity.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:18:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Nurglitch wrote:
It's weird how little happens on the board given all the work needed to work out what happens on the board.
There's no time for stuff on the board. I've got to work out how many different sources of re-rolls and +1's I've got for every unit every turn.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:19:31


Post by: Sledgehammer


Warhammer 40k is a game about rules. It's about constructing your army, understanding your special rules and the meta. Positional play on the battlefield is not the focus in any way shape or form. The more they get you thinking about your army's construction, the more you're going to worry about having the right models and units.


I hope Xenos Rampant is good.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:23:29


Post by: catbarf


 the_scotsman wrote:
if only it wasn't somehow deadlier AND more imbalanced, lol.

Can someone pretty please make a ruleset we can use with 40k minis that doesn't have the durability of every model be basically equivalent of butter under an industrial blowtorch? For some reason someone looked at all these minis wearing super high-tech space armor and thought "you know what will really convey the fantasy of this setting is EVERYTHING DYING THE SECOND SOMETHING LOOKS AT THEM FUNNY"


That's peculiar. My experience with Grimdark Future has been that it's less lethal than 40K. I mean, there's no roll to wound, but defense stats are generally pretty high, most troops are only rolling one die on attacks, and most importantly the layers of interconnected buffs are gone. Just running the numbers for a really basic matchup, Marines vs Guardsmen:

Ten Intercessors in 40K, rapid-firing in Tactical doctrine, kill 8.89 Guardsmen. Ten Guardsmen rapid-firing FRFSRF kill 1.11 Intercessors.

Ten Battle Brothers in GDF kill 4.44 Infantry. Ten Infantry kill 0.56 Battle Brothers.

If it's Marine-on-Marine, it's 2.22 kills in 40K versus 1.11 in GDF.

I'd also like to see a system where raw lethality is reduced in favor of playing up things like suppression, pinning, and flanking/fixing, but I definitely have not felt that GDF is /worse/ than 40K in that regard. At least it resolves a lot faster.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:26:37


Post by: kirotheavenger


I heard GDF did a fairly major rebalance recently? I think one of the main things is that most 2+ defence got nerfed to 3+?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:31:18


Post by: catbarf


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I heard GDF did a fairly major rebalance recently? I think one of the main things is that most 2+ defence got nerfed to 3+?


If a blanket nerf did happen, it seems Marines were exempt.

hey wait a minute I've seen this one before-


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:33:41


Post by: kirotheavenger


Oh maybe not then, they were who I heard the new most applied to.

Are Primaris still like 3x as lethal as Firstborn?

I read all about the game like a year ago but my local group weren't interested so I've mostly fallen out of the loop.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:34:53


Post by: the_scotsman


 catbarf wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
if only it wasn't somehow deadlier AND more imbalanced, lol.

Can someone pretty please make a ruleset we can use with 40k minis that doesn't have the durability of every model be basically equivalent of butter under an industrial blowtorch? For some reason someone looked at all these minis wearing super high-tech space armor and thought "you know what will really convey the fantasy of this setting is EVERYTHING DYING THE SECOND SOMETHING LOOKS AT THEM FUNNY"


That's peculiar. My experience with Grimdark Future has been that it's less lethal than 40K. I mean, there's no roll to wound, but defense stats are generally pretty high, most troops are only rolling one die on attacks, and most importantly the layers of interconnected buffs are gone. Just running the numbers for a really basic matchup, Marines vs Guardsmen:

Ten Intercessors in 40K, rapid-firing in Tactical doctrine, kill 8.89 Guardsmen. Ten Guardsmen rapid-firing FRFSRF kill 1.11 Intercessors.

Ten Battle Brothers in GDF kill 4.44 Infantry. Ten Infantry kill 0.56 Battle Brothers.

If it's Marine-on-Marine, it's 2.22 kills in 40K versus 1.11 in GDF.

I'd also like to see a system where raw lethality is reduced in favor of playing up things like suppression, pinning, and flanking/fixing, but I definitely have not felt that GDF is /worse/ than 40K in that regard. At least it resolves a lot faster.


You're comparing Intercessors to Battle-Brothers, the non-primaris marine equivalent in GDF. 10 "Prime Brothers" in GDF shooting their auto bolt guns get 3 shots each, hit on 3s, save on 5s, kill 12 GEQ. You're also handing the 40k guardsmen a FRFSRF order, while not giving an order to the GDF infantry - but admittedly, and amazingly, it does seem that GDF actually makes the gulf between elite and light infantry even more of a joke than in 40k, so yeah 10 guardsmen with orders in gdf do only manage to kill like 1/2 of one prime brother despite costing nearly equivalent points to a squad of 5 primes.

Primaris in GDF are essentially Movie Marines, lol. unless youre interested in marine fanwank you're better off sticking to 40k, doctrine crap and all.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 14:39:27


Post by: catbarf


kirotheavenger wrote:Are Primaris still like 3x as lethal as Firstborn?

the_scotsman wrote:You're comparing Intercessors to Battle-Brothers, the non-primaris marine equivalent in GDF.


Oh yeah that's my bad. Didn't realize they were a separate army list. My buddies and I have been using the regular Battle Brothers list so that would explain it.

Edit: Though I don't know if there's been rebalancing over time or what; it looks like right now a squad of 5 Primes costs a bit more than 20 Infantry.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:15:07


Post by: Grimtuff


Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:22:30


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:24:35


Post by: Tycho


This is a really interesting question. Like many in the thread, I think the core rules are pretty simple. But it's a matter of the codexes mucking that up a bit and adding exception after exception. That's the paradigm they set up. Some games, what makes a unit powerful is how well it takes advantage of the available rules. I find these systems to be a bit cleaner. In 40k, what makes a unit strong is how well it can IGNORE the rules. This creates all manner of book keeping, clunk, and moments of complication where too many exceptions to the rule compound at the same time.

I don't think it's complex per se. Anyone who played war games in the late 80's/early 90's where you had to do basic algebra to calculate firing solutions will likely agree that 40k is comparatively simple. It's just kind of clunky and byzantine at times.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:25:06


Post by: Grimtuff


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.


IOW they tried to copy WMH and failed hard.

40k was never about that in the past. It is literally the reason for PP's existence.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:29:52


Post by: Pancakey


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:30:55


Post by: Gert


40k is only complex if you remember the rules. That's my secret, I don't remember the rules.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:33:38


Post by: Sledgehammer


Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:38:20


Post by: tauist


I'm already deliberately not using all of the rules/features for my army (doctrines etc). From what I've read about the new AdMech dex, I'm not sure I ever want to play against them. Their special rules that activate on a tuesday but only for a model wearing a blue bonnet, and then only on turn X, make my head hurt.

And then there are the strats too.. It's a bit much



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:40:43


Post by: Voss


Another for not complex, just bloated/unwieldy/etc.

Maybe its me, but I used to feel I had a lock on the core game and 90% of the rules for 90% of the factions. Now I'm 90% on the core game (there are some very situational rules that I have to look up and figure out exactly what the vague-intent-but-overly specific wording is this time), fuzzy on a lot of factions and their various layers of specific mini game rules, and just utterly indifferent to various other factions and their specific minigames (which includes both strats, warlord traits, relics, color coded rules (chapter tactics, for lack of a better word), army purity buffs and etc).

I figure by the time I actually run into some factions on the table, they'll have a new codex anyway. GW has put a lot of effort into making me not care.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 15:42:50


Post by: Pancakey


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.


I agree with you. Hopefully player fatigue will set in.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 16:31:49


Post by: Gadzilla666


No, not really. It isn't complex, it's just memorization. You have to memorize what YOUR DUDES DO, and you have to memorize what THEIR DUDES DO, and all of the various strategems/etc that can change those things. It can be a bit "unwieldy", as others have said, because there is a LOT to memorize. But it isn't complex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 17:09:38


Post by: Gert


I'd argue you don't need to memorise your opponents' rules and I would deem it common courtesy to answer any questions my opponent has about my rules as well as letting them see the Codex/Rulebook. People sometimes make mistakes with the rules and I've found it's always better to check with an opposing or neutral party.
I'm not a naturally suspicious person but if I ask to check someone's rules regarding something, especially if it's something really good, and they refuse, then I would be pretty miffed and likely not play with them again if possible.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 17:17:15


Post by: Tawnis


For me, it's yes and no.

If I only played a single army, or maybe two. I don't think I'd have any issue with rules complexity except in corner cases which is pretty much the case in any game that's not super simple.

The thing is, I play almost every army. So remembering all the different stratagems and sub factions tactics are pretty rough. I make cheat sheets to keep them close at hand and try to think ahead as to what I'm most likely to use, but it's got it's limits.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 17:19:12


Post by: kodos


40k is complicated not complex

and every time GW want to make the game more simple because people argue that it is too complex, the more complicated it get


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 17:27:10


Post by: dream archipelago


Yeah I agree with complicated not complex. It would help if the rules and codices and consequent errata weren't always changed, but gotta make those doneros.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 17:49:08


Post by: mrFickle


Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.


I agree with you. Hopefully player fatigue will set in.


I like the way this has been phrased as I wouldn’t have been able to but it’s how I feel about the game. Clever algorithms to combine units strategems and other buffs to make your army OP. Working out how to give a unit buffs using CP which would make their point value go through the roof of those buffs were in the units data sheet. I get why some people like that but it results int along unit’s strategically to win. For me I want to take a helldrake in my CSM army cos it looks cool and will be fun to play with. I feel like the rules don’t really cater to that approach to building an army unless you also don’t care about the game element by which I mean playing to win but not minding if you lose as long as it’s fun


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 18:57:19


Post by: -Guardsman-


ccs wrote:
Well, to paraphrase a buddy who gave 9e a try for our 2020 Crusade after having not played for several editions....
" , there's more rules about playing my Marines than there are about playing the game! WTF?"
He was not impressed.

I tend to agree with him.

Marines in particular should be simple to play, IMO, as the "poster boy" army. They should have high stats but only the bare minimum amount of rules, compared to xenos such as Eldar and T'au who have low stats but more rules (because they're aliens and have lots of strange tricks up their sleeves). Instead the Marines seem to have more and more rules and gotcha's with every new update.

I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place, as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.

As has been said before, the number of stratagems needs to be pared down. Maybe 6-8 strats per army, and no unit-specific strats.

Missions and objectives should be simplified, too. Secondary objectives in particular are a headache.

.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 18:59:46


Post by: Sim-Life


-Guardsman- wrote:
ccs wrote:
Well, to paraphrase a buddy who gave 9e a try for our 2020 Crusade after having not played for several editions....
" , there's more rules about playing my Marines than there are about playing the game! WTF?"
He was not impressed.

I tend to agree with him.

Marines in particular should be simple to play, IMO, as the "poster boy" army. They should have high stats but only the bare minimum amount of rules, compared to xenos such as Eldar and T'au who have low stats but more rules (because they're aliens and have lots of strange tricks up their sleeves). Instead the Marines seem to have more and more rules and gotcha's with every new update.

I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place, as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.

As has been said before, the number of stratagems needs to be pared down. Maybe 6-8 strats per army, and no unit-specific strats.

Missions and objectives should be simplified, too. Secondary objectives in particular are a headache.

.


I really feel bad for new players who need to figure out which bolter is which when they build their new primaris models.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 19:30:25


Post by: kodos


Marines are simple to play, you just need to know the previous Editions/Books to know what the hell they are talking about in the rules

it is just a complicated wall of text, one that is written by people who know the game and just wrote down all the changes for the new Edition and models without ever thinking if a new player who don't know the game, can understand this while reading it


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 20:07:47


Post by: Brutus_Apex


Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.

Eliminate this 3rd level of rules bloat in every codex: (Super Doctrines/Command protocols etc.) They just add another layer of bloat to the game without providing any meaningful change.

Eliminate all bespoke rules/special rules. Who could have guessed that trying to memorize or sift through several thousand separate rules on a datasheet is more time consuming and cumbersome than just having the all self contained and standardized in the main rulebook? I'm shocked...shocked.

Only USR's exist. No extra rules added in codexes. They all follow the main rules outlined in the rulebook.

Change the game to alternating sub-phases.

Unit specific special rules are now all Strategems.

Strategems can only be used if HQ's are on the board or sergeants. Strategems performed by sergeants cost double.

Limit the number of strategems able to be taken per game (like a deck of cards)

Limit the number of strategems able to be used per game and phase.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 20:18:05


Post by: Racerguy180


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.



Yes, tedious is the word!


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 20:21:03


Post by: Overread


What can be annoying is when even within the same battletome/codex two different units might have the same ability modifier under two totally separate names. The impact on the game is identical, but they have different names.

I makes it very fluffy, but very impractical to remember and organise mentally. Just give the unit a nice 1 page lore blurb (or 2 or 3) and then let the rules be just rules.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:03:39


Post by: Gores


Voted no, its really not that hard to remember what your units and abilities can do and if you have any questions about your opponents army you can just ask them


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:13:00


Post by: Voss


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.


Tedium is a good fit. GW style wargames are like certain modern RPGs (pathfinder 2 is basically an accounting volume), they're written in a way that's really simple for a computer to parse all the layers, modifiers, one-off rules, special circumstances and optional actions (strats, etc) and apply them, but they aren't convenient for a human to encompass and apply them all.

Especially so with the inconsistent and sloppy wording on a lot of rules. (In a programming format these would HAVE to get a consistent answer to work at all, rather than a debate at a table, which would actually be an improvement. I prefer a known but bad answer to a shrug).

I suspect I'd have a fun with Warhammer the turned based battle simulator. But doing it all by hand (and the 'apps' they've gone with don't actually help) strikes me as programming via punchcard. Needlessly laborious and tedious.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:27:49


Post by: kodos


I don't think that they ever played with their own rules (as written in the books)


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:32:14


Post by: Irkjoe


The rules are voluminous but shallow. There are a lot of rules but the core mechanics are nothing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:35:28


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Sim-Life wrote:
I really feel bad for new players who need to figure out which bolter is which when they build their new primaris models.

I guarantee you its easier to start now and go "wait, what does that do again? let me look at the datasheet" than when I started in 7th and had to go "wait, what does that do again? let me look at the datasheet so I know what word to look up in the BRB's appendix so I can find the page with the rule".


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:38:02


Post by: The Warp Forge


For me I don't think it Complex nor difficult.

Just Sterile.

The strats and buffs are fun if each game is conisstent with you doing well but if not, after a while, it just feels bland. Each List always feels like it's a race to get to 0% Probabailty of failing rolls and, well, that lacks spirit.

I fully agree that 40k needed an overhaul and streamlining after the debacle that was 6/7th ed. But this just feels hollow and empty. I don't feel like I'm playing 40k which feels odd to say considering it's offical 40k rules.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:39:09


Post by: quantumquixote


I like the complexity, if I want to play something simpler the sky is the limit to what I can play. There very few games with high ceilings as to how much theory crafting and research I can do. I know some people are like I'm too busy but if you're too busy this isn't the game for you anyways. Or people who are like, I wanna play competitively so I don't want to learn everyone's rules, but the majority of players are casual and for me, personally, I like being surprised by what other people can do with their armies. Simplifying this game would just make it more like any other game, which then I might as well save money and play something easier.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 21:57:32


Post by: moreorless


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).


IIndeed, I think the basic rules now are actually pretty simple and the main complexity is remembering all the various buffs you can choose from different sources. Really though the buffs themselves often end up being quite similar to the degree there often not overlaping as much as you might expect given there coming from so many sources.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 22:34:07


Post by: PenitentJake


-Guardsman- wrote:


I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place,


Well, the alternative is live with the problems for the entire edition like we used to up until 8th, and it was even worse because not every faction got a dex every edition. I'll be honest, I find FAQ's a little crazy to follow and sometimes exhausting, but I still prefer it to the alternative of "Whoops, because of an interdepartmental communication error, not only is your dex sub par (or curb stomping other dexes), it's going to stay that way for the next 3-8 years because reasons."

-Guardsman- wrote:

as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.


I think it's you that needs to stop pretending, as well as all the other ravenous 2k matched only folks that post on Dakka. Clearly 2k matched IS the most popular thing on Dakka, but the actual truth is that none of us, including me and GW themselves, know exactly how many people play which way and which size. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players neither play in tournaments nor post online about it, and I would guess that the vast majority don't play in stores either.

GW will have reasonable guesses based on GT mission pack sales vs Crusade mission pack sales vs open war deck sales, but since none of these add-ons are actually necessary to play any of the three ways to play even that doesn't really tell us anything. There is literally no way anyone can know.

But for the record, 9th is my favourite edition BECAUSE of Crusade, and it is the only way I play. I would allow myself to be talked into a matched play game if someone really, really wanted one, but so far I've been able to twist every arm into Crusade. I am also actually interested in playing Open War because there are a handful of Dakkanauts who swear by the open war deck and they seem like the chillest, happiest folks on Dakka.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/04 22:45:17


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


The way GW does FAQs is bad, especially needing to pay for points changes. They could just have the books be updated online, and have a FAQ section on their site for things that are rule changes. The only alternative is not "never get updates."


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 06:15:01


Post by: kodos


PenitentJake wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:


I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place,


Well, the alternative is live with the problems for the entire edition like we used to up until 8th
no FAQs is not the alternative to scattered FAQ


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 06:21:44


Post by: jeff white


No vote cuz no good option.
I would have voted Unduly and arbitrarily complicated, if such an option were afforded.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 06:35:17


Post by: Cyel


quantumquixote wrote:
I like the complexity, if I want to play something simpler the sky is the limit to what I can play. There very few games with high ceilings as to how much theory crafting and research I can do. I know some people are like I'm too busy but if you're too busy this isn't the game for you anyways. Or people who are like, I wanna play competitively so I don't want to learn everyone's rules, but the majority of players are casual and for me, personally, I like being surprised by what other people can do with their armies. Simplifying this game would just make it more like any other game, which then I might as well save money and play something easier.


Try Warmachine (or Dominant Species or Pax Renaissance ) to see how complexity actually produces choices and options instead of just memory load in a simplistic, random game.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 06:41:59


Post by: Cynista


Super doctrines and equivalents are the worst thing that has happened to 40k in years. Add them on top of the aura rules bloat, over saturation of strategem and needessly complicated (yet restrictive) datasheets and we have a big mess.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 08:25:27


Post by: kirotheavenger


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).

I really dislike this approach, I feel like I know how I'm going to play the game before I've even turned up. I have the road map of what strats to use on who and when.
Games are enacting the plan, far less reacting and dancing with my opponent.
This is not helped because reacting to my opponent requires knowing a great weight of rules. I need to search through my six pages of strategems, I'm boned because I didn't realise this other secondary was a thing, etc etc.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 09:02:58


Post by: Sim-Life


quantumquixote wrote:
I like the complexity, if I want to play something simpler the sky is the limit to what I can play. There very few games with high ceilings as to how much theory crafting and research I can do. I know some people are like I'm too busy but if you're too busy this isn't the game for you anyways. Or people who are like, I wanna play competitively so I don't want to learn everyone's rules, but the majority of players are casual and for me, personally, I like being surprised by what other people can do with their armies. Simplifying this game would just make it more like any other game, which then I might as well save money and play something easier.


This post makes me sad. 40k is an INCREDIBLY simple game, there is just a lot of it. Its like reading a dictionary and claiming its a deep complex book because you can combine the words to make a (probably bad) novel. I'm not 100% sure that analogy works but I'm sticking with it.

When you say simple games I can't think of any wargame that is simpler than 40k so I assume you mean like light weight board games? And even then most of them have a deeper decision space than 40k.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 09:14:22


Post by: Deadnight


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).

I really dislike this approach, I feel like I know how I'm going to play the game before I've even turned up. I have the road map of what strats to use on who and when.
Games are enacting the plan, far less reacting and dancing with my opponent.


To be fair,you tend to see this 'controlled environment' in a lot of games. Dice rolls aside, you can activate/move what you want where you want etc. As you say games come down to repeating a formula of actions.

If you want a game to better test your ability to 'improvise' and 'think/adapt on the fly', and for game to not be about going through the motions (again) of the same old plan, I find games with more random activations and that have integrated the 'random' factor do this better. Warlord had a charming little samurai game called test of honour which completely humbugged me because I was so used to controlling my own army. Bolt action has a lot of the same dna aswell. well worth playing to test different skills.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 10:33:01


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Complex or complicated?


Comment 2 summed it up. There is very little that is complex about 40k. But the pile of books, strategems, special rules and exceptions make it complicated.

For comparison. Go is not complicated but very complex. 40k is complicated but not very complex. The advantage is people wouldn't have much fun being beaten at complex games can play 40k and excel if they put the time in to rote learn everything. This is also a sunk cost as stopping and restarting is harder than with something like Go.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 12:16:06


Post by: Jidmah


Sometimes I wonder if people are playing the same game as me...

9th edition of 40k complex? Really? This ridiculously trivial game is supposed to be complex?

Most people seem to be complaining about not being able to memorize every single rule of the game at all times... which is completely unnecessary to play the game and has nothing to do with complexity.
Not to mention all this whining about how complicated stratagems are and how hard it is to know which ones your opponent will be using...


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 12:56:54


Post by: Pancakey


 Jidmah wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people are playing the same game as me...

9th edition of 40k complex? Really? This ridiculously trivial game is supposed to be complex?

Most people seem to be complaining about not being able to memorize every single rule of the game at all times... which is completely unnecessary to play the game and has nothing to do with complexity.
Not to mention all this whining about how complicated stratagems are and how hard it is to know which ones your opponent will be using...


Complexity definition - difficult to analyze, understand, or explain.

Gw is purposely adding layers of and layers COMPLEXITY and removing DEPTH.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 12:58:35


Post by: kodos


GW is adding layers of complicated language and wall of text, not complexity


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 13:06:47


Post by: Pancakey


 kodos wrote:
GW is adding layers of complicated language and wall of text, not complexity


I agree. We are just debating semantics at this point. Bloat, tedium, complicated, they are all pointing to the same issue.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 13:07:27


Post by: Karol


If you have rule spread over 2-3 books, pages of print outs of WDs and FAQ/erratas, I would say the game becomes complicated to handle, because of the space restrains both players are under. At the start of turn 3-4 it may not be that bad, because a ton of stuff has moved up or is dead. But turn 1-2 you often don't have a place to put your stuff without moving the models or the table.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 13:13:43


Post by: kodos


Pancakey wrote:
 kodos wrote:
GW is adding layers of complicated language and wall of text, not complexity

I agree. We are just debating semantics at this point. Bloat, tedium, complicated, they are all pointing to the same issue.


but the semantics are important, we are with the current rules because players told GW that the rules are too complex, hence we got the 8 page core rules as simple rules to remove the complexity from the game
but the game stayed complicated because not complexity in the core was the problem but shattered rules, wall of complicated texts, and layers upon layers

every time GW wants to make it less complex because the players ask for it, they make it more complicated to keep the impression of depth while it already is a very simple game without any real difference between factions, just too hard to read and too much to remember for the casual gamer to learn it


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 13:23:11


Post by: Pancakey


 kodos wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
 kodos wrote:
GW is adding layers of complicated language and wall of text, not complexity

I agree. We are just debating semantics at this point. Bloat, tedium, complicated, they are all pointing to the same issue.


but the semantics are important, we are with the current rules because players told GW that the rules are too complex, hence we got the 8 page core rules as simple rules to remove the complexity from the game
but the game stayed complicated because not complexity in the core was the problem but shattered rules, wall of complicated texts, and layers upon layers

every time GW wants to make it less complex because the players ask for it, they make it more complicated to keep the impression of depth while it already is a very simple game without any real difference between factions, just too hard to read and too much to remember for the casual gamer to learn it


Your synopsis is right on. We are all pretty much saying the same thing in our own way.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 13:27:25


Post by: Daedalus81


I wonder how deeply people would feel about the complexity if the Admech book wasn't a thing. There are layered rules, but it they haven't been anything absurd until that book.

The biggest problem for me is the book creep ( like actual quantity of books ).



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:16:35


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how deeply people would feel about the complexity if the Admech book wasn't a thing. There are layered rules, but it they haven't been anything absurd until that book.

The biggest problem for me is the book creep ( like actual quantity of books ).



Pretty sure people have been complaining about bloat long before AdMech 9th. Whatever happened to BaconCatBug? He woukd have loved this thread. He complained about bloat before it was cool.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:23:58


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how deeply people would feel about the complexity if the Admech book wasn't a thing. There are layered rules, but it they haven't been anything absurd until that book.

The biggest problem for me is the book creep ( like actual quantity of books ).



Pretty sure people have been complaining about bloat long before AdMech 9th. Whatever happened to BaconCatBug? He woukd have loved this thread. He complained about bloat before it was cool.


Sure, but there's a different level of perception to AdMech. Everything in that book is quintessential AdMech, but it was not handled elegantly. Cabalist Rituals for Thousand Sons is another layer for the army, but it completely makes sense and potentially works to help a psychic focused army succeed.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:25:17


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:28:29


Post by: catbarf


Deadnight wrote:
To be fair,you tend to see this 'controlled environment' in a lot of games. Dice rolls aside, you can activate/move what you want where you want etc. As you say games come down to repeating a formula of actions.


40K does it more than most, though, and it's not strictly a matter of randomness. Chess, for example, is a great example of a game with no randomness but only minimal ability to execute a prepared plan due to the importance of emergent states.

I've noticed 40K players tend to dislike games that either involve significant randomness or require changing execution on the fly. Building your list to optimize the wombo-combo and then performing it on the table is the core of 9th Ed 40K. You see this reflected in the core design, from missions that are all basically the same objective with different layouts, or secondary objectives that you get to pick and optimize for.

Different strokes for different folks. But I think GW has correctly identified that it's much easier to drive churn when the game is in large part played via listbuilding.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:33:22


Post by: Daedalus81


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.


Not compex, no, but some people like that restrained I can't move my tank if I want to shoot my guns, I need to pivot to this specific direction to shoot the sponsons, and I need to kiddy corner it to protect it's backside.

I enjoyed it for it's time, but I like what we have now more.

Part of the problem is we have the fortune of being able to discuss these newer editions in greater depth with actual data. We had no such depth of discussion in the past so the rose tinted glasses make it all that much easier to crap on 9th and hold up old editions as some virtuous thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
To be fair,you tend to see this 'controlled environment' in a lot of games. Dice rolls aside, you can activate/move what you want where you want etc. As you say games come down to repeating a formula of actions.


40K does it more than most, though, and it's not strictly a matter of randomness. Chess, for example, is a great example of a game with no randomness but only minimal ability to execute a prepared plan due to the importance of emergent states.

I've noticed 40K players tend to dislike games that either involve significant randomness or require changing execution on the fly. Building your list to optimize the wombo-combo and then performing it on the table is the core of 9th Ed 40K. You see this reflected in the core design, from missions that are all basically the same objective with different layouts, or secondary objectives that you get to pick and optimize for.

Different strokes for different folks. But I think GW has correctly identified that it's much easier to drive churn when the game is in large part played via listbuilding.


This seems like a weird comparison considering Chess has no randomness of the type 40K players dislike ( aka randumb ). You absolutely have to adjust your plan as the dice come in.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 14:37:57


Post by: the_scotsman


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.


Yeah, i just remember the hilarious amount of time and effort it took to figure out how to resolve a Ram attack when I had a spare trukk waiting around with nothing better to do...and it just never, ever did anything impactful lol.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 15:10:07


Post by: Vankraken


 catbarf wrote:

I've noticed 40K players tend to dislike games that either involve significant randomness or require changing execution on the fly. Building your list to optimize the wombo-combo and then performing it on the table is the core of 9th Ed 40K. You see this reflected in the core design, from missions that are all basically the same objective with different layouts, or secondary objectives that you get to pick and optimize for.

Different strokes for different folks. But I think GW has correctly identified that it's much easier to drive churn when the game is in large part played via listbuilding.


Personally I always enjoyed list building as a means to create the strategy I have in mind and then trying to execute it. The attempted execution being the important part as the ability to react to what happens on the table top and adjusting to an enemy army is what make for the most interesting and challenging part of the game. I found 8th and 9th to be lacking the variety in how the game would play out as it seemed too easy to just mathhammer it out to some optimized wombo combo as it where. In my mind it felt like just smashing two armies together until one side falls over which was moreso devoid of meaningful tactical decision making or playing around the various game mechanics to do something more than just "kill all the things". 8th was really bad with excess of stacking modifiers and bare bones terrain rules which made many board layouts play like it was planet bowling ball despite actually having a bunch of terrain pieces (just not a ton of LoS blockers).

It sorta hits on the feeling again about the game feeling at times like MtG except this time it's with the similarities to how competitive decks play out (instead of the drafting format which is far more interesting).

Side note but formations, for all the hate that they got, where actually a rather cool thing that GW put out in that it gave the ability to give more playstyle variety to units (unfortunately for every fun thematic formation, there was a formation that either was hot garbage or brokenly OP).


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 15:29:47


Post by: oni


9th edition core rules are good. 9th edition codices are terrible. 9th edition missions are gak beyond imagining.

But... best edition ever, right? Made for tournament players, by tournament players. And what's best for tournament play is best for everyone.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 16:15:25


Post by: kodos


 oni wrote:
Made for tournament players, by tournament players.

were does this actually come from?
as this Edition is everything but not made for tournaments and I doubt that a single tournaments player got the full rules to read or test before they went to print


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 16:24:05


Post by: Tamwulf


Y'all never played any other table top miniature games before, eh?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 16:25:29


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
This seems like a weird comparison considering Chess has no randomness of the type 40K players dislike ( aka randumb ). You absolutely have to adjust your plan as the dice come in.


Right, that's why I explicitly said control is not strictly about randomness.

Chess has no randomness, but it also does not afford as much out-of-game control to the players. It has a fixed starting state and fixed victory conditions, and strong emergent complexity from the game state. You don't get to pick what your 'forces' look like going in, or what 'secondary' objectives you get, so the only thing that matters is turn-by-turn gameplay. That turn-by-turn gameplay is deep and outright demands that you adapt on the fly to keep up.

Bolt Action gives you a lot of control over listbuilding, but the randomness of its activation system introduces unpredictability (what people who hate Clausewitz call 'randumb') and forces players to react and adapt accordingly. You cannot draft and execute a plan within a single turn, safe in the knowledge that everyone can act before your opponent can respond. You have to improvise as you go.

40K gives you lots of control. It lets you pick the forces you're bringing (optimizing for a particular combo or leaning into particularly powerful units), pick part of your victory conditions, and plan against a consistent central objective. On the table, you operate in pure IGOUGO fashion with every unit able to act simultaneously and in perfect synchronization to pull off your pre-planned combo. You obviously still have to react to the game state and your opponent, but in 8th/9th more of the emergent complexity than ever comes from your army and units rather than the core rules and game state.

You can make a game that puts less emphasis on listbuilding and 'repeating the formula' than 40K without simply making it more random. Chain of Command is a game I've been playing lately that does this well. It involves a lot less dice rolling than 40K, but the emergent complexity of the interplay between terrain, morale, suppression, and jumping-off point positioning emphasizes decisions made on the table. There's none of this 'scan your rulebook for an hour to find the Good Combo, then deploy that on the table to win'.

I'm not one of those people who claims that 40K is all about listbuilding and the tabletop doesn't matter, but compared to other games I've played I find 40K puts a lot more emphasis on bringing the right units with the right abilities, heavily skewing the outcome before the game even starts, and then executing a pre-planned strategy with as little adjustment/adaptation as necessary. To many players this is a feature rather than a bug- heck, we have people on this forum who have openly stated that they prefer imbalanced codices so they can be rewarded for finding the right units.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 16:55:32


Post by: kryczek


I don't think 40k is complex itself and I feel the core rules are in a pretty good place. Battle forged and codex rules are where they've gone too far IMO and it's going to kill this edition.

I also agree with what someone said above in regard to not knowing every rule. That's a futile endeavour indeed.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 17:27:43


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 the_scotsman wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I mean, 40K was never complex like some people seem to imply. Pages upon pages of vehicle rules added nothing but useless bloat for example, while the base rules were not deep at all due to igougo. If anything 8th added a little complexity with a fight phase where you actually do something and have to make careful decisions and stratagems that allow for a bit of reaction to your opponent, while before the game played itself and you watched your opponent do his thing for half an hour or more.


Yeah, i just remember the hilarious amount of time and effort it took to figure out how to resolve a Ram attack when I had a spare trukk waiting around with nothing better to do...and it just never, ever did anything impactful lol.


Indeed
Whenever someone had his Rhino left without guns you knew at some point he'd try to "tankshock" the damn thing, meaning reading the tank shock rules for ten minutes, then use them to...move one enemy squad an inch to the side, done.
Or Soulblaze: Roll a die to roll a die to maybe kill an Ork Boy every other game.
Or fear, which actually sounded cool, until you realized 3/4 of the units in the game were immune to it and the ones' that weren't either made their leadership check or, even if they failed, it meant nothing more than -1 to hit in CC because of the bad WS table at the time...

There might be rules that seem... Unwieldy in 9th, but so far I get the feeling, aside from some very situational stratagems you might as well forget, there's little in the game that seems pointless. Command Protocols are the only thing that come to mind, our Necron player forgets them every other game and even if he doesn't it looks like a lot of rolling and bookkeeping with very little effect on the game.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 19:21:38


Post by: the_scotsman


The aspect of older editions I really miss though, is...sometimes I just want to use a wargame as a means to 'see what happens' rather than like, this big MENTAL CONTEST OF BRAIN-WILLS AND WITS TO BAMBOOZLE MY OPPONENT INTO SUBMISSION!

There's not much to that in 9th. Everything pretty much goes to plan, and the game tends to be 'your plan vs your opponent's plan.'

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 19:34:26


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:
The aspect of older editions I really miss though, is...sometimes I just want to use a wargame as a means to 'see what happens' rather than like, this big MENTAL CONTEST OF BRAIN-WILLS AND WITS TO BAMBOOZLE MY OPPONENT INTO SUBMISSION!

There's not much to that in 9th. Everything pretty much goes to plan, and the game tends to be 'your plan vs your opponent's plan.'

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


It entirely depends on your opponent's army and plan.

If they've gone a mindless smash everything list and you're not equipped to go toe to toe in melee you need to focus one side and kite the other.

You have to work around what might pick up transhuman or otherwise slow you down. If you can bait it out and switch to the real target then even better.

There's positioning characters for an effective intervention based on the incoming unit and terrain.

You have to consider cross table firing lanes when the side you win on gets bare and so on.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 19:39:43


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


There's truth to that as well. But overall these things seem to have been seen as "randumb" and therefore done away with. I wonder if there's a middle ground between "roll for your equipment before the game starts and then roll every turn to see if your army blows up" (aka Daemons Codex 6th and 7th Edition, 5th Edition was: before the game, roll to see if your army turns up at all...) and current situation of "make up your mind, do what you want and even there's a really unfortunate 1- just reroll it". But what was left of the funny rules in 8th, like FW Rapiers eating people when their Crew has died, or bubble chuckas seems to haven't been streamlined as well to be more predictable. I blame the tournament focus, but there was always the problem of reliable alternatives instead of the random things, that even in casual play were just that more... Reasonable to play.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 19:46:52


Post by: Nurglitch


There you go, there's at least two audiences, the audience that wants to throw some dice and see what happens, and then the audience that wants a more PvP experience.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 19:54:55


Post by: Gores


I think its very easy for both of those crowds to get what they want. The base rules of the game are a skeleton for you to hang whatever rules you want on, depending on what experience you're looking for. Don't like stratagems? Just don't use them, they aren't an integral function of the game. Same goes for WLTs, relics, chapter tactics, whatever else. The tournament side will put everything relevant on the skeleton, but from what i can tell most people here don't go to tournaments, so maybe just have a conversation of expectations with your group.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 22:15:53


Post by: Banzaimash


It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to. Despite all this it's actually a lot more shallow as a game than it used to be, or compared to other games. The truth is that if all this cloud of needless complication were removed, it would become quite apparent how all armies have been robbed of any character or unique gameplay, and more people than currently do would realise that every army has a slightly varied version of the "reroll-1's-to-hit" leader or "mortal-wound-dealing-psyker" character and so on. This isn't to say this can't be a feature in a game. MESBG units across factions do have many similarities (all captains being 2M, 1W, 1F for example), but it's the fact that the core rules for it is much more impactful on the gameplay than current 40k, that the difference in Courage between a man and an orc means a big deal compared to any difference in a given characteristic between two 40k profiles.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 22:25:26


Post by: BrianDavion


 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to. Despite all this it's actually a lot more shallow as a game than it used to be, or compared to other games. The truth is that if all this cloud of needless complication were removed, it would become quite apparent how all armies have been robbed of any character or unique gameplay, and more people than currently do would realise that every army has a slightly varied version of the "reroll-1's-to-hit" leader or "mortal-wound-dealing-psyker" character and so on. This isn't to say this can't be a feature in a game. MESBG units across factions do have many similarities (all captains being 2M, 1W, 1F for example), but it's the fact that the core rules for it is much more impactful on the gameplay than current 40k, that the difference in Courage between a man and an orc means a big deal compared to any difference in a given characteristic between two 40k profiles.


yeah the changes to morale was proably a bad thing for 40k TBH, especially as any army with a lowish leadership score tends to have ways to reduce the impact of the rule.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 22:30:43


Post by: Banzaimash


BrianDavion wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to. Despite all this it's actually a lot more shallow as a game than it used to be, or compared to other games. The truth is that if all this cloud of needless complication were removed, it would become quite apparent how all armies have been robbed of any character or unique gameplay, and more people than currently do would realise that every army has a slightly varied version of the "reroll-1's-to-hit" leader or "mortal-wound-dealing-psyker" character and so on. This isn't to say this can't be a feature in a game. MESBG units across factions do have many similarities (all captains being 2M, 1W, 1F for example), but it's the fact that the core rules for it is much more impactful on the gameplay than current 40k, that the difference in Courage between a man and an orc means a big deal compared to any difference in a given characteristic between two 40k profiles.


yeah the changes to morale was proably a bad thing for 40k TBH, especially as any army with a lowish leadership score tends to have ways to reduce the impact of the rule.


Exactly, it just doesn't mean much. Same with Strength. 9 or 10 is anti-tank, 6 and 7 have relatively niche uses, 5 is the sweet spot, and anything less is p*ssing in the wind. For a scale that goes from 1 to 10, they could instead have 4 possible characteristics and it would be just the same.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 22:51:25


Post by: Daedalus81


Sorry, but when marines can fail morale it's a better system. Horde armies have few mitigation effects so far.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/05 23:12:44


Post by: H.B.M.C.


But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 02:11:56


Post by: Vankraken


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


My favorite is when Killa Kans get scared and die


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 03:17:46


Post by: Argive


I went with "No - Not complicated"

40k is not complicated IMO.

It is very very convoluted though.. Has roundabout mess of layers of layers of rules with a side of "bespoke rules" but the game itself is laughably simple...


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 03:18:59


Post by: Daedalus81


 Vankraken wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


My favorite is when Killa Kans get scared and die


The grot in the kan can't panic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


Die, run away, cower, etc.

Having units run away was a really janky system. And then you need a recovery system, but then the units with lower leadership would recover less often. Haves and have nots.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 03:36:49


Post by: Argive


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Vankraken wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


My favorite is when Killa Kans get scared and die


The grot in the kan can't panic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


Die, run away, cower, etc.

Having units run away was a really janky system. And then you need a recovery system, but then the units with lower leadership would recover less often. Haves and have nots.


Theres always haves and have nots...
I have 3+D3 damage shooty guns. You do not... You have psychic might I do not..

I think the old morale tests for being pinned or falling back etc. was heading in the right direction.
It wasn't perfect but it meant leadership mattered. Also having your general dude inspiring his underlings to hold firm was pretty thematic.

Rather then telling them to shoot better...


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 03:44:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Die, run away, cower, etc.
Justify it however you want, but when the morale system makes taking certain units a detriment to your army, then that's an issue, especially when big multi-wound models can just vanish into thin air because you failed a single dice roll.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having units run away was a really janky system.
Was it?
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you need a recovery system...
Do you?
 Daedalus81 wrote:
... but then the units with lower leadership would recover less often.
Only if you restrict yourself to one narrow view of what morale could be.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Haves and have nots.
There will always be units that are better or worse when it comes to Leadership. The problem comes when the punishment for failing morale tests don't scale properly and affect 1 wound Grots in the same way as multi-wound Kans (or ATVs, another example that springs to mind - unless they're somehow immune).

All you've said is that nothing can be done about morale because you didn't like the old system. That's not a reason not to change the current punitive and badly scaling morale system that exists in 9th.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 03:49:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Argive wrote:

Theres always haves and have nots...
I have 3+D3 damage shooty guns. You do not... You have psychic might I do not..

I think the old morale tests for being pinned or falling back etc. was heading in the right direction.
It wasn't perfect but it meant leadership mattered. Also having your general dude inspiring his underlings to hold firm was pretty thematic.

Rather then telling them to shoot better...


The weapons and such exist on a different plane of issues.

I just don't think it should be that Orks are punished more for just being Orks and then forcing a warboss to be baby sitting units instead of being up where he wants to be. It was a feels-bad system and that's why people found every opportunity to avoid it by using fearless units.




Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 04:05:48


Post by: Argive


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Argive wrote:

Theres always haves and have nots...
I have 3+D3 damage shooty guns. You do not... You have psychic might I do not..

I think the old morale tests for being pinned or falling back etc. was heading in the right direction.
It wasn't perfect but it meant leadership mattered. Also having your general dude inspiring his underlings to hold firm was pretty thematic.

Rather then telling them to shoot better...


The weapons and such exist on a different plane of issues.

I just don't think it should be that Orks are punished more for just being Orks and then forcing a warboss to be baby sitting units instead of being up where he wants to be. It was a feels-bad system and that's why people found every opportunity to avoid it by using fearless units.



Nobs could get "Crack some eds" ability to help pass morale. Also mob rule and other such things.
There are ways to boost morale and factions like orks could get some tricks to help in that department...

Also orks have more acess to single entity units now like booster blasters, morkonauts, stompas, etc, where a big blob of boys isint the only think you could run.

I dunno what the fix is but currently the current paradigm makes leadrship an almost irelevnt stat which you can completely ignore with a strat at a crucial point where it would actualy matter..

"haha! I just butchered 18 out of your 19 below average human dudes! The last guy will surely pretend he is dead or straight up run and not be able to hold the vital objective"

"He auto passes morale and stands in the face of your mecha demon from hell..."
No roll. No test. No nothing.. Hows that not a feel bad ?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 07:14:02


Post by: Jidmah


Pancakey wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people are playing the same game as me...

9th edition of 40k complex? Really? This ridiculously trivial game is supposed to be complex?

Most people seem to be complaining about not being able to memorize every single rule of the game at all times... which is completely unnecessary to play the game and has nothing to do with complexity.
Not to mention all this whining about how complicated stratagems are and how hard it is to know which ones your opponent will be using...


Complexity definition - difficult to analyze, understand, or explain.

Gw is purposely adding layers of and layers COMPLEXITY and removing DEPTH.


Yeah, it's none of those three. Game states are trivial, the rules are easy to play and it has never been easier to explain the game. It's just not a complex game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:
The aspect of older editions I really miss though, is...sometimes I just want to use a wargame as a means to 'see what happens' rather than like, this big MENTAL CONTEST OF BRAIN-WILLS AND WITS TO BAMBOOZLE MY OPPONENT INTO SUBMISSION!

There's not much to that in 9th. Everything pretty much goes to plan, and the game tends to be 'your plan vs your opponent's plan.'

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


IMO one problem of 5th was that bad rules and balance allowed some armies to get around the "not everything goes according to plan" part, while others couldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to.


Care to provide a list of some examples? No 8th edition codices please.
This gets repeated over and over, and yet it doesn't seem to be true for neither my games nor the one I observe being played on streams or tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But having stuff just up and die is a bad way to resolve morale.


If remember correctly, most units in older editions ran to the table edge and died then. Unless they were marines, if they ran too fast and crossed the magic line they dropped dead, otherwise they remembered that they shouldn't be afraid and got back in the fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There will always be units that are better or worse when it comes to Leadership. The problem comes when the punishment for failing morale tests don't scale properly and affect 1 wound Grots in the same way as multi-wound Kans

Having bad leadership and being unreliable is part of killa kanz - after all, they are gretchin welded into a murder bot. And it's not like it doesn't scale at all, you need to cause casualties to make a unit fail their morale, and causing multiple casualties to a multip-wound unit is harder. It also scales with unit size, as attrition is less likely to take out models if you have less of them. To have gretchin flee, a single bolter is usually sufficient to kill one and have two or three flee.

(or ATVs, another example that springs to mind - unless they're somehow immune).

ATVs are ld7 and 1-3, so you need to kill two to make the third fail a test on a 6, which you can re-roll with a CP. So not completely immune, but close.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 07:54:00


Post by: Slipspace


Daedalus81 wrote:Sorry, but when marines can fail morale it's a better system. Horde armies have few mitigation effects so far.


The problem with Morale is it's just yet another way of killing the enemy. It's just yet more lethality on top of the already stupidly lethal system. It also does a poor job of representing what it claims to. Morale should be more about reducing enemy effectiveness without actually killing them. Epic represented this well with the blast marker system where even coming under fire and taking no damage had a small detrimental effect. Eventually all those small effects would stack up into a bigger one and you'd break but even then you didn't just remove the unit.

Adding a way to affect the enemy without actually killing them would add some much-needed depth to the game, IMO.

Jidmah wrote:

Yeah, it's none of those three. Game states are trivial, the rules are easy to play and it has never been easier to explain the game. It's just not a complex game.

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


The core rules are indeed simple but I've witnessed far too many new players get increasingly bewildered at the Rube Goldberg machine that is the byzantine combination of strats, WL traits and unit special rules that combine to wipe their army off the board to see 40k as anything other than an over-complicated mess. At one point it seemed like some of the players at my club knew a new player's Space Wolves better than he did himself because they were aware of a whole bunch of generic strats for the army that he wasn't yet, for example.

Saying if you want a unit to die it just dies doesn't mean the methods for doing that are simple. Often the lethality in 40k is not due to a unit's stats or weapons. Too often it's down to a combination of aura buffs, targeted buffs and/or strats and psychic powers that turn a relatively unassuming unit into something that's deleting swathes of the enemy in a single phase. I'd say that meets one of the definitions of complexity.

Jidmah wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to.


Care to provide a list of some examples? No 8th edition codices please.
This gets repeated over and over, and yet it doesn't seem to be true for neither my games nor the one I observe being played on streams or tournaments.


The big problem with 40k's complexity is it doesn't make the game any more challenging or create any sort of skill gap unless you think memorising a bunch of strats and special rules interactions is skilful. I can provide numerous examples of things being missed or played wrong because there's so little consistency in GW's rules. In particular, switching from, say Necrons to SM, means re-familiarising yourself with all the strats and special rules for a different army. You need to remember if that Prayer affects Core, or is it Infantry, or is is Core and Characters...then you need to remember which strats you have access to at any given moment. And that's before you get to the needlessly complex damage resolution in 40k where you roll and re-roll dozens of dice.

None of this stuff is difficult but it is needlessly complex and leads to feel-bad moments when something gets misplayed because it's slightly different from another similar ability or rule. Actions are a good example. Most are only able to be performed by Infantry. But there are a few that exclude characters from that, then there are a few that allow Infantry or Bikers units to do them and still more that allow any unit, except Aircraft. Why? Why add so many individual caveats to a simple rule. Also, why write it in such a way that you need to scan the paragraph of text to spot the restrictions instead of summarising them at the start or end of the rule? Then you have a bunch of rules that require you to be within, range of something to get an effect, but sometimes it's wholly within and sometimes you need to be completely outside of 6" of the centre with a whole unit, sometimes just some models.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand on a case-by-case basis. It's just pointless additional bookkeeping and rule checking that slow everything down for no reason.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 08:01:47


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think Star Wars Legion does morale well, I think DUST uses a similar system.
I was never much of a fan of the 5th-7th edition system, IMO it was too binary.

The current system is worse though, it doesn't feel like morale at all. It also directly contributes to lethality in a game that's generally considered too lethal. Morale should provide an alternative to lethality, thus creating more ways to interact with the game and each other.

In Legion every time you get shot, you gain a suppression token. Being suppressed causes a unit to hunker down, improving their cover. If you have suppression equal to your leadership, you're pinned and lose an action. If you have double your leadership you panic and flee the table.
There's various ways to interact with morale. Some weapons are suppressive, adding extra tokens. Commanders inspire nearby units, preventing them from panicking. Veteran units have higher morale.
But everything suffers from morale. Some units have high leadership meaning they need to really be soaking in the fire, but they don't flat out ignore it.
It adds a real dynamic which feels almost as important as actually killing things.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 09:43:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think Star Wars Legion does morale well, I think DUST uses a similar system.
Can you give a brief summary of how DUST handles morale?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The current system is worse though, it doesn't feel like morale at all. It also directly contributes to lethality in a game that's generally considered too lethal. Morale should provide an alternative to lethality, thus creating more ways to interact with the game and each other.
This is a really good point that you and Slipspace have brought up.

Morale in 40K isn't really morale. It's the "Now more of your men die because I killed them" phase. They're just extra casualties. It's less of a "win more" thing for your opponent, but more of a "lose more" thing for you. Congrats, your unit was blasted by enemy fire, and now some of them die in a way that is completely divorced from the usual toughness, wounds or saving throw mechanics. Have fun!

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It adds a real dynamic which feels almost as important as actually killing things.
I'm wary about tokens - but this did start as an FFG game, so of course it's filled with fething endless tokens - but the concept is sound.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 09:53:44


Post by: kirotheavenger


Eh, I'm not opposed to tokens at all.
You could alternatively use something Bolt Action pinning tokens, which are more like a dial.

I can't really summarise DUST's system as I don't play the game. But from having read through the rules I few times, I believe they use a similar system to Legion where units gain suppression as they get shot, and lose actions if they get too much.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 10:00:26


Post by: Overread


I think with tokens its ok to have one or two following a unit around, but any more following units around on the table becomes messy quite quickly. Esp in a game where you've lots of models on the table and units near to each other.

I think token heavy works when you've got a unit/squad card that you can put the tokens on in the side board off the table play space. Then you can have loads tracking information on the units "card" and information block whilst keeping the actual play area free.

Heck even in skirmish games if you've lots of tokens its messy as you've got to move them all aorund the terrain as well as models.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 10:16:05


Post by: Vatsetis


So sort of 60% of players in this poll think that the current 40K experience ia too complex or cumbersome... Thats a bad sign.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 10:20:38


Post by: kirotheavenger


Dakka is the grognards though.
In my local group it's more like 80% of players can't even fathom the idea.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 10:42:31


Post by: Vatsetis


I actively played 8th and started with 9th ed... But due to the pandemics lost regular touch with 40k game... And now I have no clue how to properly play the game, its very underwhelming.

40k maibly works as a gamming community because it is so huge... Its has a brutal inertia but it alienates many folks with all his flaws and ineficiencies... Its sort of mymyc the IOM in setting.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 11:01:27


Post by: Siegfriedfr


It's not complex, it's complicated, because it's bloated and wordy.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 12:09:55


Post by: Jidmah


Slipspace wrote:
Spoiler:
Daedalus81 wrote:Sorry, but when marines can fail morale it's a better system. Horde armies have few mitigation effects so far.


The problem with Morale is it's just yet another way of killing the enemy. It's just yet more lethality on top of the already stupidly lethal system. It also does a poor job of representing what it claims to. Morale should be more about reducing enemy effectiveness without actually killing them. Epic represented this well with the blast marker system where even coming under fire and taking no damage had a small detrimental effect. Eventually all those small effects would stack up into a bigger one and you'd break but even then you didn't just remove the unit.

Adding a way to affect the enemy without actually killing them would add some much-needed depth to the game, IMO.

Jidmah wrote:

Yeah, it's none of those three. Game states are trivial, the rules are easy to play and it has never been easier to explain the game. It's just not a complex game.

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


The core rules are indeed simple but I've witnessed far too many new players get increasingly bewildered at the Rube Goldberg machine that is the byzantine combination of strats, WL traits and unit special rules that combine to wipe their army off the board to see 40k as anything other than an over-complicated mess. At one point it seemed like some of the players at my club knew a new player's Space Wolves better than he did himself because they were aware of a whole bunch of generic strats for the army that he wasn't yet, for example.

Saying if you want a unit to die it just dies doesn't mean the methods for doing that are simple. Often the lethality in 40k is not due to a unit's stats or weapons. Too often it's down to a combination of aura buffs, targeted buffs and/or strats and psychic powers that turn a relatively unassuming unit into something that's deleting swathes of the enemy in a single phase. I'd say that meets one of the definitions of complexity.

Jidmah wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to.


Care to provide a list of some examples? No 8th edition codices please.
This gets repeated over and over, and yet it doesn't seem to be true for neither my games nor the one I observe being played on streams or tournaments.


The big problem with 40k's complexity is it doesn't make the game any more challenging or create any sort of skill gap unless you think memorising a bunch of strats and special rules interactions is skilful. I can provide numerous examples of things being missed or played wrong because there's so little consistency in GW's rules. In particular, switching from, say Necrons to SM, means re-familiarising yourself with all the strats and special rules for a different army. You need to remember if that Prayer affects Core, or is it Infantry, or is is Core and Characters...then you need to remember which strats you have access to at any given moment. And that's before you get to the needlessly complex damage resolution in 40k where you roll and re-roll dozens of dice.

None of this stuff is difficult but it is needlessly complex and leads to feel-bad moments when something gets misplayed because it's slightly different from another similar ability or rule. Actions are a good example. Most are only able to be performed by Infantry. But there are a few that exclude characters from that, then there are a few that allow Infantry or Bikers units to do them and still more that allow any unit, except Aircraft. Why? Why add so many individual caveats to a simple rule. Also, why write it in such a way that you need to scan the paragraph of text to spot the restrictions instead of summarising them at the start or end of the rule? Then you have a bunch of rules that require you to be within, range of something to get an effect, but sometimes it's wholly within and sometimes you need to be completely outside of 6" of the centre with a whole unit, sometimes just some models.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand on a case-by-case basis. It's just pointless additional bookkeeping and rule checking that slow everything down for no reason.


I was asking for specific examples. The only one you provided is that prayers not affecting everything is apparently complexity, all your other words else is just the generics you also hear from people who have admitted to not playing 9th at all.
And for the action thing... there is room for improvement clearer, but really after playing a few times you will notice that the default is non-character infantry and really - the keywords a all caps, in bold and in a different font. If you are not using battlescribe print-outs for rules, it should be super easy to spot.

If this really was as much as problem as people make it out to be, you should easily be able to name two or three examples from your last few games.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 12:53:06


Post by: Slipspace


 Jidmah wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Spoiler:
Daedalus81 wrote:Sorry, but when marines can fail morale it's a better system. Horde armies have few mitigation effects so far.


The problem with Morale is it's just yet another way of killing the enemy. It's just yet more lethality on top of the already stupidly lethal system. It also does a poor job of representing what it claims to. Morale should be more about reducing enemy effectiveness without actually killing them. Epic represented this well with the blast marker system where even coming under fire and taking no damage had a small detrimental effect. Eventually all those small effects would stack up into a bigger one and you'd break but even then you didn't just remove the unit.

Adding a way to affect the enemy without actually killing them would add some much-needed depth to the game, IMO.

Jidmah wrote:

Yeah, it's none of those three. Game states are trivial, the rules are easy to play and it has never been easier to explain the game. It's just not a complex game.

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


The core rules are indeed simple but I've witnessed far too many new players get increasingly bewildered at the Rube Goldberg machine that is the byzantine combination of strats, WL traits and unit special rules that combine to wipe their army off the board to see 40k as anything other than an over-complicated mess. At one point it seemed like some of the players at my club knew a new player's Space Wolves better than he did himself because they were aware of a whole bunch of generic strats for the army that he wasn't yet, for example.

Saying if you want a unit to die it just dies doesn't mean the methods for doing that are simple. Often the lethality in 40k is not due to a unit's stats or weapons. Too often it's down to a combination of aura buffs, targeted buffs and/or strats and psychic powers that turn a relatively unassuming unit into something that's deleting swathes of the enemy in a single phase. I'd say that meets one of the definitions of complexity.

Jidmah wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to.


Care to provide a list of some examples? No 8th edition codices please.
This gets repeated over and over, and yet it doesn't seem to be true for neither my games nor the one I observe being played on streams or tournaments.


The big problem with 40k's complexity is it doesn't make the game any more challenging or create any sort of skill gap unless you think memorising a bunch of strats and special rules interactions is skilful. I can provide numerous examples of things being missed or played wrong because there's so little consistency in GW's rules. In particular, switching from, say Necrons to SM, means re-familiarising yourself with all the strats and special rules for a different army. You need to remember if that Prayer affects Core, or is it Infantry, or is is Core and Characters...then you need to remember which strats you have access to at any given moment. And that's before you get to the needlessly complex damage resolution in 40k where you roll and re-roll dozens of dice.

None of this stuff is difficult but it is needlessly complex and leads to feel-bad moments when something gets misplayed because it's slightly different from another similar ability or rule. Actions are a good example. Most are only able to be performed by Infantry. But there are a few that exclude characters from that, then there are a few that allow Infantry or Bikers units to do them and still more that allow any unit, except Aircraft. Why? Why add so many individual caveats to a simple rule. Also, why write it in such a way that you need to scan the paragraph of text to spot the restrictions instead of summarising them at the start or end of the rule? Then you have a bunch of rules that require you to be within, range of something to get an effect, but sometimes it's wholly within and sometimes you need to be completely outside of 6" of the centre with a whole unit, sometimes just some models.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand on a case-by-case basis. It's just pointless additional bookkeeping and rule checking that slow everything down for no reason.


I was asking for specific examples. The only one you provided is that prayers not affecting everything is apparently complexity, all your other words else is just the generics you also hear from people who have admitted to not playing 9th at all.
And for the action thing... there is room for improvement clearer, but really after playing a few times you will notice that the default is non-character infantry and really - the keywords a all caps, in bold and in a different font. If you are not using battlescribe print-outs for rules, it should be super easy to spot.

If this really was as much as problem as people make it out to be, you should easily be able to name two or three examples from your last few games.


Thanks for that nice heap of condescension and assumption, all of which is wrong. I'm playing 9th edition pretty much weekly at this point and don't use BS for anything other than building my lists.

Other needlessly complex/different rules include things like the Chapter Master upgrade being able to affect characters while the regular Captain aura doesn't. Or the endless list of restrictions for Command Protocols, or the bizarre array of different ranges for aura-style effects Necrons have - they can have stuff that operates at 3", 6" or 9", in some cases two different ones in the same unit with the same condition. Playing Blood Angels requires the use of 2 Codices, one of which is about twice the size of any other Codex, then you need to consult the mission rules in a separate book and potentially an FAQ as well. That's just awful game design when compared to most other games on the market. I literally can't remember the last time I had to look up an FAQ or even the rules reference playing X-Wing, for example.

None of these things are difficult to parse, but it is needless complexity that gets in the way of actually playing the game. Even cycling through the book looking for the stratagem you know exists is tedious and time-consuming. I'm sure you'll just come out with some other excuse and yet more baseless assumptions but I think it's pretty clear from the general direction of this thread that there are a significant number of people who find the game too complex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 15:19:01


Post by: Gadzilla666


To add to the "Morale Debate", once their new codex drops Thousand Sons Astartes will effectively be FEARLESS again: they will auto-pass morale.

So, message to gw: Please, for the love of Curze's Corps, don't stick with the USELESS "Scary Marines" flanderization for Night Lords! It doesn't work, never has worked, and apparently won't in 9th either.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 15:46:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 Argive wrote:


"haha! I just butchered 18 out of your 19 below average human dudes! The last guy will surely pretend he is dead or straight up run and not be able to hold the vital objective"

"He auto passes morale and stands in the face of your mecha demon from hell..."
No roll. No test. No nothing.. Hows that not a feel bad ?


"Insane bravery" has been an admired part of Warhammer for a long time.

You're dealing with a known quantity. It is at this very moment where all the previous decisions culminate. The CP spent on smoke, interrupts, etc governs whether or not they have that capability. And if they still have enough then you better not leave it to chance.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 16:05:22


Post by: Pancakey


Slipspace wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Spoiler:
Daedalus81 wrote:Sorry, but when marines can fail morale it's a better system. Horde armies have few mitigation effects so far.


The problem with Morale is it's just yet another way of killing the enemy. It's just yet more lethality on top of the already stupidly lethal system. It also does a poor job of representing what it claims to. Morale should be more about reducing enemy effectiveness without actually killing them. Epic represented this well with the blast marker system where even coming under fire and taking no damage had a small detrimental effect. Eventually all those small effects would stack up into a bigger one and you'd break but even then you didn't just remove the unit.

Adding a way to affect the enemy without actually killing them would add some much-needed depth to the game, IMO.

Jidmah wrote:

Yeah, it's none of those three. Game states are trivial, the rules are easy to play and it has never been easier to explain the game. It's just not a complex game.

Usually, if you want stuff to die, it dies. If you want a unit to arrive right here, right now, it does just that. If you want a weapon to work, generally it works.


The core rules are indeed simple but I've witnessed far too many new players get increasingly bewildered at the Rube Goldberg machine that is the byzantine combination of strats, WL traits and unit special rules that combine to wipe their army off the board to see 40k as anything other than an over-complicated mess. At one point it seemed like some of the players at my club knew a new player's Space Wolves better than he did himself because they were aware of a whole bunch of generic strats for the army that he wasn't yet, for example.

Saying if you want a unit to die it just dies doesn't mean the methods for doing that are simple. Often the lethality in 40k is not due to a unit's stats or weapons. Too often it's down to a combination of aura buffs, targeted buffs and/or strats and psychic powers that turn a relatively unassuming unit into something that's deleting swathes of the enemy in a single phase. I'd say that meets one of the definitions of complexity.

Jidmah wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
It is a complex game for all it's moving parts and the fact you need to have a degree in library science to run certain armies with the number of books they need, and all the overlapping, pinging-off-each-other buffs and synergies that gives rise to.


Care to provide a list of some examples? No 8th edition codices please.
This gets repeated over and over, and yet it doesn't seem to be true for neither my games nor the one I observe being played on streams or tournaments.


The big problem with 40k's complexity is it doesn't make the game any more challenging or create any sort of skill gap unless you think memorising a bunch of strats and special rules interactions is skilful. I can provide numerous examples of things being missed or played wrong because there's so little consistency in GW's rules. In particular, switching from, say Necrons to SM, means re-familiarising yourself with all the strats and special rules for a different army. You need to remember if that Prayer affects Core, or is it Infantry, or is is Core and Characters...then you need to remember which strats you have access to at any given moment. And that's before you get to the needlessly complex damage resolution in 40k where you roll and re-roll dozens of dice.

None of this stuff is difficult but it is needlessly complex and leads to feel-bad moments when something gets misplayed because it's slightly different from another similar ability or rule. Actions are a good example. Most are only able to be performed by Infantry. But there are a few that exclude characters from that, then there are a few that allow Infantry or Bikers units to do them and still more that allow any unit, except Aircraft. Why? Why add so many individual caveats to a simple rule. Also, why write it in such a way that you need to scan the paragraph of text to spot the restrictions instead of summarising them at the start or end of the rule? Then you have a bunch of rules that require you to be within, range of something to get an effect, but sometimes it's wholly within and sometimes you need to be completely outside of 6" of the centre with a whole unit, sometimes just some models.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand on a case-by-case basis. It's just pointless additional bookkeeping and rule checking that slow everything down for no reason.


I was asking for specific examples. The only one you provided is that prayers not affecting everything is apparently complexity, all your other words else is just the generics you also hear from people who have admitted to not playing 9th at all.
And for the action thing... there is room for improvement clearer, but really after playing a few times you will notice that the default is non-character infantry and really - the keywords a all caps, in bold and in a different font. If you are not using battlescribe print-outs for rules, it should be super easy to spot.

If this really was as much as problem as people make it out to be, you should easily be able to name two or three examples from your last few games.


Thanks for that nice heap of condescension and assumption, all of which is wrong. I'm playing 9th edition pretty much weekly at this point and don't use BS for anything other than building my lists.

Other needlessly complex/different rules include things like the Chapter Master upgrade being able to affect characters while the regular Captain aura doesn't. Or the endless list of restrictions for Command Protocols, or the bizarre array of different ranges for aura-style effects Necrons have - they can have stuff that operates at 3", 6" or 9", in some cases two different ones in the same unit with the same condition. Playing Blood Angels requires the use of 2 Codices, one of which is about twice the size of any other Codex, then you need to consult the mission rules in a separate book and potentially an FAQ as well. That's just awful game design when compared to most other games on the market. I literally can't remember the last time I had to look up an FAQ or even the rules reference playing X-Wing, for example.

None of these things are difficult to parse, but it is needless complexity that gets in the way of actually playing the game. Even cycling through the book looking for the stratagem you know exists is tedious and time-consuming. I'm sure you'll just come out with some other excuse and yet more baseless assumptions but I think it's pretty clear from the general direction of this thread that there are a significant number of people who find the game too complex.


Thank you for this.

The word “complex” is not a measurement an individuals level of intelligence.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 16:38:17


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
"Insane bravery" has been an admired part of Warhammer for a long time.


Insane Bravery was fun because it only happened once in a blue moon and was up to the dice, not whenever you have magic points to spare and want it to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think Star Wars Legion does morale well, I think DUST uses a similar system.
Can you give a brief summary of how DUST handles morale?


A unit that takes any hits receives an Under Fire token. That token itself does nothing, but if they receiver another it becomes a Suppression token and the unit is considered suppressed. Units that are suppressed lose their first (of two) actions each turn and are less likely to be able to perform reactions. To rally you roll 2 dice; if you get 1 'hit' (5-6 equivalent) you downgrade a Suppression to Under Fire, and if you get 2 hits you remove the token entirely.

So basically, it's another example of a system where units that come under fire get gradually degraded in their abilities, without them running off the field.

That's my issue with the old morale system and the simpler but functionally similar replacement- units are fine until suddenly they're fleeing at top speed, or they're fine until they suddenly start taking extra casualties. In either case there's no sense of suppressing or pinning an enemy, and leads to feels-bad moments for both players- for an attacker whose volley is utterly worthless if it doesn't kill anything, and for a defender who suddenly has a whole unit fleeing or extra models getting removed seemingly out of nowhere.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 18:29:15


Post by: amanita


We use a suppression mechanic that temporarily removes a unit's ability to either move OR shoot.

Whichever ability remains available is reduced to D6" for every 6" normally allowed.

For example, if a model has a 24" range weapon to shoot, when suppressed its range becomes 4D6" instead. If a model could move 7", then it can move D6+1", and so on.

HOW things are suppressed is another story...


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 19:04:22


Post by: Daedalus81


Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 20:42:39


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Just adding to the morale discussion: I think it's the one aspect where they went too far with the streamlining, but morale also didn't matter since at least 6th Edition because most factions were basically immune to morale.
I get the impression the only reason they implemented the attrition mechanic was not to make morale impactful (even fewer models flee than in 8th) but to actually trigger a "failed leadership check" that can be used for secondaries or missions (but other than that doesn't really matter). All the "immune to morale" rules seem to get relegated to "immune to attrition modifiers" to enable failed morale for every faction and therefore not making morale penalties some factions like to throw around pointless - at least that's what we've seen for Marines and Orks.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/06 21:28:36


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.


That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 03:18:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.


That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.


Epic is different from the ones mentioned above and is quite similar to the old mechanic which was terribly unfun for many armies. Especially when they could block your run and wipe you anyway. Epic even gave free hits with no saves in addition to making the unit run. And Epic is not IGOUGO. I have no experience with PG.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 04:02:37


Post by: catbarf


You could articulate why IGOUGO makes common morale systems somehow not work instead of quibbling on the fact that Epic is not exactly the same game as 40K.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 11:03:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 11:09:38


Post by: Karol


What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 12:21:16


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Karol wrote:
What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".


Some 2nd WW games have suppression mechanics like that.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 15:25:23


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.


Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 15:40:23


Post by: Karol


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Karol wrote:
What if there was a mechanic, along side being wounded or killed, that went with being shot a lot? Let say no matter if something dies or not. If you eat the fire power of two squad something happens, if it is three or four squads even more so, and so on. No idea how this would be done. Maybe with limitations to shoting, moving and reciving aura etc buffs,, which would then stack up.

Although if I fear that if such a mechanic was intreduced to the core rule set. The next day GW would print out a 2CP stratagem saying "remove all the effects of being shelled till the end of turn".


Some 2nd WW games have suppression mechanics like that.


Well lucky guess then. I think that something like incoming fire or losing models shouldn't kill more models. A unit that gets shot doesn't always run away, sometimes it even can't run away. Of course most mechanics that could be created would either lenghten the game, and I don't think people want that, or don't work for a game with 100+ models. It would be nice if weapons had a suppresion stat for example, that would impact stuff like movment or being able to shot back. If you are behind a wall, and someone just blasted the ruins with 4 flamers, the unit shouldn't be able to normally shot next turn.

Maybe there could even be different mechanics for different weapons. Some weapons like bolt stuff would make it harder for units to move and shot back, but being hit by a flamer would means the unit is moving away, and if it is not then maybe then it should be taking extra hits as the unit is litterally standing in the fire. Maybe sniper could make HQs stop using their abilities for a second and psyker could do some other crazy things, like make the ground harder to move if you get hit by a psychic power which says it reaps the ground apart etc.

But as I said, this could work in a game of 30-40 models, not for a game with often run 60+ per side.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 17:01:49


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Flames of War/derivatives is IGOUGO and has pinning and morale mechanics way better than "casualties, but more".

Chain of Command has the best morale mechanics imho at 28mm, but it isn't IGOUGO I grant.


Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?


*Shrug* you can think pinning isn't a good system, but that is fundamentally different than thinking it is impossible.

And nope, that is the old version of FoW. The new one is a bit different.

How about this for another IGOUGO game with more complex morale than "here are more casualties": Field of Glory

Face it; IGOUGO doesn't somehow fundamentally make morale impossible to model.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 20:17:07


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?


Once again, this is a weirdly baseless assertion to make. Suppression/pinning can be a mechanism for enabling melee armies to close to contact without getting shot up on the way in- in any historical/modern game that's how you deal with emplaced positions; suppress to cover while you move in for close assault. Even melee-heavy armies almost always have some shooting, and the ones that don't (Nurgle Daemons come to mind) have both alternate deployment and an archetype that ostensibly should be resistant to suppression.

Additionally, morale can be a mechanism for making melee a decisive point, by either limiting the loser's ability to fight back or compounding their losses. Some prior editions of 40K did this via Sweeping Advance, but there are other ways to accomplish the idea without the all-or-nothing nature of that mechanic.

What's next, decent morale systems won't work in 40K because it's 28mm?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 20:45:10


Post by: Sumilidon


Yes the game is too complex and combined with the price hikes and the ridiculous, expensive and endless rule books that are out of date 2 weeks later due to an FAQ - I think GW need to have a rethink


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 20:45:38


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warhammer has melee that can exist alongside crazy weapons. I don't feel like pinning is a good system if you still want to have a game that isn't only shooting.

And...doesn't FoW simply destroy the whole platoon if they fail morale below 50%? And then the whole army if you fail when that is below 50%?


Once again, this is a weirdly baseless assertion to make. Suppression/pinning can be a mechanism for enabling melee armies to close to contact without getting shot up on the way in- in any historical/modern game that's how you deal with emplaced positions; suppress to cover while you move in for close assault. Even melee-heavy armies almost always have some shooting, and the ones that don't (Nurgle Daemons come to mind) have both alternate deployment and an archetype that ostensibly should be resistant to suppression.

What's next, decent morale systems won't work in 40K because it's 28mm?


Is it baseless?

A British Rifleman Platoon 7 points. Panzergrenadiers are 7 points. 40K goes from 5 points up to 40+ for models than can feel morale. You also don't get to have squads outside roughly 7 to 13 models in Bolt Action. Even stuff like Soviet partisans are limited.

I'm not saying another system wouldn't work. I'm saying there's a lot more to consider than just slapping some other mechanic in and expecting it to apply without causing uneven outcomes.





Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 20:55:41


Post by: Sherrypie


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are both not systems that work well in igougo.


That's a completely baseless objection. Epic Armageddon and Panzer Grenadier use similar concepts and those are both IGOUGO.

I struggle to see what criticisms you could aim at such a system that don't apply equally to the two styles of morale we've had in 40K; or, in other words, are criticisms of the morale systems rather than IGOUGO.


The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.

As for Daedalus' point, the gradual degradation in ability as represented by blast markers and such is not necessary at an easy home in an IGOUGO. Especially in a shooting heavy game like 40k. If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/07 23:09:38


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is it baseless?

A British Rifleman Platoon 7 points. Panzergrenadiers are 7 points. 40K goes from 5 points up to 40+ for models than can feel morale. You also don't get to have squads outside roughly 7 to 13 models in Bolt Action. Even stuff like Soviet partisans are limited.


I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant to the idea that melee is less viable in a game with significant morale effects.

Sherrypie wrote:The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.


Fair enough on Epic, I did cross a wire there- but I want to point out it also isn't alternating activation by unit, and at a standard-sized game you are not doing ten formations per side. So each impulse has a substantial fraction of your army activating and inflicting damage at once.

Sherrypie wrote:If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).


But there's the crux of it: 40K already has a problem with the first player able to do massive damage to the other. Under the current system it's actually worse if you do play an army susceptible to morale, because the current system means your whole army gets shot up and then you lose more models to morale before you can do anything. And that's on top of the general issues resulting from a system where most armies can fire across the board turn 1 at full or near-full effectiveness.

With a more incremental morale system you can reduce the raw damage output while still having forces inflict measurable results on one another. It's not uncommon, for example, to have a failed morale result in a unit 'going to ground' and becoming more resilient to further fire. Additionally, the game could be rebalanced around outcomes of fire that aren't just models removed; you can tone the lethality way down while still having units accomplish things.

So I mean, if the argument is that adding relevant morale to 40K with zero other changes would be a bad idea, then sure. But that's not because such mechanics don't work with IGOUGO games; it's because 40K in particular has core design issues that IGOUGO exacerbates.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 01:27:51


Post by: The_Real_Chris


It is very hard to add traditional morale effects to a game like 40k which is you go I go with very high potential lethality. One bunch of implementations simply make it worse for the guy under fire, the other traditional ones (does a charge go home etc.) just give more advantage to shooting.

At this point it may as well be stripped out and LD just used for the odd test like psychic power stuff etc.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 01:35:15


Post by: Insectum7


The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is very hard to add traditional morale effects to a game like 40k which is you go I go with very high potential lethality. One bunch of implementations simply make it worse for the guy under fire, the other traditional ones (does a charge go home etc.) just give more advantage to shooting.

At this point it may as well be stripped out and LD just used for the odd test like psychic power stuff etc.
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 02:17:39


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.


I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 02:52:56


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.


I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.
Compared to what? A squad of 10 Marines firing twice at 30" at a -2 save mod is decidedly more lethal than say, 3rd edition. There's a whole spectrum here.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 06:33:31


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.
We're talking about a morale mechanic that is literally lethal to squads (moreso, in fact, as it's more dangerous than even mortal wounds), and you're going to say with a straight face that the lethality in 40K is overstated?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 07:35:20


Post by: Sherrypie


catbarf wrote:

Sherrypie wrote:The f...? Epic Armageddon isn't anywhere close to IGOUGO. All sides activate one formation at a time with the option of activating another in the same go with a penalty if they desire, modified by certain rules like Commanders being able to coordinate massed charges in one go. With ten or so formations per side in an average 3-4k game, that's definitely in alternating activation territory.


Fair enough on Epic, I did cross a wire there- but I want to point out it also isn't alternating activation by unit, and at a standard-sized game you are not doing ten formations per side. So each impulse has a substantial fraction of your army activating and inflicting damage at once.


You're wrong. Believe me, I play Epic regularily, last time barely two days ago.

For E:A in particular, aiming for 3-4 activations per 1000 points is ideal and going with less is a strategic choice that can see you struggle to leverage your large formations properly because you're being outmanoeuvred. Depending on the game state, it can very much be one to one activations while baiting the enemy out, then followed by more frantic double activations as things heat up, but that is still so solidly alternating it's like a textbook example on how to do it dynamically and interestingly (remember retaining initiative gives a command penalty, thus not always being desirable even if you feel like you should go for it).

catbarf wrote:
Sherrypie wrote:If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).


But there's the crux of it: 40K already has a problem with the first player able to do massive damage to the other. Under the current system it's actually worse if you do play an army susceptible to morale, because the current system means your whole army gets shot up and then you lose more models to morale before you can do anything. And that's on top of the general issues resulting from a system where most armies can fire across the board turn 1 at full or near-full effectiveness.

With a more incremental morale system you can reduce the raw damage output while still having forces inflict measurable results on one another. It's not uncommon, for example, to have a failed morale result in a unit 'going to ground' and becoming more resilient to further fire. Additionally, the game could be rebalanced around outcomes of fire that aren't just models removed; you can tone the lethality way down while still having units accomplish things.

So I mean, if the argument is that adding relevant morale to 40K with zero other changes would be a bad idea, then sure. But that's not because such mechanics don't work with IGOUGO games; it's because 40K in particular has core design issues that IGOUGO exacerbates.


40K isn't a terribly good rules chassis to start from, so things being bad in it isn't saying much in favor of the other bad thing being good actually. 40K in particular has this problem, but it is still applicable in the wider sense: if whole sides activate at once, any mechanics that hinder the operational capabilities and freedom of action will hurt the second player more. Thus, IGOUGO in general is less conducive to good games if judicious firepower is available, whereas more staggered activation schemes provide better interplay of mechanics and player choice while retaining better mapping to the subject matter.

So yeah, point isn't that morale and friction wouldn't be better than straight up killing in an IGOUGO game, it's that they work much better in an AA game where you don't actively have to fight the system to have a meaningful time.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 07:47:25


Post by: Slipspace


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Seems like one could also simply reduce the lethality as a starting point, and then re-adjust.


I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.


If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 08:14:53


Post by: Apple fox


40k is so complex and therefore cannot be compared to other games, and it is so much harder to balance it than all other games.
And it is really simple and easy to teach players, as the basic rules are so simple and you do not really need to know much for the game to work.

I see people go though so much contradictory ideas of 40k I think it’s kinda sad, people will analyse so much of 40k as the best constantly with no sense of anything else.
When I think 40k is so bogged down in it’s own piles of rules that it cannot ever really improve as the effort require wouldn’t be worth it until 40k players stop buying it.

Depressing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 08:43:57


Post by: Not Online!!!


Complex ? No

Bloated? Yes by design.

Complexity arives due to the extra rules special bloat.
Incidentally a propperly designed USR system could massively streamline it.

Then curb some of the obsolete nonsensical stratagems and behold you'd have a decent system under it,


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 10:56:32


Post by: Blndmage


I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 11:17:39


Post by: Karol


That is good for armies that have its power based on raw stats and quality of their unit rules and weapons. Kind of a hard to pull the same thing with a force which is designed to use stratagems as a rules filler.

For example the new GK had their ability to cast two powers cut, on almost all characters, at the same time the need for characters to cast multiple psychic powers was not removed from the army. So playing without the statagem that allows the use of an extra psychic power would be a big problem. Same with gear and psychic powers that were turned in to stratagems. half the rules of having a specific brotherhood is linked to have a specific stratagem and psychic power, so playing without it would be cutting off half the rules.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 11:49:47


Post by: techsoldaten


The question I have: does anyone trust GW could come up with a better system?

Each new edition gave them the chance to build a better 40k. That's 8 attempts to get to where we are now, plus offshoots like Apocalypse and Kill Team.

I'm all for radical rethinking of 40k but question whether the creative brainpower exists internally to reshape game mechanics into something more satisfying. My guess is a better 40k would have to come from outside the company, which is hard without a profit incentive. GW lawyers would find a way to shut down any initiative that actually gains traction.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 12:01:27


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Blndmage wrote:I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.
That's largely how we play too. Any stratagems are minimal, and only really reserved for things like the standard reroll. I don't play with any of the faction benefits or battleforged bonuses, and it's basically just the most streamlined version we can do.

Works a treat for us.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 14:21:54


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I find the comments about lethality to be overstated in general. AdMech and DE were rough, but they took some lumps. You only lose what you expose.
We're talking about a morale mechanic that is literally lethal to squads (moreso, in fact, as it's more dangerous than even mortal wounds), and you're going to say with a straight face that the lethality in 40K is overstated?


Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties? The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.


That isn't really true, either, unless the opponent has enough units in range to take out whatever it is - and that's after you put your guns down range.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 14:27:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties?
And? Neither were good systems, but this one is still worse.

This isn't a morale system. It's just a punitive "lose more" system. You took casualties, so now take some more that ignore all facets of the toughness/wounds/save/damage system completely. Sweeping Advance was also awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.
Once again: And?

9th is supremely lethal. Too lethal. This is something that is a completely known factor about this edition of the game. We've had whole threads about vehicles being too weak, or perhaps certain AT weapons being too good at their job.

And you've yet to answer any of catbarf's points.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 14:45:05


Post by: Insectum7


 Blndmage wrote:
I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.
Yeah, I believe it. We've been talking about just cutting CP and Stratagems here.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The question I have: does anyone trust GW could come up with a better system?
They certainly could (and have). They just choose not to, for whatever reason. I genuinly think the motivation has been corrupted. This is the first time in my 25 year history of playing the game that I'm seriously thinking of designing my own ruleset.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:01:34


Post by: Slipspace


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
If you only lose what you expose that's pretty much the definition of too lethal. What you're saying is if it's a target it'll die.


That isn't really true, either, unless the opponent has enough units in range to take out whatever it is - and that's after you put your guns down range.


I was literally responding to your own assertion that anything you expose will die. So you're disagreeing with yourself. Almost as if you've lost track of the number of weird arguments you've made in this thread.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:02:32


Post by: Wunzlez


Much like a lot of post-modern ideas, 40k currently, is somehow convoluted, confusing, and yet lacking any semblance of substance.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:28:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did everyone get amensia and forget that you could be forced to pick up a whole squad last edition if you took enough casualties?
And? Neither were good systems, but this one is still worse.

This isn't a morale system. It's just a punitive "lose more" system. You took casualties, so now take some more that ignore all facets of the toughness/wounds/save/damage system completely. Sweeping Advance was also awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The codexes have been literally loaded with defensive buffs on top of terrain being more protective.
Once again: And?

9th is supremely lethal. Too lethal. This is something that is a completely known factor about this edition of the game. We've had whole threads about vehicles being too weak, or perhaps certain AT weapons being too good at their job.

And you've yet to answer any of catbarf's points.



Because we're kind of just talking past each other. Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system and it will just slow the game down a ton.

You guys keep asserting that there are all these other systems, but I have yet to see one that would be viable and can't be gamed by certain armies.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:33:50


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system
Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:37:25


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system
Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.


I will refer to Sherrypie's post:

If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 15:54:32


Post by: catbarf


System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 16:04:18


Post by: Karol


To get changes like that you need a new edition, and GW probably starts to work on it in earnest, around mid prior edition, so in order to have something kin to that we would have to wait for 10th, if GW notices it and decides the change it worth it, or in 11th ed, or later, if not. How many people playing right now are going to be playing in 3-5 years time?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 16:12:45


Post by: vipoid


I would agree that 40k's rules are horribly convoluted.

I do, however, disagree with those praising the core rules as being simple and elegant. The simplicity of the core rules is precisely the problem - there is nothing to them. Playing a game with them alone would be equivalent to smashing two spreadsheets together. There are no USRs, no core mechanics beyond the most basic move/shoot/fight, and absolutely nothing else for armies to actually build around.

Hell, the closest thing to a core mechanic (CPs) basically exists in a different universe from the rest of the game. Instead of fuelling abilities on models, players instead use that resource to influence the battle via Yugioh cards in what has to be one of the worst game mechanics ever devised.

Thus, every army is festooned with special rules in a desperate attempt to hide how shallow the game is. The core rules have no depth to them but this is hidden behind every action requiring dozens of dice rolls to resolve. See, the real problem is that all the bells and whistles add almost nothing of value to the gameplay. 99% of the time they just boil down to rerolls or bonuses to hit/wound/AP/damage. The issue being that so many of these mechanics are always-on, requiring no cost or sacrifice to activate. Auras, for example, add absolutely nothing to the game. Stratagems could, in theory, add something if they didn't exist in a different world to everything taking place on the board. And if there wasn't such a hilarious disparity in what they did. "Hmm, do I use the Stratagem that maybe possibly inflicts a single Mortal Wound on an enemy squad if I roll the right number and jump through six hoops or do I use the stratagem that costs the same CP and lets my heavy weapon unit have a second shooting phase? Choices, choices."


The sad thing for me is that I used to like 40k because it offered so much more character customisation than other, comparable games. However, despite the massive increase in complexity, the focus has shifted much more towards special characters and piles of wargear have been removed from units to make way for more Yugioh cards. Sigh.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 16:32:59


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system
Huh? You'll have to explain that one. When people say "40k is too lethal", they're pointing to fast model loss.


I will refer to Sherrypie's post:

If the first player can start and deal massive damage or suppression, the enemy then spends much of their turn recovering from that only in time to take another broadside in the face next turn. In proper AA, you can answer the damage enemy deals to you by activating something that can likewise diminish the yet unactivated units of the opposing side, thus balancing the unfolding destruction as both sides lose assets in equal measure (or don't, because one side has maneuvered a solid advantage or something. Point still stands.).
That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 16:33:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.


And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all. None of this addresses the facets of 40K. What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?

Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game. It has a retreat system where you basically run away when you get under 25%. And that works, because it is a model by model AA skirmish game. You literally can't use the same system for 40K. You also can't make direct comparisons to WW2 morale systems against a game with flying dragons, zombies, and magic.

Again - I'm not saying you can't do something different, but so far nothing presented gives me confidence that there is a simple solution.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.


Sure, but that's not where we're at. Such a change would mean longer games with units hanging around for much longer.

It was 25% casualties that caused a check, right? Are we going to make 3 man units test at the loss of a single model? With less ranged damage what are you going to do about orcs and other hordes or W3 bikes without rolling back all the profiles to 4th edition?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 16:54:02


Post by: Racerguy180


Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 catbarf wrote:
System A: You lose ten models and the squad is wiped out.

System B: You lose five models and fail a morale test, and the rest of the squad will be harder to use on your turn but can still act.

Which one more heavily favors shooting and going first, compounding the problems of IGOUGO? It's not the one with more morale effects and less model loss.

I get really tired of the line that goes '[alternate idea] could never work in 40K because if you implemented it and made no other changes whatsoever to any other part of the game, it would be bad'.


And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all. None of this addresses the facets of 40K. What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?


Is it just me or does that sound exactly like how the Deldar would fight???


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 17:06:34


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That doesn't explain your statement at all, since you could simply have a system that deals less damage from ranged engagement to begin with.


Sure, but that's not where we're at. Such a change would mean longer games with units hanging around for much longer.

It was 25% casualties that caused a check, right? Are we going to make 3 man units test at the loss of a single model? With less ranged damage what are you going to do about orcs and other hordes or W3 bikes without rolling back all the profiles to 4th edition?
I see nothing wrong with rolling back profiles to 4th, having to roll for morale for small units, or units lasting a little longer.

But the statement I first responed to was the claim that lower model-loss would result in shooting being MORE effective, I guess by virtue of very specific assumptions? Because lower model loss itself just means lower model loss.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 17:14:15


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
And I get tired of overly generalized ideas and posts that don't accurately reflect the game.

We are not in System A. At all.


We're not in a system where units regularly get wiped out in one turn? News to me.

It looks like you misunderstood Sherrypie's post to be saying that if fewer models were removed and morale effects applied instead, IGOUGO would be worse. As if I'm somehow worse off as the going-second player if my unit is half-dead and at reduced effectiveness due to morale, rather than simply removed entirely. Sherrypie's point was that morale represents a form of 'soft' damage that, when applied in addition to 'hard' damage (model loss), results in a net increase in damage inflicted, and IGOUGO makes that problematic. But you skewed that into saying that morale is worse than model removal under IGOUGO, and that's both nonsensical and just plain wrong.

For a concrete example: It's pretty common in 9th Ed for me to have an Infantry Squad get shot at by a unit of Tacticals or Intercessors, lose 8-9 models, and then morale wipes out the rest. Whereas in 3rd/4th Ed, the same matchup might only result in 4-5 Guardsmen dead, and then a failed morale test. The latter system has less model loss and more 'soft' damage, and gives more of a chance for that unit to be useful again in some capacity rather than just deleted before it had a chance to do anything. While IGOUGO makes neither situation particularly great, the system with less model loss is less punishing for me as the going-second player.

Was 'Systems that don't result in model loss will more heavily favor shooting and going first in an IGOUGO system' maybe an overly generalized idea?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What exactly would you do to prevent DE who all come in flying boats from hopping over terrain, pinning the enemy, and using their superior speed to dominate?


This really looks like another one of those 'if you added this proposed mechanic while making zero changes to anything else then it would be bad' kinds of statements.

I mean, if you're giving me the reins to alter 40K while still staying IGOUGO, reaction fire is an easy one to give defenders some opportunity to respond to a turn-1 Raider rush.

But even failing that, suppression works both ways: DE would have the initial momentum and have an easier time pinning the defenders in place (as it should be- you described their fluff perfectly!), but as they start taking casualties and sustaining friction, they'd get caught out and bogged down in attritional warfare. Of course that assumes morale effects reduce movement, which isn't a necessity. Limiting a unit's ability to shoot or fight is another common implementation of morale.

Plus if we're supposing significant core rule changes to reduce raw lethality while implementing morale, that will have significant effects too. Maybe they all come in flying boats over the terrain, pin the enemy, but can't slaughter the enemy wholesale in the first turn of contact, allowing more opportunity for counterattack.

Or, just, yknow, rebalance the units and armies according to how the core rule changes impact them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You also can't make direct comparisons to WW2 morale systems against a game with flying dragons, zombies, and magic.


Well, 40K has ray guns and Titans and historicals don't, but we can directly compare shooting mechanics all the same.

There are things in 40K that probably shouldn't be affected by morale, but for the rest there's no reason we can't make comparisons. Every mechanic can be tweaked for effect.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 17:15:45


Post by: kirotheavenger


Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 18:24:50


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...


What do you call Guts rolls?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 18:36:00


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...


What do you call Guts rolls?


Sorry, you're right. It's been a while. It's still a system that doesn't do well at the 40K model count.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 18:39:16


Post by: Sherrypie


Action penalties are obviously less debilitating than outright removal of units for the performance of one's army, no doubt there.

My main contention is that this debate on the level of acceptable losses at a given time still tiptoes around the core problem, which is the lack of equal opportunity for affecting the enemy. If by going first you can silence a meaningful chunk of the enemy, whether by destroying or suppressing them, the whole dynamic of the rest of the game gets lopsided. IGOUGO indeed exacerbates this, unless there are extensive contingency systems in place to allow for counter-play.

Regardless of the tweaks applied to the level of lethality, so as to make this effect somewhat acceptable for the game to at least work, I do think the IGOUGO in general is at odds with the idea if we want to keep the firearm heavy nature of 40k as it is. It can be alleviated, but that is still a struggle against the framework instead of a natural extension to it. In comparison to various flavors of AA, there is no choice to act with non-suppressed units in retaliation, there is no pressure to limit the action economy of the opposition, no shifting of the schwerpunkt to address the points that are wavering in your lines, no dynamic operational friction in the Clausewitzian sense.

(As a sidenote, If the silenced amount per turn is less numerically significant but strategically well placed, the game gets more interesting to begin with).

As for incorporating soft damage properly, 40k would need to be concerned with something else than raw damage output. Command and control, the things first damaged by chaotic disruption morale systems usually model, aren't present in any credible form in the game. Part of the identity crisis the game has, that: the table sizes and rules chassis are suited for pub house brawls with barely any tactics above squad level, while the army compositions and materiel assets people try to cram in it try to tell you it's a company level clash.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 18:47:19


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Infinity doesn't have a morale system during the game...


What do you call Guts rolls?


Sorry, you're right. It's been a while. It's still a system that doesn't do well at the 40K model count.


Eh. Matter of taste. I think it works very well at the 40k model count; not as well in 6th/7th where GW started making everything immune to morale and it was often a feel-bad "why is my army subject to this rule but yours gets to ignore it?" whenever it came up, but in 3rd-5th, Bolt Action/Antares, WHFB and derivatives, and in Black Powder and derivatives having morale and units getting panicked and pinned down or running away works very well.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 18:48:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.


Yes and some of that I detect as people's nostalgia to return to the "way things were". And at times I think that colors their perception of how they think 9th plays and gives this sort of analysis that I find frustrating. And then we just get posts about how what it is now is bad and other systems are good, but no one gives anything concrete that doesn't result in what I think are impractical changes.

I would like to see something that fits within the context, because anything else to me is just feels like complaining for the sake of it.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 19:05:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Daed, I think you're hyper focusing on the idea that we're simply bolting on X system to current 40k, making no other changes.

That wasn't the intention, rather an overarching suggestion that will clearly require some redesign of surrounding elements.


Yes and some of that I detect as people's nostalgia to return to the "way things were". And at times I think that colors their perception of how they think 9th plays and gives this sort of analysis that I find frustrating. And then we just get posts about how what it is now is bad and other systems are good, but no one gives anything concrete that doesn't result in what I think are impractical changes.

I would like to see something that fits within the context, because anything else to me is just feels like complaining for the sake of it.



I find when we're talking about Warhammer specifically I'd rather it be harder for every unit to attack at full effectiveness every turn; I liked fire arcs, harsher move-and-fire penalties, shorter ranges and move distances, suppression, random Reserves, risky Deep Strike, and the like because it made it feel to me more like what choices I made on the table had an impact on the game. 9th feels to me like everything gets to do everything it wants to every turn, so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless. When I talk to people who like 8th/9th better than the way things were before I find they often don't share my view; they didn't like older editions because they felt like if they had to pay points for a unit they should get to use it at full effectiveness more reliably. They didn't like older editions because their units' usefulness could be wildly situational depending on terrain/matchup and skew lists had a lot more potential to leave units/armies unable to participate. I don't think it's a matter of practicality or fitting the context of 40k so much as it is a simple disagreement between two different personal preferences on how the game should feel; they're both valid points, I just personally happen to like one answer more than the other.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 19:25:07


Post by: Karol


The new GK codex is full of situational rules likes this, and I don't think it is a good thing to do. When other factions can do secondaries just by planting a unit on them, limitations in the form of , you have to destroy a unit with a unit of that deep struck this turn or get points if you kill a demon, are just bad. Same with stuff your opponent can easily avoid or just ingore it, because their army just doesn't do some stuff, like coming in from reservs or running specific units like psykers etc.

Having rules that work all the time are much better, specially when if your skew is really hard, the people with armies that you are good against will just not play you. And then your army is just worse in general against the entire local field.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 19:30:25


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:

I find when we're talking about Warhammer specifically I'd rather it be harder for every unit to attack at full effectiveness every turn; I liked fire arcs, harsher move-and-fire penalties, shorter ranges and move distances, suppression, random Reserves, risky Deep Strike, and the like because it made it feel to me more like what choices I made on the table had an impact on the game. 9th feels to me like everything gets to do everything it wants to every turn, so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless. When I talk to people who like 8th/9th better than the way things were before I find they often don't share my view; they didn't like older editions because they felt like if they had to pay points for a unit they should get to use it at full effectiveness more reliably. They didn't like older editions because their units' usefulness could be wildly situational depending on terrain/matchup and skew lists had a lot more potential to leave units/armies unable to participate. I don't think it's a matter of practicality or fitting the context of 40k so much as it is a simple disagreement between two different personal preferences on how the game should feel; they're both valid points, I just personally happen to like one answer more than the other.


I get you.

I used to explicitly take 3 man CSM terminators with melta to drop behind tanks or slide my tank out so the turret could see, but I still had cover. Those mechanics were fun, but then there were the other mechanics that really sucked the life out of some things - especially based on the army you took, which to mirror your words "so the game comes down to who's got the more efficient Codex/units/list and putting minis on the table at all is sort of pointless".

I don't feel that way in 9th ( 8th was touch and go, but at least they were moving things forward ) and I find consequence to movement and decisions.

I don't know how to reconcile these different points of view though. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
The new GK codex is full of situational rules likes this, and I don't think it is a good thing to do. When other factions can do secondaries just by planting a unit on them, limitations in the form of , you have to destroy a unit with a unit of that deep struck this turn or get points if you kill a demon, are just bad. Same with stuff your opponent can easily avoid or just ingore it, because their army just doesn't do some stuff, like coming in from reservs or running specific units like psykers etc.

Having rules that work all the time are much better, specially when if your skew is really hard, the people with armies that you are good against will just not play you. And then your army is just worse in general against the entire local field.


The GK secondaries fit the army. Not all secondaries will be a good choice just as not all kill based secondaries will apply to your opponent. Part of being successful is making good choices and then executing that plan in the face of mounting losses.

The teleport secondary is quite achievable under any circumstance when you can Gate to weak units. Purify will come down to how much of your army you want to commit. And while you have an anti-daemon secondary the anti-daemon abilities overall seem to be way down from prior.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 19:50:55


Post by: The Newman


After having played Bolt Action I can imagine a hypothetical version of 40k with

- BA-style pinning, orders, to-hit penalties, and method of resolving needing more than a six to hit. (And ditching the +/- 1 cap.)
- A more deterministic method of determining AA than just picking dice out of a bag.
- Mapping 40k's phases to BA's actions so a unit can move and psychic, move and shoot, move and charge, or move and perform a mission secondary action in addition to BA's Go to Ground, Overwatch, and Run actions.
- Combine the Warhammer "every one of these generals has a specific toolkit" with 40k's "make them your dudez" focus by treating every faction's ridiculous pile of strats as a pool to pick special rules for your warlord. Choose six strats at army creation and you can only use them while your warlord is still alive. (Excluding Core strats, those are always available.)

It makes me sad how much better that would be, and it seems like it would address a bunch of issues.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 21:08:08


Post by: Gregor Samsa


All roads inevitably lead to the fact that IGOUGO just doesn’t work for 40K anymore. The size and tedium of the games drags on for way too long while each player takes a turn droning on about which weapon and strategems they will use to delete units while the other player nods along and then maybe rolls a few armour saves before packing models up.

Just look at the average length of each players turn 2 in most battle reports. The core system needs to be reworked. At the very least damage needs to be assigned at the end of the turn, like in Apocalypse.

GW afraid to do this however as 40K is their golden goose and they’re afraid to inadvertently ruin their gravy train.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 21:46:49


Post by: drbored


Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 22:12:40


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:


The GK secondaries fit the army. Not all secondaries will be a good choice just as not all kill based secondaries will apply to your opponent. Part of being successful is making good choices and then executing that plan in the face of mounting losses.

The teleport secondary is quite achievable under any circumstance when you can Gate to weak units. Purify will come down to how much of your army you want to commit. And while you have an anti-daemon secondary the anti-daemon abilities overall seem to be way down from prior.


Fit or not they are worse by the sole virtue of being harder to do. The ad mecha, DE, or DG ones are much easier to do and you don't need your opponent to interact with you. Something like purify would have been okey, if most GK characters kept the ability to cast 2 powers per turn, or if GK went down in cost and could play a horde army. A DG can make a succesful choice by planting a unit of poxies on an objective, the GK secondaries require a ton of preping, and if you fail to kill stuff coming from deep strike you practiclly screwed yourselfs by taking the objective. Rules that require opponents to do what you want are always worse, then does that require no interaction and vice versa. Plus the codex change nothing about GK giving up a secondary for just being GK.

Maybe not all secondaries should be good. For super efficient armies with above avarge rules, having easy to do secondaries is a bit much. I agree with that. But armies that have it up hill, having situational rules are just becoming worse.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 23:30:05


Post by: Daedalus81


Plus the codex change nothing about GK giving up a secondary for just being GK.


Do you know what you get for that? Totally unimpeded psychic dominance. It isn't as if your units got easier to kill, either.

The ad mecha, DE, or DG ones are much easier to do and you don't need your opponent to interact with you.


Hold on a sec.

Admech #1 - requires opponent to have large vehicles or exposed warlord. Quite similar to your Daemon one.
Admech #2 - requires admech vehicles and for them to kill more infantry than they lost vehicles. You can't score it at all if you don't have a vehicle. How is this not interaction?
Admech #3 - hold an objective at the end of specific round - you literally know where they want to be and can work against it. How is this not interaction?
Admech #4 - hold one specific objective. Again - you know what you need to do to push them off.

DE #1 - Destroy units in melee. Low effort.
DE #2 - Destroy monster, cavalry, beast with wyches. Not dissimilar to your daemon objective.
DE #3 - Fleeing models. Sounds thematic and ridiculously hard to score well with.
DE #4 - Score for quarters without enemies - something you can work against.

Something like purify would have been okey, if most GK characters kept the ability to cast 2 powers per turn


Sounds like you have sour grapes about the new book already?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 23:45:06


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


drbored wrote:
Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.


I wouldn't call it a consensus - even if we call the results of your poll definitive - which they are not.

I played in a tourney yesterday. I never had to pull out the core rulebook. I had to confirm some stats on units from time to time and show one of my unique Strats to an opponent that had not seen it before, but other than that we worked through our turns without coming to a halt or having to call for a ruling. The hardest thing was setting up the diagonal deployment zones for Vital Intelligence. This contrasts with my Flames of War experience where each game has a contentious visit or two to the core rules. Never mind Advanced Squad Leader...

I like having a clean core rules structure that we then layer rules upon. That can be taken too far, and some of the Codexes have missed the mark (Necron Command Protocols come to mind). Nevertheless, I find modern 40K to be a clean gaming experience. I understand, though, that others feel quite differently. As such, there is not a general consensus.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/08 23:45:37


Post by: Jarms48


I imagine GW has noticed rules bloat on datasheets as well. In a lot of the upcoming special marine codexes it appears they're removing Shock Assault for just an extra base attack.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 01:27:54


Post by: Daedalus81


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
drbored wrote:
Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.


I wouldn't call it a consensus - even if we call the results of your poll definitive - which they are not.

I played in a tourney yesterday. I never had to pull out the core rulebook. I had to confirm some stats on units from time to time and show one of my unique Strats to an opponent that had not seen it before, but other than that we worked through our turns without coming to a halt or having to call for a ruling. The hardest thing was setting up the diagonal deployment zones for Vital Intelligence. This contrasts with my Flames of War experience where each game has a contentious visit or two to the core rules. Never mind Advanced Squad Leader...

I like having a clean core rules structure that we then layer rules upon. That can be taken too far, and some of the Codexes have missed the mark (Necron Command Protocols come to mind). Nevertheless, I find modern 40K to be a clean gaming experience. I understand, though, that others feel quite differently. As such, there is not a general consensus.



Seconded.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 07:10:39


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Plus the codex change nothing about GK giving up a secondary for just being GK.


Do you know what you get for that? Totally unimpeded psychic dominance. It isn't as if your units got easier to kill, either.

Having psychic powers doesn't win you games. Even if smites are what they should have been since day one in 8th ed. I am comparing this codex to what came out lately. And neither the GK, nor the 1ksons one look as if they were better then DE, Ad mecha or SoB. And it doesn't even matter what I think about it. At the time the either of those factions had their full rules leaked, we had 30 pages of talk about the faction. We don't even have a thread about 1ksons or GK. That is how worried the community is about their power level.



Hold on a sec.

Admech #1 - requires opponent to have large vehicles or exposed warlord. Quite similar to your Daemon one.

A demon is something few armies have. you litteraly have to play vs a chaos army. Teleporting around Ad mecha have a much easier time finding targets to kill a vehicle or a warlord.
Admech #2 - requires admech vehicles and for them to kill more infantry than they lost vehicles. You can't score it at all if you don't have a vehicle. How is this not interaction?

so 1 in 4 vs 2 in 3. That is a big difference. Plus ad mecha don't have the abhore the witch problem. GK should have easier to do secondaries, if they give up theirs much easier.
Admech #3 - hold an objective at the end of specific round - you literally know where they want to be and can work against it. How is this not interaction?

Yes, that is assuming you will be succesful. Still how is this comperable to this secondary only works if your opponent plays chaos?

Admech #4 - hold one specific objective. Again - you know what you need to do to push them off.

and ditto here.

DE #1 - Destroy units in melee. Low effort.
DE #2 - Destroy monster, cavalry, beast with wyches. Not dissimilar to your daemon objective.

there are far more armies with those then there are armies running demons.
DE #3 - Fleeing models. Sounds thematic and ridiculously hard to score well with.

great so 1 in 4, is bad. I guess this means GK will have a 70% win rate too.
DE #4 - Score for quarters without enemies - something you can work against.

yeah something. how do you work something when your opponent doesn't bring demons, or has demons and just says he won't play you?


Sounds like you have sour grapes about the new book already?

Because it would have been a good book, if it came out instead of the 8th ed codex. Would be great. I don't see how the codex is better then any of the good armies being played right now. And as I said, this isn't even what I think. Whole codex has been leaked already and the communities reaction is , move along nothing to see here. On a personal level they again made termintors worse then strikes, so yeah I don't like that change.


GW when writing rules for armies should first make sure that the army has good core rules. Then they can play around with thematic stuff. All the good armies in 9th right now, have thematic rules, but they exist in addition to a powerful core. When someone starts with copy pasting stuff and then sprinkling some rules around, then a codex can either end up just bad or ment for something wierd like narrative, or it turns in to codex Dreadknight or Hive tyrant.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 12:34:11


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Maybe Morale needs to be turned on its head and become a bonus not a negative.

Only problem is its a slower system and 40K drags already.

But something like

Test on 2D6 each time you lose models. +1 for every model lost this turn.

Melee
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
Break and die. Move once away from the enemy, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn, lose one model for every point you are over LD.

All other casualties caused by the enemy (shooting, psychic powers, etc. - does not include out of coherency removal)
Under or equal to LD - no effect
Exceed LD
1st time - contact drills, receive +1 save for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay model down as reminder)
2nd time - go to ground, receive -1 to hit for remainder of turn against shooting (mark unit or lay 2nd model down as reminder)
3rd time - Break. Move one full move away from the enemy, lose any bonuses, aura buffs etc for rest of turn (including step 1 and 2 above) - face models away from enemy or mark unit in some way.
4th time - Lose one model for every point you are over LD.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:16:15


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
Having psychic powers doesn't win you games. Even if smites are what they should have been since day one in 8th ed. I am comparing this codex to what came out lately. And neither the GK, nor the 1ksons one look as if they were better then DE, Ad mecha or SoB. And it doesn't even matter what I think about it. At the time the either of those factions had their full rules leaked, we had 30 pages of talk about the faction. We don't even have a thread about 1ksons or GK. That is how worried the community is about their power level.


They do win you games when you can teleport to your heart's desire. Are you saying there's no power creep?

Because it would have been a good book, if it came out instead of the 8th ed codex. Would be great. I don't see how the codex is better then any of the good armies being played right now. And as I said, this isn't even what I think. Whole codex has been leaked already and the communities reaction is , move along nothing to see here. On a personal level they again made termintors worse then strikes, so yeah I don't like that change.

GW when writing rules for armies should first make sure that the army has good core rules. Then they can play around with thematic stuff. All the good armies in 9th right now, have thematic rules, but they exist in addition to a powerful core. When someone starts with copy pasting stuff and then sprinkling some rules around, then a codex can either end up just bad or ment for something wierd like narrative, or it turns in to codex Dreadknight or Hive tyrant.


I don't see anything copy paste with GK. I think people are struggling with the design not being what they wanted, but GK have always leaned into melee.

You're also going to want terminators/paladins. If your whole army is W2 then D2 will have a field day. GK Terminators are transhuman eligible with a couple options for 4++.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:18:13


Post by: RaptorusRex


I’m pretty sure Karol is insatiable.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:22:37


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...GK Terminators are transhuman eligible with a couple options for 4++...


GK Cataphractii?!?!?

(Yes, I know this doesn't actually exist and is unlikely to ever exist, but I just had a moment of amusement at the parallel with Nullificators (the 30k proto-GK anti-Daemon unit).)


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:42:09


Post by: Gores


Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:44:37


Post by: AnomanderRake


Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list


GW made a mistake in 5e by making GK six units with all the same equipment and slightly different statlines/rules. Every edition since one of the six has been just better and you're supposed to spam it and ignore the others, because they all do the exact same thing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:46:24


Post by: Gores


Yeah I don't disagree at all. I just wish this time the unit you're supposed to spam is terminators! Ive got 50 of those waiting on the shelf, and I just hate the PAGK


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 18:56:53


Post by: Daedalus81


Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list


Yea, though I doubt GK termies will come down too far since they're fairly similar to Scarabs, but Scarabs offer a lot of value over Rubrics. 35 to 38 points might make more sense.





Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 19:34:35


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


Regardless of cost, I hate looking at grey knight armies with more than just one or two non terminators. Terminator spam grey knights are cool as hell.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/09 20:38:00


Post by: Gores


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gores wrote:
Not to turn into a GK thread or whatever but I do agree that strikes are just flatly better than the terminators and the "correct" choice is always more strikes/NDKs instead of any terminators. Not to say the codex is bad, it isn't, there's power there. But if you were excited about really anything GK did mechanically before this codex you should stop, its all gone, haha. Buy 5 Hexfire boxes and boom, competitive GK list


Yea, though I doubt GK termies will come down too far since they're fairly similar to Scarabs, but Scarabs offer a lot of value over Rubrics. 35 to 38 points might make more sense.





Yeah I don't disagree. I'm hoping for a points drop in however long that takes, or maybe they have an all terminator army of renown coming down the pipe . Speaking of scarabs, they're essentially the same guy as a GKT with sword but fearless, All is Dust, ignore heavy penalty, a -1D strat ( that GKT used to have but lost ), AP-2 guns and are cheaper, but aren't troops and have less options. I'm personally pretty sad about GKT for the moment, but who knows what the future brings. Back on topic I'll just echo what other have said, the game isn't super complex, the rules are pretty simple and easy to learn and you can bust out a good sized game in an hour and a half if you're tryin. I'm personally having more fun with the game than I have since our HH scene died


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/14 22:55:43


Post by: ogrimdoombringer


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
I've been running just the free Core rules and data sheets, no stratagems, non Battleforged armies if it fits the theme of the specific game. Sometimes we use Dynasty benefits.

Honestly, it's been a blast, games go quicker, and feel cleaner, less gunked up with rules stops and such.
Yeah, I believe it. We've been talking about just cutting CP and Stratagems here.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The question I have: does anyone trust GW could come up with a better system?
They certainly could (and have). They just choose not to, for whatever reason. I genuinly think the motivation has been corrupted. This is the first time in my 25 year history of playing the game that I'm seriously thinking of designing my own ruleset.

@techsoldaten
You could save yourself a lot of work if you check out OnePageRules.com and their Grimdark Future rules. Streamlined, balanced and approachable. It has rekindled my gaming energy. Played about 10 games in six weeks and have had a lot fun with it.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 09:44:16


Post by: Ordana


GK's suffer from the fundamental problem of being more expensive Marines that die like ordinary Marines.

Which is why at the height of GK power they either didn't die like Marines (the invis Paladin deathstar) or simply didn't field GK's and spammed Psybolt vehicles and Inq henchmen.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 10:21:44


Post by: Karol


The GK right now with the buffs are very cheap for what they can do. Or at least they are cheap enough they can be spamed. With all the buffs added a unit of strikes, may not be great at shoting, but in melee it is very strong, as long as the opponent doesn't have an option to make the strike last. Which, I think , is their main problem along side getting in to melee fast enough.

If they had an open topped rhino or impulsor, They would be very powerful.

GK termintors is an example of what happens when someone at DT decides that something is an elite option and should cost extra.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 11:24:25


Post by: wuestenfux


In my pregame math, when I play an army rather new to me in the new edition, I write down
- special rules (cmd phase, auras, abilities),
- stratagems that I might use,
- secondaries, and
- command protocols (Necrons).
This can help a lot.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 11:51:15


Post by: Jidmah


Creating color-coded cards or using colored card shields for the official ones to sort stratagems by phase also is a good way of providing a good overview of stratagems for both you and your opponent.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 12:10:23


Post by: Sim-Life


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
drbored wrote:
Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.


I wouldn't call it a consensus - even if we call the results of your poll definitive - which they are not.

I played in a tourney yesterday. I never had to pull out the core rulebook. I had to confirm some stats on units from time to time and show one of my unique Strats to an opponent that had not seen it before, but other than that we worked through our turns without coming to a halt or having to call for a ruling. The hardest thing was setting up the diagonal deployment zones for Vital Intelligence. This contrasts with my Flames of War experience where each game has a contentious visit or two to the core rules. Never mind Advanced Squad Leader...

I like having a clean core rules structure that we then layer rules upon. That can be taken too far, and some of the Codexes have missed the mark (Necron Command Protocols come to mind). Nevertheless, I find modern 40K to be a clean gaming experience. I understand, though, that others feel quite differently. As such, there is not a general consensus.



I feel like comparing 40k to Advanced Squad Leader, a game considered to be probably the most complex game ever made is disingenuous. The issue is that 40k is not actually supposed to be a complicated/complex/convoluted/unwieldy game. Its supposed to be an engine to play out stories and scenarios without a great deal of baggage. Its supposed to be an excuse to hang out with friend to play while you have a few drinks, such as beer and snacks, like pretzels, while you play. When people play Advanced Squad Leader they KNOW the game is dense and complicated and brain melting and thats what they sign up for when you open the box. Its not why people play 40k.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/15 23:37:40


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Sim-Life wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
drbored wrote:
Despite the difference between Complex and Complicated, it seems like the message got across.

The poll ran pretty much as I figured. The consensus is that there's a lot of extra junk and rules bloat and for me, at least, that's a problem with entry into the game.

I can only dread what 10th edition will bring.


I wouldn't call it a consensus - even if we call the results of your poll definitive - which they are not.

I played in a tourney yesterday. I never had to pull out the core rulebook. I had to confirm some stats on units from time to time and show one of my unique Strats to an opponent that had not seen it before, but other than that we worked through our turns without coming to a halt or having to call for a ruling. The hardest thing was setting up the diagonal deployment zones for Vital Intelligence. This contrasts with my Flames of War experience where each game has a contentious visit or two to the core rules. Never mind Advanced Squad Leader...

I like having a clean core rules structure that we then layer rules upon. That can be taken too far, and some of the Codexes have missed the mark (Necron Command Protocols come to mind). Nevertheless, I find modern 40K to be a clean gaming experience. I understand, though, that others feel quite differently. As such, there is not a general consensus.



I feel like comparing 40k to Advanced Squad Leader, a game considered to be probably the most complex game ever made is disingenuous. The issue is that 40k is not actually supposed to be a complicated/complex/convoluted/unwieldy game. Its supposed to be an engine to play out stories and scenarios without a great deal of baggage. Its supposed to be an excuse to hang out with friend to play while you have a few drinks, such as beer and snacks, like pretzels, while you play. When people play Advanced Squad Leader they KNOW the game is dense and complicated and brain melting and thats what they sign up for when you open the box. Its not why people play 40k.


Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 00:37:03


Post by: Daedalus81


TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).


I think some people confuse having lots of options as harder, because they can't memorize everything an army does, which is different from the core rules actually being too complex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 00:50:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 02:18:55


Post by: drbored


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.


I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 03:40:32


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.


Bloated, sure. Admech is the only unwieldy book since it is basically two armies, but it can be broken down into --

Sub-Faction Abilities ( Forge Worlds )
HQ Upgrades ( Tech Priest only )
Purity Bonus ( Doctrina and Canticles )
WL Traits
Relics
Strats

Things you can do fall into very categories governed by the phases. e.g. Affect dice rolls / breaking, granting, or enhancing rules / etc. Everything you do can be broken down to that level.

I know what you can normally do. All I have to ask is "can you break this rule?".

"I want to shoot this Vanguard unit. What can you do to them?". I already know that they want they can do falls within basic possibilities like armor / cover / wounding / extra saves.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 03:41:30


Post by: Voss


TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Do you really find 40K 9th Ed harder to play rules-wise (parking the difference between complex and complicated) than previous editions of 40K? The only time it was simpler was 8th Ed Index, and with that we had some weird results as they put in a new paradigm. I still find 9th simpler rules-wise than 2nd through 6th (I stepped out for 7th).

Don't agree at all. Even 2nd (as well as 3rd-6th, as there is a stark division in the game design in those two categories) is a lot more consistent rules-wise, and far fewer moving parts for the sake of having moving parts (army rules, strats, traits, chapter tactics, purity bonuses, etc, etc). Consistency alone makes a huge difference, as does the lack of obfuscating mechanics that lets people pretend that re-rolls and minor bonuses from a dozen different things make the game somehow more 'interesting'

It also helps that the older editions have fundamental mechanics for a wargame, like morale, routing and rallying rather than rolling dice to see if you roll dice to see if models just vanish into the ether.
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice. Its at the point where it could just have simple look-up tables where if <unit> fires at unit <type> (infantry/vehicle/character) X damage is done, rather than rolling at all. It would save about an hour for each game, and I'm not convinced the results would be significantly different- the sheer mass of dice and rerolls will converge to expected results anyway.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 03:45:43


Post by: Daedalus81


drbored wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.


I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.


Well, it definitely does not take 10 to 30 games to get core rules down.

Could you give a specific example as to what an "overly complicated rules interaction" would be?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 03:46:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.
The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

And that's before we add in any:

1. Army abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
2. Unit abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
3. Strats that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
4. Special auras or buffs (ala Chaplains) that change that test, or the final dice roll for MW.

And on and on it goes...



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 03:51:08


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
It also helps that the older editions have fundamental mechanics for a wargame, like morale, routing and rallying rather than rolling dice to see if you roll dice to see if models just vanish into the ether.


Like rolling dice to see if your opponent was faster than you thereby causing your models to vanish? Or rolling dice to see if you can't interact with your unit again this turn unless you're an army that ignores that?

I'm not convinced the results would be significantly different- the sheer mass of dice and rerolls will converge to expected results anyway.


This makes me think you've never played Warhammer in your life. The amount of key rolls on three dice or less are quite high and subject to lots of variance. Even if your dice rolls were perfectly average there are key moments that matter more than others.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.
The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

And that's before we add in any:

1. Army abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
2. Unit abilities that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
3. Strats that change that first test, or the final dice roll for MW.
4. Special auras or buffs (ala Chaplains) that change that test, or the final dice roll for MW.

And on and on it goes...



Could you give an example rule for each of the four items above?



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 04:09:41


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


drbored wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think some people are trying very hard to make excuses for a rule set that is absurdly unwieldy and bloated.


I'm seeing a bit of this.

If a player named Albert goes to tournaments and has played enough games to know the rules well, that's great for them, they spent a lot of time with the ruleset.

But that's not only anecdotal, it misses a lot of key data points needed to turn opinion into hypothesis.

How many read-throughs did Albert have to go through the rules? How many games had to be played until the core rulebook was no longer needed? And the same questions would have to be asked of the Codexes involved.

Tournament players HAVE to have a handle on the rules so they can play fast, because time matters. Casual gamers that want to get into the game, that see the overly complicated rules interactions, may decide it's just not worthwhile to commit to the same 10-30 games needed to get the core rules down pat. And that's a big part of the issue.

And yeah, there may not be a consensus, but if you go back and look at the poll results, I think we can see that there's definitely a skew.


A Dakka poll and $1.85 CAD are worth a coffee. Before delivery etc

Do we really find the rules of 40K 9th too hard to understand? I am just not seeing it out in the wild. If someone finds 9th too dense to penetrate then heaven help them with editions before 8th.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 04:29:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Some of it has to do with intuitiveness.

A rule that makes something act as expected is easy to remember (e.g. the Blast rule doing more damage to horde units isn't typically forgotten).

A rule that makes no sense is harder to remember (e.g. the precise nature of the coherency rules). These typically only get remembered after they are encountered once, which can feel like a gotcha.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 06:03:23


Post by: Jidmah


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.
The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

You mean like "on a successful test, the units does another test, and if it fails it takes d6 S4 AP0 hits, allocated randomly"?

Because that's how all editions prior to 8th/9th did it, which required you dozens of dice, usually to no or little effect.

And yeah, I would also see all those rules allegedly modifying such things.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 07:42:25


Post by: Sim-Life


TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Do we really find the rules of 40K 9th too hard to understand?I am just not seeing it out in the wild. If someone finds 9th too dense to penetrate then heaven help them with editions before 8th.


You keep saying this like its the issue when its not nor has it ever been. No one finds 40k to HARD, its too simple if anything, but it IS too bloated.

To dredge up my terrible comparison from earlier its like reading a dictionary. Its not difficult to understand, its just boring and there's a lot of it. Just because you can arrange the words in a dictionary in a way that makes it deep doesn't make the dictionary itself deep and just because theres a lot of words doesn't make it complex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 09:06:35


Post by: Jidmah


Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.

That's like a person playing 60 cards casual kitchen table magic and complaining about the game having too many cards to remember them all.

Most complaints on this thread can be put into three categories:
1) I don't like stratagems or 8th/9th in general and I will take every opportunity to complain about them. Also, Nth edition/30k/3rd party ruleset/index era is the best edition ever and has absolutely no problems if you play with the right people, the right armies, rewrite half the ruleset and no one takes any problematic things.
2) There are too many rules sources changing too often to keep track of. This is a valid complaint, especially if you are busy in life with more important things. But that's not complexity.
3) I want to know all rules at all times, but there is too much of them. Well, that is something completely unnecessary to play the game, but just something you personally want. There is absolutely no need to know all rules at all times, especially not if there is nothing to lose.
For every codex there are only a hand full of stratagems, relics and rules you actually need to know when playing against them. There are plenty of ways out there to gather this information, either you do the research yourself, or you find one of the many sources out there which have all the information pre-compiled. Most stratagems your opponent has in their codex will have absolutely no impact on any decision you take during your game.
Or you just ask your opponent, like mine did on Saturday ("Is there any way you can kill this guy next turn standing on that objective?").
Or you learn the hard way from just walking right into these things. I had almost a dozen terminators lit ablaze by auspex scan because I forgot about it. Won't happen anymore.

40k just has a terrible way of presenting its rules by spreading them to the BRB, the codices, mission packs, book updates, PDF updates, campaign books and whatnot. The limitation of printed rules also don't help the whole issue one bit.
The most complex part of 40k is building a list, and that is mostly done through list building software which just tells you what is possible and when you feth up. Playing the game once the list is build is on the level of a free mobile game.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:00:11


Post by: Karol


I think my english is worse, then I thought it was. Or this is something where words don't mean what they mean. Because games litterally are about winning and losing, when they have winner and a loser.

Plus how would you know that the other person isn't cheating you, if you don't know the rules or how they work.

It is like in your example. Some asks, is there a way for you to kill unit X off this objective and they can just say no, later saying they couldn't do it on your turn or that some specific proc, like lets say assault doctrine for marines didn't kick in yet, or they can just fake ignorance claiming they forgot or didn't knew themselfs what their own rules could do, at the moment of the question being asked. Because of course in their own turn, they suddenly did remember that they very much can do something.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:09:41


Post by: Apple fox


I think for the purpose of discussion it may not matter how complex 40k is, or where it is.
But that it is too complex for the way the game is now.

If it’s presented badly, and gains complexity there. Then it is complex needlessly.
But I think there are other issues on top of that, GW has sucked most of the depth the game had out.
Bloated up the rules, and the nature of the rules themselves often make them tedious from there complexity even if it’s minor.

It’s just a bad rule set from top to bottom now. How it gets there maybe Not matter on weather it hits the level of complexity for some people.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:10:28


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.


That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:26:50


Post by: Blackie


We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:42:30


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:51:20


Post by: a_typical_hero


Karol wrote:
I think my english is worse, then I thought it was. Or this is something where words don't mean what they mean. Because games litterally are about winning and losing, when they have winner and a loser.

Plus how would you know that the other person isn't cheating you, if you don't know the rules or how they work.

It is like in your example. Some asks, is there a way for you to kill unit X off this objective and they can just say no, later saying they couldn't do it on your turn or that some specific proc, like lets say assault doctrine for marines didn't kick in yet, or they can just fake ignorance claiming they forgot or didn't knew themselfs what their own rules could do, at the moment of the question being asked. Because of course in their own turn, they suddenly did remember that they very much can do something.


The objective of the game is to win. The point of it is to have fun (for all parties involved). Don't confuse each other and save yourself the counter argument that winning is necessary to have fun.

If you are afraid of the other person cheating (not just getting rules wrong by accident), you are playing with the wrong person to begin with. Everything that felt strange to you during the game can be looked up afterwards on Wahapedia, Battlescribe or Reddit.

If your opponent does this donkey cave thing of lying to you about their abilities during the game, then again, you are playing with the wrong person. Just don't play them another time or tell them that they won and pack your stuff. Play another game with somebody else.

Edit:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"

Not a big deal at all. Every MOBA requires you to learn what all of their 100+ champions can do and when they have their power spike. Even games as simple as Counter-Strike require you to learn the spray pattern of the guns.
Yes, it is not necessary, but you can't expect to win against somebody who does know their stuff or that you won't make mistakes during the game because of this.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 10:55:06


Post by: Tyel


What wombo combos are concerning you?

I think the divide is that Auspex Scan is a Gotcha. Its a trap card that can win a game if someone doesn't know or forgets about it. If you only play 40k once every 6 months (or longer) I can see why losing your one game to such is upsetting. If you play every weekend however you'll just know for next time.

By contrast "yeah, my beatstick character has this relic, this warlord trait and I might pop this stratagem to make him even more beatstickier" isn't in any sense a trap. Characters should be able to hit hard.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:04:29


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"


Yes, it's not a big deal, not at all. Things that really need to be remembered to avoid gotchas that determine the result of a game are extremely limited. Anything else it's not gamebreaking.

Reading a review, even a detailed one, is faster than reading an older edition codex and it's also free.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:10:11


Post by: Slipspace


 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:11:50


Post by: Sim-Life



Not a big deal at all. Every MOBA requires you to learn what all of their 100+ champions can do and when they have their power spike. Even games as simple as Counter-Strike require you to learn the spray pattern of the guns.
Yes, it is not necessary, but you can't expect to win against somebody who does know their stuff or that you won't make mistakes during the game because of this.


I don't play competitive online games specifically because I don't want to interact with the type of people who learn the abilities of 100+ characters and gun sprays. Nor do I want to play 40k with the type of people who learn every ability and combo of every army. I shouldn't have to do that in order to not get a gakky gotcha in a game. I should be able to learn my armies rule to a decent degree and be able to have a good game with a stranger without having to worry about him deleting entire squads in a turn and wasting my time because of his faction ability interacting with an aura thats buffed from a warlord trait and benefits from a stratagem.

The funny thing is I'm saying this because it was MY use of these combos that made me dislike the game. I could see the emotional shift in my opponents mood when I deleted his units using these combos and it made me feel like crap and I wasn't having fun because my opponent wasn't having fun.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:16:20


Post by: kodos


the simple difference between:

easy to learn and hard to master VS hard (time consuming) to learn but easy to master

some like the first, others the later
GW is focused on the "time consuming to learn" rules, Mantic of FFG focus on the easy to learn rules


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:24:19


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Sim-Life wrote:
I don't play competitive online games specifically because I don't want to interact with the type of people who learn the abilities of 100+ characters and gun sprays. Nor do I want to play 40k with the type of people who learn every ability and combo of every army. I shouldn't have to do that in order to not get a gakky gotcha in a game. I should be able to learn my armies rule to a decent degree and be able to have a good game with a stranger without having to worry about him deleting entire squads in a turn and wasting my time because of his faction ability interacting with an aura thats buffed from a warlord trait and benefits from a stratagem.

The funny thing is I'm saying this because it was MY use of these combos that made me dislike the game. I could see the emotional shift in my opponents mood when I deleted his units using these combos and it made me feel like crap and I wasn't having fun because my opponent wasn't having fun.

It comes down to different tastes, then. I said it in a recent thread that I for example enjoy the vast openness of D&D 3.5 with it's hundreds of rule books compared to D&D 5 where you (attention: hyperbole) have basically everybody doing the same thing within a quite confined design space.

It speaks for you that you felt bad about the moment. Next time you could give your opponent a heads up about it, now that you know about the effect on people.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 11:35:06


Post by: Vatsetis


 kodos wrote:
the simple difference between:

easy to learn and hard to master VS hard (time consuming) to learn but easy to master

some like the first, others the later
GW is focused on the "time consuming to learn" rules, Mantic of FFG focus on the easy to learn rules


Certainly mastering 40k seems like being good in a multiple choice tests... Rense and repeat with no nuance or emotion... Just find a broken combo and follow the flow chart... Then follow the meta as it evolves.

Its only hard to master it if you are naive and take it as a "game" rather than like burocratic paperwork


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 12:15:27


Post by: Blackie


Slipspace wrote:


That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.



There's no need to keep up with new rules releases, reading reviews is just a shortcut to gain knowledge. In my opinion playing games is the way to learn rules, including combos from other armies. I don't read every codexes reviews and I definitely don't even take a quick look to codexes from armies I don't play and yet I don't remember experiencing that many gotcha moments so far. Things I ignored, that I would have handled differently if I had the knowledge, avoiding mistakes? Definitely. A game that was ruined because of that? I never had that feeling honestly.

Some people just consider themselves some sort of military strategists and can't accept being caught by surprise or make mistakes as they believe only noobs do that, and shame on you if the opponent is more experienced. It's an attitude that I don't think is appropriate in this context, which is playing a game in a friendly environment (even at tournaments), but it's just my opinion of course.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 12:20:00


Post by: kodos


losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 12:21:47


Post by: kirotheavenger


Part of the problem is these gotchas aren't even consistent.
In one game I can run my character with a chainsword. He hits like a wet noodle, not a big concern.
Next game he's got Teeth of Terra, some Warlord trait, and I use a strat, or whatever. Suddenly he's wiping squads solo.
Same model, same datasheet, same points.

These sorts of things are very important to know, because if you don't know then they can easily bite you in the arse and spoil the whole game.
It's always lame losing your favourite unit because you positioned them somewhere you knew they were safe... except for that random rule you didn't know existed.
"Now you know for next time" is super lame, I don't think I ever play the same army twice within a six-month window, there is no next time.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 12:46:10


Post by: a_typical_hero


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Part of the problem is these gotchas aren't even consistent.
In one game I can run my character with a chainsword. He hits like a wet noodle, not a big concern.
Next game he's got Teeth of Terra, some Warlord trait, and I use a strat, or whatever. Suddenly he's wiping squads solo.
Same model, same datasheet, same points.

These sorts of things are very important to know, because if you don't know then they can easily bite you in the arse and spoil the whole game.
It's always lame losing your favourite unit because you positioned them somewhere you knew they were safe... except for that random rule you didn't know existed.
"Now you know for next time" is super lame, I don't think I ever play the same army twice within a six-month window, there is no next time.


Sorry, but if you don't go over each others army before the game and get hit by surprise from regular wargear options, that is on you. "This guy wrecks gak in melee and got 12" fly movement" is enough as an explanation. It doesn't matter what the details are like that you get 3 extra attacks for the Teeth.
Not something I would agree is a "Gotcha!" thing in the first case, by the way.

I don't get your second point. You change your army all the time, but your opponent still plays the same faction, no? So you know their stuff for the next time.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 12:46:19


Post by: Blackie


 kodos wrote:
losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more


I get it but reading stuff from other codexes an mastering it takes time, even in older editions. I'd rather play a few games without any knowledge and learn from those games, if time is basically the same. Which is actually what I do.

And people don't lose because they didn't know a super powerful combo; if they have that impression it's because the game was close, but previous mistakes, opponent's ability and dice rolling also played a part, the biggest one. I mean you don't really lose a game for a gotcha moment, you lose some points maybe or the gotcha moment contributes to the final loss. But it's not like there are super powerful combos that if a player is caught off guard the game is immediately ruined.

Teeth of Terra guy is a perfect example of that, he can wipe a (weak) squad solo, but that doesn't ruin a game and the opponent immediately learns how to counter it. It's not like not knowing what the relic does allows the model to wipe an entire army while being unstoppable . Besides, if a model has a relic sword that should be a hint about the character being a melee specialist.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:09:35


Post by: The_Real_Chris


I think if i just played 40k it wouldn't be so bad, but occasional forays into other games don't do the game experience any favours. Worst was last week play Epic A first then trying to do 40k, not only was i getting the rules all wrong once I was playing correctly I couldn't help but feel a little let down at what was important in the game and what made things swing one way or the other.

I don't mean this in a bad way, more I think to enjoy 40k you have to be really immersed and invested in it now.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:11:25


Post by: kirotheavenger


A chainsword actually indicates they a cheap character there for the buffs.

A 40k character can have a lot of moving parts, there's not really time to explain in detail what each individual unit does.
Some surprise abilities are a bit annoying but not gamechanging.
Others, more so.
Where do you draw the line? How strongly do you impress upon someone the importance of any given ability?
There's also strategems which have very little to do with what's on the table, which ones of those do you need to divulge?

Space Marines were probably a terrible example because everyone is fairly familiar with them.
A Dark Eldar player briefly skimming through what relics they have means nothing to me because I don't know what any of them do.

This has always been a problem with 40k, but it's only gotten worse, a lot worse, over time.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:25:32


Post by: a_typical_hero


 kirotheavenger wrote:
A chainsword actually indicates they a cheap character there for the buffs.

A 40k character can have a lot of moving parts, there's not really time to explain in detail what each individual unit does.
Some surprise abilities are a bit annoying but not gamechanging.
Others, more so.
Where do you draw the line? How strongly do you impress upon someone the importance of any given ability?
There's also strategems which have very little to do with what's on the table, which ones of those do you need to divulge?

Space Marines were probably a terrible example because everyone is fairly familiar with them.
A Dark Eldar player briefly skimming through what relics they have means nothing to me because I don't know what any of them do.

This has always been a problem with 40k, but it's only gotten worse, a lot worse, over time.

Exactly, that's why I say a short summary is enough. "That unit is long range anti-armor, that is close combat against chaff, that one is just there to swoop in and do actions, ... ".
You don't need to know the details on every single wargear item, Warlord, faction and subfaction trait and abilities.

I draw the line where I assume that you don't know better or you might not see the obvious error. Things that I would play differently, if I were in their place right now and knew about the strat. "If you shock your Terminators there, I can use a strat to shoot them once with my Eradicators. Are you sure you want to do it?".


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:36:35


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy

or

Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria

Off the top of your head, without consulting Google or a book, what do these Keepers do?

Also, they play incredibly differently in my mono-Slaanesh lists and fulfill different functions... and keep in mind, this is just an 8th edition book plus Psychic Awakening.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:43:28


Post by: Freakazoitt


They tried to make easy and understandable rules in previous edition ... and then again they did rolls after rolls to make more pointless roll, vague rules and so on. Some flaws like tracking hit points for the model. Keep everything in your head? Impossible. I draw and cross out rounds on a paper, but this is an improvisation almost homeruling.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:50:25


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I don't even know what the people are arguing about anymore.
9th core rules? After one game of 8th I knew the base rules better than after 5 years of playing 6th/7th Edition. The most complex part of the rules are "frequent rules interactions" or how it's called, which they added at the end and of which some would benefit from proper USRs, but okay.

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...
And don't get me started with Formation rules in 7th, at least with stratagems these are limited to few Boni and not like: yeah, this part of my army got these 5 special rules for free because I took the units I wanted to take anyway. And these other three units have this combo.
I'll give you that the stratagem system often makes every unit potent to do things you might not expect. Even a base CSM squad might end up attacking twice with+1 to wound while you expected them to be nothing more than a nuisance. But that's the game and they're superhuman CC Killers blessed by Khorne, what did you expect? and you can always ask your opponent about stuff like that like you always had to. If you're not in Karols group your opponents won't be sociopaths that lie to you.
Those Wulfen in 7th killed your whole army on their own once, but after that you knew you had to point every single weapon at them turn 1.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 13:53:49


Post by: Sim-Life


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't even know what the people are arguing about anymore.


Well of course you don't because the people trying to claim that the game is fine are trying to frame the opinions of multiple different people as a singular entity to make the people complaining about 40k's scattershot rules seem irrational and incoherent.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:02:53


Post by: Grimtuff


Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...


False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:05:18


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy


Realm-racer - moves faster
Lighning Flayer - fights better
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Bewitching Aura - you fight worse
Sinistrous Hand - gains wounds based on melee damage
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Jewel of Excess - casts/denies better
Symphony of Pain - psychic debuff: you fight worse
Hysterical Frenzy - psychic buff: unit fights again

=> That guy over there is a fast melee monster. I can debuff your stuff and buff my stuff. The most powerful things are fight first and to fight again in my psychic phase.


Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria


Blessing of the Dark Prince - more tanky against shooting
Quicksilver Reflexes - more tanky
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Celerity of Slaanesh - moves faster
Shining Aegis - more tanky
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Forbidden Gem - Gotcha item that needs explanation
Delightful Agonies - more tanky buff for another unit
Phantasmagoria - debuff your moral

=> That guy is overall still a fast melee monster, but less than the guy before. He is way more tanky. The two things you should know is that I get -1 to wound from shooting and got a mean relic that works like this.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:11:35


Post by: kirotheavenger


Brief synopsis only gets you so far.
"These are poxwalkers, they're just chaff"
Pretty good synopsis right?
"Now I'm popping this strat so these Poxwalkers are throwing out mortal wounds"

"These are Assault Intercessors, they're chaff-killers, I'm sure you're aware that marines get melee buffs in turn 3 onwards"
Do you think that's a fair synposis?
"Now I'm going to use this strat so my Assault Intercessors get their melee buff NOW (turn 1 or 2), which makes them AP2 and I'm going to shred your elite unit"


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:22:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


a_typical_hero wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy


Realm-racer - moves faster
Lighning Flayer - fights better
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Bewitching Aura - you fight worse a totally different type of "fight worse" from Symphony of Pain; -1 attack in an aura is much worse than -1 to-hit on the closest unit; especially when stacked with the Aura of Acquiescence stratagem that further debuffs your attacks to -2, minimum 1. Doesn't work in shooting though, which Symphony of Pain does
Sinistrous Hand - gains wounds based on melee damage but only against non-vehicle models, otherwise it can't regain wounds; and it must slay at least 1 or else it doesn't heal anything; it doesn't actually matter how much damage it does. Kill 1 or more non-vehicle model(s) = heal.
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Jewel of Excess - casts/denies better
Symphony of Pain - psychic debuff: you fight worse also works on shooting, not just fighting, and a totally different type of "fight worse" from Bewitching Aura; only works on the closest unit
Hysterical Frenzy - psychic buff: unit fights again but only in my psychic phase after I have gotten the power off, not in the fight phase subsequently or anything like that

=> That guy over there is a fast melee monster. I can debuff your stuff and buff my stuff. The most powerful things are fight first and to fight again in my psychic phase. fighting again in my psychic phase is rather useless unless I have some other way of making you not fall back, since it has to be in combat through your turn. Bewitching Aura is far more powerful than Hysterical Frenzy and is quite the gotcha when paired with "Aura of Acquiescence", which is also a -1 attack aura, stacking to -2 attacks. Too bad you didn't know everything this model could do, eh?


Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria


Blessing of the Dark Prince - more tanky against shooting and totally immune to weapons Strength 3 or lower, which is significant against certain horde armies (i.e. Imperial Guard, Termagants with Str 3 guns, Skitarii). So outright immune, sometimes, not just tanky.
Quicksilver Reflexes - more tanky But does not stack with Warp Surge, which can be used to 4++ another Daemon unit. But you'd only know that if you had access to the Daemon FAQ, otherwise it DOES stack with Warp Surge for a 3++
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Celerity of Slaanesh - moves faster
Shining Aegis - more tanky
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Forbidden Gem - Gotcha item that needs explanation yeah, a gotcha.
Delightful Agonies - more tanky buff for another unit [color=red]The Keeper of Secrets can buff itself with this actually, but it doesn't stack with Shining Aegis

Phantasmagoria - debuff your moral

=> That guy is overall still a fast melee monster, but less than the guy before. He is way more tanky. he's about as capable, and actually considerably less tanky, given that healing from the Sinistrous Hand will earn you more wounds back than the Shining Aegis will save on average in a game. The only thing he has that the other Keeper doesn't have access to is -1 to be wounded by shooting attacks. The other keeper's debuffs make it considerably tougher against most threats. In every other way, the other keeper is both Killier and Harder to Kill, except that the relic on this keeper is absolutely obnoxious and requires a non-trivial amount of explanation. The two things you should know is that I get -1 to wound from shooting and got a mean relic that works like this.


A few details that you missed, highlighted in red, that might help you counter these guys. The details matter.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:26:10


Post by: kodos


 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more


I get it but reading stuff from other codexes an mastering it takes time, even in older editions. I'd rather play a few games without any knowledge and learn from those games, if time is basically the same. Which is actually what I do.

it was always there with 40k and it was always the point people complained about with "too complex"

needing a rulebook, codex, WD Article, campaign book etc. to get all the rules to know what the enemy is going to do because learning by playing is only a valid options for those who play a lot

while other games have a different way of doing it and you can play X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone or Kings of War without the need to read all the fractured rules for the opponent army to get what they are going to do


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:36:39


Post by: catbarf


 Blackie wrote:
There's no need to keep up with new rules releases, reading reviews is just a shortcut to gain knowledge. In my opinion playing games is the way to learn rules, including combos from other armies. I don't read every codexes reviews and I definitely don't even take a quick look to codexes from armies I don't play and yet I don't remember experiencing that many gotcha moments so far. Things I ignored, that I would have handled differently if I had the knowledge, avoiding mistakes? Definitely. A game that was ruined because of that? I never had that feeling honestly.


I can't think of another game that forces me to make those sorts of compromises.

Whenever I played Warmachine, I could glance at my opponent's cards and understand their army. When I play Horus Heresy, my opponent will plop down a unit I'm not familiar with, I ask 'So what do those guys do', and the answer is a combination of wargear I already know plus USRs I already know. When I played Epic I can fit all of my opponent's army rules on a single page, and in BFG each army has a few special rules for weapons but everything else is just on the ship sheet. In Flames of War or Team Yankee the reference cards have all the stats and everything uses USRs. When I play Chain of Command or Bolt Action I already know what everyone does. In 3rd/4th Ed 40K you could learn an army in, like, ten minutes.

It's really just modern 40K where people say it's not complicated, you simply need to give up on knowing an opponent's rules before the game.

 Blackie wrote:
Some people just consider themselves some sort of military strategists and can't accept being caught by surprise or make mistakes as they believe only noobs do that, and shame on you if the opponent is more experienced. It's an attitude that I don't think is appropriate in this context, which is playing a game in a friendly environment (even at tournaments), but it's just my opinion of course.


I don't think that's fair at all, because this is a game of assumed perfect information. I could make you sit there for thirty minutes while I scan your rulebook and take notes on all the stratagems. It's assumed, going in, that you know how the game is played, and that includes the rules for both armies.

A game that wants you to be caught by surprise would be one where information is concealed. Then it doesn't matter how well you know the rules; you don't know the exact strength of a unit because it's hidden from you, not because you don't understand the interplay of a relic with a WLT with a subfaction with a formation bonus.

'More experienced' should mean tactical skills developed through play, not that they know the rules and you don't. Knowledge of the rules isn't mastery of a game system; it should be just the bare minimum to play. If a game is hard to learn, that's generally regarded as a bad thing- 'easy to learn, hard to master' is the goal.

And I mean, it's worth reiterating that this is not just about the complicated mechanics themselves, it's also the poor arrangement of rules that hinders learning. Looking at a unit entry does not tell you what that unit is capable of; you also need to go find their unit-specific stratagems, weapon stats, generally relevant stratagems, applicable subfaction traits, army-wide abilities, and buffs from other units/WLTs/etc before you have a complete picture of what a unit does on the table- and god help you if any of that has been errata'd. I know people who own the codices but exclusively use Wahapedia simply because it's a much better depiction of a unit.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 14:56:17


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.


That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.


If it's laid back an casual, how are there gotchas? Why aren't you asking your opponent? Why isn't he telling you?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:02:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Jidmah wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.


That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.


If it's laid back an casual, how are there gotchas? Why aren't you asking your opponent? Why isn't he telling you?


Because the rules are written that way?

Some games encourage imperfect information built into the system (e.g. Chain of Command, where you deploy "jump off points" rather than units. These represent the front line, so you roughly know the enemy's disposition, but you don't know the precise locations of enemy units ahead of time unless you go find them).

Deploying a unit in that situation in COC isn't a "gotcha", it's a normal part of the rules. The idea is that if you're the attacker, you have to approach JOPs cautiously - set up a base of fire with overwatch, ready to open up on any enemy units springing an ambush. You need to read the terrain, to anticipate where the enemy units are based on his JOP (he can only deploy within a known radius), given that he will deploy in cover rather than in the open. You can use scout teams (a couple guys or an armored car or the like) to approach the JOP and force the enemy to deploy off of it without having to risk your entire assault force, etc. etc.

In this case, the game is BUILT with imperfect knowledge of the battlespace as a deliberate game mechanic, and experience doesn't let you know your opponent's disposition ahead of time simply because you've played a lot - but it does help you read the terrain, understand how to maneuver your 2 man scout team, understand how to set up a base of fire that can cover the likely enemy positions, etc. etc.

A noob player might move their entire assault force (including a tank) up towards JOPs with either an absent or improperly positioned base of fire. This means those units are likely to get ambushed and killed (yes, even the tank).

An experienced player will likely set up a base of fire and a concentration area for his assault force, sending forwards scouting parties/vehicles to test the JOPs under the cover of the tank and base of fire, trying to provoke the enemy into shooting the scouts and revealing his positions before the assault goes in, and covering the scouts to help secure their survival with the platoon's machine-guns and any supporting armor.

The difference isn't knowing the rules. It's in employing the rules that are commonly known.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:07:16


Post by: Jidmah


 Grimtuff wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...


False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.


So, how do you WYSIWYG psychic powers? Or veteran traits? Vows? Sagas? Psybolt ammunition? Extra armor?

There were plenty of non-visible upgrades in past editions of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Brief synopsis only gets you so far.
"These are poxwalkers, they're just chaff"
Pretty good synopsis right?
"Now I'm popping this strat so these Poxwalkers are throwing out mortal wounds"

"These are Assault Intercessors, they're chaff-killers, I'm sure you're aware that marines get melee buffs in turn 3 onwards"
Do you think that's a fair synposis?
"Now I'm going to use this strat so my Assault Intercessors get their melee buff NOW (turn 1 or 2), which makes them AP2 and I'm going to shred your elite unit"


Both are a person intentionally misleading their opponent about the possibilities of their army. This has nothing to do with laid back gaming, but either with a cutthroat attitude or even bad sportsmanship.

That person will find a way to be a donkey even if you memorize their entire codex.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:20:53


Post by: kirotheavenger


It's not intentionally misleading.
If I were to go through the entire capabilities of my army, including all the strats, psychic powers, auras, relics, and combinations there-of that modify those capabilities, we would easily be sat talking about it longer than we would be playing the game.
So you don't do that, you give a brief synopsis that summarises a unit and it's capabilities as best you can.

How would you explain a unit of Assault Intercessors to your opponent? Bearing in mind you need to give an equivalent explanation to every unit in a 2000pt army, and your opponent needs to remember, comprehend, and understand all of that as your barraging them during deployment?

We haven't had a 10 page discussion on 40k being complicated/bloated/whatever you want to call it because the game is simple to understand and explain in thirty seconds.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:22:56


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:


That person will find a way to be a donkey even if you memorize their entire codex.


I do love the "its the player not the game" argument. Protip: if a game enables someone to be a donkey, its the games fault.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:42:32


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A few details that you missed, highlighted in red, that might help you counter these guys. The details matter.

At the same time that you missed my point, you make it for me.

So you are able to give a quick rundown of your two special rules monsters. What is the problem then? We can disagree on the level of detail or what ability / combo you deem noteworthy, but the point is: You don't have to tell your opponent the exact wording and stats of every_single_thing_on_that_unit. Depending on what you are playing against, some details matter more than others. Pure infantry army? Pure melee or only weak shooting? No vehicles that would want to go into melee anyway? And so on.

In addition, the two examples you picked are on one end of the scale. A Space Marine Captain with a Teeth of Terra and The Imperium's Sword is really done with "he is good in melee". That's the other end.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:43:00


Post by: Grimtuff


 Jidmah wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...


False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.


So, how do you WYSIWYG psychic powers? Or veteran traits? Vows? Sagas? Psybolt ammunition? Extra armor?

There were plenty of non-visible upgrades in past editions of 40k.



Nice strawman. If you actually read the codexes of those editions you'll know several of those were exempt from WYSIWYG. It was only all weapons and wargear.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:43:45


Post by: Daedalus81


Slipspace wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.


And it would take you 30 seconds to understand new rules from another army.

When I explain Rituals to someone who hasn't seen them before I say, "I gain points each turn for abilities from extra damage to auto-cast or undeniable. They cost from 4 to 9 points each. Your best way to interact with this rule is to kill my units - these are what each unit provides."

If your opponent doesn't do this then your question is - "How do I stop you from using these abilities?"




Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:45:41


Post by: Grimtuff


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.


That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.


And it would take you 30 seconds to understand new rules from another army.

When I explain Rituals to someone who hasn't seen them before I say, "I gain points each turn for abilities from extra damage to auto-cast or undeniable. They cost from 4 to 9 points each. Your best way to interact with this rule is to kill my units - these are what each unit provides."



That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 15:52:39


Post by: a_typical_hero


I think this problem gets blown up more on a theoretical level, than it is on a practical one.

I play once or twice a week against the same pool of ~10 different (sub)factions.

I read Dakka and Goonhammer and watch the occasional battle report while painting or building stuff.

I'm sure I don't know all the rules of all my opponents, but I'm quite confident I know enough about most units and armies capabilities without going out of my way to prepare for a game.

I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:06:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


a_typical_hero wrote:
I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.


Or who play other games. Going from something like Chain of Command or LOTR or Horus Heresy to 40k is a huge amount of whiplash.

"What this squad?"
"Well, 2x beltfed LMGs with 2 crew, 5x riflemen, one Junior Leader; normal German national characteristics" - got it, I know exactly what all of that means as all the terms and roles are defined in the main rules. I don't need my opponent's army list to know what any of this means. Similarly:

"What this warband?"
"11 men Lead by Easterling Captain, Pike infantry with shields, Fight 4. Phalanx rule means 2 models can Make Way in a fight instead of 1." Got it, everything defined in the rules but there's one special rule to get an exception - which slightly changes an existing MRB rule ("Make Way"). Similarly:

"What is this unit?"
"Terminators with Cyclone Missile Launchers on every model, preferred enemy, Cataphractii plate, Feel No Pain from attached apothecary" - got it. Everything is in the base rulebook, I don't have to buy or know his arcane special sauce to understand this unit.

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds" (i.e. asking how good modifiers are against the reroll)
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:06:19


Post by: Daedalus81


 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.


It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons. Warmachine isn't like that and it requires a ton of reference material. Tables are covered in unit cards.

The allure of Warhammer - the reason it has staying power - is because it provides incredibly diverse factions that people become attached to. When you strip that out you get Kings of War or 9th age.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:11:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.


It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.


The irony is that 40k doesn't actually do that aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons thing that well.

My opponent commented this weekend that "Slaanesh Daemons are just like Tyranids with invulnerable saves" when he saw the monsters + daemonettes list and he isn't really that wrong. The actual "totally off the wall/impossiblewhackyfun stuff" doesn't really have that much support.

It's the Space Marines and Adeptus Mechanicus - you know, humans with tanks and guns (and horses and wings, to be fair to AM) - that have the absolutely crazy rules layering.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:14:59


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other two fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds"
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend


Linebreaker and Hunter-Killer have been removed across the board so far in 9th. Linked Fire is likely destined to be removed.

Additionally, none of the 9th edition codexes reference failed rolls. It is just reroll hits / wounds / psychic test / deny.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:16:37


Post by: Cronch


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
That's nice. Now combine that with all of the other infodumps you have to do.

40k should not be tantamount to a second job to understand it.


It might be easier for people to interact with a WW2 system, because we're all quite familiar with tanks and guns and there's just different levels of them as opposed to aliens, daemons, and impossible weapons. Warmachine isn't like that and it requires a ton of reference material. Tables are covered in unit cards.

The allure of Warhammer - the reason it has staying power - is because it provides incredibly diverse factions that people become attached to. When you strip that out you get Kings of War or 9th age.

Now, if having unit cards would help people in 40K that's worth considering.

No other system I can think of has as much...side dishes to the main meat and potatoes of the rules. A leman russ tank is not inherently any harder to model in game than a WW2 KV1 tank, but most rules for WW2 gameplay focus on what happens on the table- moving, shooting, morale, while in 40k that's just the background noise to Special Rules that kick in when shooting and the Stratagem system which is like magic, but unlike normal 40k magic it uses a second, premium currency to activate.
It'd be like having a card game on top of 40k game that can affect the 40k game, but otherwise exist on a separate level.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:19:57


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

40k:
What's this unit?
"A Fire Prism with Prism Cannon, underbelly Shuriken Cannon, Crystal Targeting Matrix, and Spirit Stones."
"Ok, what does all of that do? None of that is in the main rule book."
-discussion-
"Also you should know it can Linked Fire"
"wait what's that?"
"a stratagem but it requires other fire prisms on the table and they have to shoot the same target but the other ones don't really "shoot" the same target since they don't even have to see it but when I play the stratagem that means the firing unit I played it on doesn't actually fire right now and has to fire at the end of the Shooting Phase but the other two fire prisms linking with it can fire whenever they want but it only applies to the main guns and not the secondaries so the shuriken cannons can shoot something else and also the stratagem gives rerolls to hit and to wound to the fireprisms against the target I chose."
"can you reroll ALL hits and wounds or all FAILED hits and wounds"
"ah feth lemme get my codex and look"

- an actual discussion from this weekend


Linebreaker and Hunter-Killer have been removed across the board so far in 9th. Linked Fire is likely destined to be removed.

Additionally, none of the 9th edition codexes reference failed rolls. It is just reroll hits / wounds / psychic test / deny.


Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 16:46:05


Post by: Nurglitch


You can't forge a narrative without adjectives.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:20:09


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I get the feeling the discussion is mainly about stratagems changing the role of a unit or improving a unit surprisingly. Well, you can explain to your opponent what you have in the pocket, you always had to when playing 40K against someone who's not familiar with your faction. And as usual these are things you learn pretty fast. After one game against 9th edition Necrons I knew Lychguard can kill anything they touch due to some stratagems.
It's just practice. People keep saying 40K is unique in that, I'd say they should try Star Trek Attack Wing (or I assume X-Wing), where your base model only gives you a hint what it can do, while the real strength comes from the equipment.
I do get the complaint about the base rules being pretty light (they always were, just more complicated with no positive effect in earlier editions) but I'm not following the arguments against faction rules and such. I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:26:27


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.


As a narrative player myself, this is something I don't understand and would like explained to me. Why is it hard to be a narrative player if your faction doesn't have special rules? Would you rock up to a table and be like "Nope, this isn't narrative, the 1937 Soviet rifleman model doesn't have enough rules to differentiate it from the 1937 Japanese rifleman model".

It's honestly bewildering that every little subfaction has to have special rules - and not just minor ones, either, but straight up utterly different than any other little subfaction even within the same major faction (e.g. CSM).

It is far more important to me, as a narrative player, that the game be immersive (in that my troops on the table are behaving the way they could be expected to in the same situation in the setting) than it is that they have some extra special super sauce rule collection to make sure they're extremely different from their comrades who are identical in everything except battlefield doctrine.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:39:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.


*shrug* I get it and lots of people will be missing this knowledge, because they haven't been able to experience it due to covid or what have you, so I can't fault them for feeling this way. All I can do is show how things have improved ( Admech book aside, but that's more because they tried to make two sort of distinct armies one cohesive army. It's a complaint I've seen before that didn't bother me, but I get what they were talking about more now. ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.


So much this. DG ( and others ) have never been manifested so well and with such distinction until now.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:43:08


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thing they released all the 9th edition codexes at the same time, then, so that we aren't playing (and therefore having to remember) two separate design paradigms simultaneous-
-oh wait.


*shrug* I get it and lots of people will be missing this knowledge, because they haven't been able to experience it due to covid or what have you, so I can't fault them for feeling this way. All I can do is show how things have improved ( Admech book aside, but that's more because they tried to make two sort of distinct armies one cohesive army. It's a complaint I've seen before that didn't bother me, but I get what they were talking about more now. ).


It's not that I was missing this knowledge, it's that it's irrelevant. All of my armies still exist in 8th edition, which means I have to remember (and my opponents have to remember) the difference between "reroll ALL X" and "reroll all FAILED X".

That still exists in the game, still needs to be remembered, and still needs to be addressed. It's not gone, it's not going anywhere soon (we've seen the roadmap for the next four months and none of my books are on there unless the Imperium one at the end is Imperial Guard and not Custodes or some other Marine Chapter supplement or something). This phenomenon is still definitely contributing to the bloat.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:47:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I've been a CSM player since 5th Edition, I can tell you DG being nothing but a paintjob sucked for a narrative player.


As a narrative player myself, this is something I don't understand and would like explained to me. Why is it hard to be a narrative player if your faction doesn't have special rules? Would you rock up to a table and be like "Nope, this isn't narrative, the 1937 Soviet rifleman model doesn't have enough rules to differentiate it from the 1937 Japanese rifleman model".

It's honestly bewildering that every little subfaction has to have special rules - and not just minor ones, either, but straight up utterly different than any other little subfaction even within the same major faction (e.g. CSM).

It is far more important to me, as a narrative player, that the game be immersive (in that my troops on the table are behaving the way they could be expected to in the same situation in the setting) than it is that they have some extra special super sauce rule collection to make sure they're extremely different from their comrades who are identical in everything except battlefield doctrine.


This unit:
Spoiler:


Fought like this unit, but only sliiiiightly tougher:
Spoiler:


And now this unit is entirely distinct in it's feel from other models of it's type, fights it's own way, and spreads disease:
Spoiler:


Comparing again to WW2 models completely misses the allure of 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


It's not that I was missing this knowledge, it's that it's irrelevant. All of my armies still exist in 8th edition, which means I have to remember (and my opponents have to remember) the difference between "reroll ALL X" and "reroll all FAILED X".

That still exists in the game, still needs to be remembered, and still needs to be addressed. It's not gone, it's not going anywhere soon (we've seen the roadmap for the next four months and none of my books are on there unless the Imperium one at the end is Imperial Guard and not Custodes or some other Marine Chapter supplement or something). This phenomenon is still definitely contributing to the bloat.


Sure, that's fair and I can't expect you to put that aside.



Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:48:57


Post by: kodos


so you need competitive rules to play the narrative in 40k?


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:51:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 kodos wrote:
so you need competitive rules to play the narrative in 40k?


Hmm? No. Competitiveness aside the new Death Guard feel like Death Guard should. That feeling is evocative and it what can drive people's interest.

It's not much different than when I was a kid and I saw some cool miniature and I could envision how it would act in real life as I made pew pew noises.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 17:56:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
This unit:
Spoiler:


Fought like this unit, but only sliiiiightly tougher:
Spoiler:


And now this unit is entirely distinct in it's feel from other models of it's type, fights it's own way, and spreads disease:
Spoiler:


Comparing again to WW2 models completely misses the allure of 40K.


1) Why is "there is a huge amount of minutiate you have to worry about to differentiate roughly similar units" alluring?

2) Those look pretty much the same for me, colors aside. I don't know WHY the lower of the three photos needs to be its own thing - they still have some pretty creepy mutations, and the one guy with the stylized flamethrower looks like the dripping fuel was painted the wrong color. Oh, and there's a good mix of wicked looking melee weapons in both photos. Nothing - outside the color - of the lower unit screams to me "THESE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER UNIT". If you painted the red unit in green, or the green unit in red, I'd be hard pressed to tell a thematic difference at a glance.


Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  @ 2021/08/16 18:01:09


Post by: moreorless


a_typical_hero wrote:
I think this problem gets blown up more on a theoretical level, than it is on a practical one.

I play once or twice a week against the same pool of ~10 different (sub)factions.

I read Dakka and Goonhammer and watch the occasional battle report while painting or building stuff.

I'm sure I don't know all the rules of all my opponents, but I'm quite confident I know enough about most units and armies capabilities without going out of my way to prepare for a game.

I can see that there is a lot to take in for people who play way less often or just started.


Really I tend to think GW's focus has always tended to be on trying to make repeated matchups between the same factions within a small group of friends(or even just two friends) fresh but offering a lot of potential complexity in terms of army construction in a game that ultimately is sposed to be somewhat competitive but also fun.