Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been mulling over why I hate and pretty much have always hated 40k as a game and just why the rumours about 5th edition aren't going to solve that for me when I can play other games I prefer, such as Warmachine and AT-43.

Apart from the stupifyingly huge number of special rules in the codices, I think it boils down to the vast amount of dice rolling for completely untactical and mundane events - such as movement. Looking at the possible changes in 5th edition that they have been contemplating, any hopes that they might throw out all the random dice rolling maguffin are gone.

I mean, look at the way things move. Infantry move 6". Unless some of them move through difficult terrain, in which case roll 2 dice and pick one to see how far they move. The infantry not moving through the difficult terrain also suddenly have to slow down to match them, regardless of their position on the battlefield. This is bull gak, as usual. Random dice rolling, irrational constraints on how far troops move.

My solution? Have difficult terrain slow movement to half, and have it only affect the models passing through it. The squad has to remain in coherency so you can't have the rest of the unit go racing off like mad, but for the love of Mahoney take the randomness out of movement as that is the entire tactical element. This whole guessing at how far things might move removes all the strategy from the game.

And then they have brought back the Run move. Makes sense on one level, because once they removed it they brought in the Fleet of Foot rule to add it back in for other units that needed it (hello Genestealers). Oh but look, it is a random dice roll to see how far you move. So one turn you move 1", another you might move 6". Because yeah, running is like that. And players get to do this in the Shoot phase, so you have to move everything once, then go back around and randomly move a load of units a second time. This is time consuming, and again, makes no rational sense.

My solution? Take away the random roll, take away the two lots of movement nonsense, and just let units move "doubletime" in the movement phase if they don't plan to shoot. Really, so far the rulebook has just been about moving models from A to B, and it is all about rolling dice, stupid limitations, needless timewasting. Strip all that crap out and maybe a 4 turn game won't take 4 hours to play. Plus, you'll always know how far your units can move, and more importantly how far your enemy's units will be able to move. Allow pre-measuring and it becomes more like chess, LotR, Advance Wars, or any other strategy game that actually gets taken seriously in some quarters. No more of the "well they might be able to attack me, depending on that random dice roll".

Score so far, Me 2 - GW 0.

I had hoped also they might go with the alternating turn sequence from LotR, but no hope of that. And I see that difficult terrain still causes a wound that armour cannot save. Doesn't matter if you are a Bloodthirster, a Terminator or just a lowly human, it is an automatic wound (on a failed dice roll). So the terrain scales up in danger depending on who is running through it? Right ...

I had hoped they would combine the armour save and toughness as per LotR as well, but nope, they still have them as two separate things.

And oh noes! The toughness boosters like bikes and stuff still don't count towards "instant death". This has caused so many FAQ issues in the past. I mean, do these things increase toughness or not? It's ridiculous. So you have two Toughness stats, one that you use all the time, and another one which you check for instant death. It just makes me weep.

As much as it's a simulation of anything (i.e. nothing), 40k is a tactical simulation. Based on tactical concerns, which means that the unknowable vagaries of individuals and small units on the board are abstracted. I don't disagree with you that the rules provide some inconsistency for the tactical situation of both players, but I think that's the point.

There are no shortage of other rule sets to explore which handle abstraction differently.

Teaching 40k players to play fantasy of late has made me appreciate how much more complicated (read: richer) fantasy is. 40k is basically 2-3 steps in my mind - 1) build the right armylist; 2) point at the right target / roll enough dice / kill; 3) consider objectives if they exist.

Mind you, I find 40k refreshing and relaxing most of the time, but for a real game I'd go square base any day.

- Salvage

Actually I would argue that random rolling for movement introduces an element of uncertainty that challanges the commander and is far more realistic than geometric games where the troops move perfectly every time.

Tetchy wrote:
Score so far, Me 2 - GW 0.

Entirely random system of winning/scoring > Completely arbitrary and opinion based system of scoring/winning.

Heh. Just kidding. I kind of agree with you, actually. It's why I agree with Boss_Salvage, and find fantasy's rules far more enjoyable.

But you know what's even worse about difficult terrain? Say that piece of terrain is 5 inches away. Common sense says you need but a 1 to get your full move, since you're only moving through one inch of difficult terrain? But NOOOO, you roll a one and you're moving one effin' inch, and the terrain is now 4 inches away. STUPID!

AlexCage wrote:
But you know what's even worse about difficult terrain? Say that piece of terrain is 5 inches away. Common sense says you need but a 1 to get your full move, since you're only moving through one inch of difficult terrain? But NOOOO, you roll a one and you're moving one effin' inch, and the terrain is now 4 inches away. STUPID!

I don't see what's the problem. Move only 5 inches up to, and not INTO, the terrain and you don't roll at all. Is that one inch of extra movement so critical that you're willing to risk rolling for it?

AlexCage wrote:

Tetchy wrote:
Score so far, Me 2 - GW 0.

Entirely random system of winning/scoring > Completely arbitrary and opinion based system of scoring/winning.

Heh. Just kidding. I kind of agree with you, actually. It's why I agree with Boss_Salvage, and find fantasy's rules far more enjoyable.

But you know what's even worse about difficult terrain? Say that piece of terrain is 5 inches away. Common sense says you need but a 1 to get your full move, since you're only moving through one inch of difficult terrain? But NOOOO, you roll a one and you're moving one effin' inch, and the terrain is now 4 inches away. STUPID!

It's been a long time since I've played 40k. Is that really the case?

I guess it wouldn't have affected me fielding Eldar mostly though.

AlexCage wrote:

Tetchy wrote:
Score so far, Me 2 - GW 0.

Entirely random system of winning/scoring > Completely arbitrary and opinion based system of scoring/winning.

Well, I did think of d6-ing it, but thought that was too silly and no-one would believe me...

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually I would argue that random rolling for movement introduces an element of uncertainty that challanges the commander and is far more realistic than geometric games where the troops move perfectly every time.

But my point is that there is sooooo much rolling. Sure there are many random events (or at least uncontrollable ones), but we don;t have to roll for all of them.

Now, lets roll to see if the troops ate enough breakfast this morning, and then roll to see whether or not they remembered to fasten their shoelaces, and tuck their shirts into their pants. Lets see if they've got a migraine, now oooh, that gives them a -1 shoot modifier, so lets offset that against the Sergeant's special rule for Packing Anadin so see whether it counts this time or not...

I mean the level of dice-rolling is totally OTT to the extent it really slows down the game to intolerable levels.

I want to play a game about battles, not about walking across a table... I don't want to spend 2 hours micromanaging every last crumb of detail, but instead concentrate on only the major, important, elements in the combat so that the game is involving and not boring. I want a game that concentrates on "Freem Freem" not "creep creep".

I've found that in AT-43 and in Warmachine. And in LotR/LotOW. Its not that any of those games lack depth, its just that the depth doesn't slow down the gameplay to a snail's pace.

malfred wrote:
It's been a long time since I've played 40k. Is that really the case?

I guess it wouldn't have affected me fielding Eldar mostly though.

Good point about one of the most glaring weaknesses (and strengths, I suppose) of the 40k system:
namely, if you don't like some particular rule in the game, all you have to do is find the army that ignores that rule and play that army.

Well- first buy the models, then play that army.

Tetchy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually I would argue that random rolling for movement introduces an element of uncertainty that challanges the commander and is far more realistic than geometric games where the troops move perfectly every time.

But my point is that there is sooooo much rolling.

You're kidding right? Or do you have any examples besides the ridiculous diatribe about terrain (oh noes! two additional dice per unit! Whenever will I do anything but roll small cubes if plastic!?!) What is the benefit of having units that always march the exact same distance, vs having to take a risk to try and get to the range you want?

Tetchy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually I would argue that random rolling for movement introduces an element of uncertainty that challanges the commander and is far more realistic than geometric games where the troops move perfectly every time.

But my point is that there is sooooo much rolling. ...

...

I mean the level of dice-rolling is totally OTT to the extent it really slows down the game to intolerable levels.

I want to play a game about battles, not about walking across a table... I don't want to spend 2 hours micromanaging every last crumb of detail, but instead concentrate on only the major, important, elements in the combat so that the game is involving and not boring. I want a game that concentrates on "Freem Freem" not "creep creep".

...
.

The most rolling occurs in shooting and assault.

Roll to hit (for 12 guys.)
Roll to wound (for 6 hits.)
Roll to save (for 4 wounds.)

This clunky D666 system is necessary to avoid lookup tables and modifiers.

I agree with Tetchy, but not with this system. -begin pontification-

40k is a tactical, skirmish level game. It deals with individual soldiers in a very granular way. Compare this with... well, let's say Fire and Fury (old Civil War 10mm or so game). There you have units that might have 50 models, but each model is equal to 10 men, and are mounted 4 per 1" base. So, in theory, there are some 500 or more models in most games, representing 5000+ men (ignoring artillery and generals.)
So comparitively, if a unit of infantry moves 12" across open ground, they move 8" through slightly troublesome terrain, and 6" through dense wood (trying to remember this after a decade). It doesn't matter if Pvt. Gimpy McNoleg is slower than Sgt. Gonzales, since they all are in formation, and there is a crap ton of them, on average they are all pretty much the same, and move 6" or whatever.
In 40k, the difference between Sgt Speedy and Pvt McNoleg is relevant, because you have a fairly small number of figures on the board, and each one is demonstrably different. The fact that Brother Ejacule has a plasma gun, while Brother Limpid has merely a bolt pistol matters. Likewise, if platoon A hits a rough patch of terrain while platoon B runs through the woods in a deer trail, it is relevant to the scale.

(I do absolutely agree that figures not moving through the terrain should not be slowed down, however. There is no reason to abstract up like that.)

So to wrap up, yes, you are correct, just for the wrong system. On the scale of 40k, we do care that Sgt. Speedy remembered his pistol, where as in the scale of the Battle of Gettysburg, we don't so much.

Makes me wonder if Epic is worth buying into...

You've got some good points and some not-so-good.

I agree with Bookwrack that rolling for difficult terrain does not slow the game. I play a couple of different games in which difficult or rough ground is half movement when your bases is at least partially within it, and 40k's system is definitely faster. If we had to measure per model for the half distance it would take substantially longer.

I also agree with Kilkrazy that rolling a random distance for movement through difficult ground is an abstraction of certain uncertain elements in combat, and is a feature of the game, not a bug. I like it. Platuan4th made an excellent point about being 6" from the terrain- you can either choose to move up to it, or roll and take the risk. This is a tactical decision based on uncertain factors. To me this is a richer, more interesting choice than the static positions and pattern memorizations of chess.

Dangerous Terrain is a similar abstraction. In my experience it's also not used a great deal. Even when it is, it's a 1 in 6 chance per model. A hero or a bloodthirster is much less likely to incur the danger than a unit of several figures just by the math. Involving armor saves just adds another step and another die roll (oh no, slowing the game more!), without necessarily adding much to the game. If you just save and ignore it, the dangerous terrain becomes less significant and more of a waste of time. As it is, it actually "feels" dangerous. You know what, even if your armor save is good, you're always running a risk with it.

Your best point is about Fleet. Honestly, having to move units twice in the game really stinks when it's a substantial portion of your army. This is part of why horde Tyranids are so rare in tournies now. It's not because Nidzilla is always a better army, but just because it plays so much faster. I agree that 5th would be better served by having the Fleet decision made in the movement phase to save time.

Killkrazy: you are exactly correct about the lack of tables and modifiers etc. I have rules systems that have "summaries" 4 pages long, just for all the tables. Some, like range modifiers etc. are totally worth it. Some are much better dealt with by just rolling dice.

Wehrkind wrote:(I do absolutely agree that figures not moving through the terrain should not be slowed down, however. There is no reason to abstract up like that.)

This is how it worked in 3rd edition. The problem became that if you didn’t roll as high as you wanted, you might choose to just move most of the unit around the terrain, and one token model into it. It looked silly and made difficult terrain less of a factor, as people could retroactively decide to move most of their unit around the feature instead of into it.

So they simplified it in 4th edition and said if you choose to roll, you’re bound by the roll. If you crap out on the dice while your unit is in the open that just means your guys are cautiously approaching the terrain or something.

The only times this really looks odd are in situations where you’re 4”-6” away from the terrain and roll a 1 or a 2. But the odds of that are kind of poor (1/9 chance of a 2 or less on two dice), and honestly, as Platuan4th mentioned, you could have just chosen to move up to your full 6” without entering the terrain. I often do this in games- say my opponent’s unit is hiding behind a wrecked Rhino, and I want to assault them. If my unit is 4”-5” away from the wreck, it makes much more sense for me to use my full 6” to get right up next to the wreck and around the edges, then take a relatively easy roll in the assault phase, then to bother rolling in the movement phase and risk stranding my unit out of assault range.

Yeah Mann. I love the 4th ed. difficult terrain rules because it was pretty much the only way marines could be hampered. Nevermind that all of them have Ld10 and the pseud-fearless ATSKNF, but at least they were able to be slowed down somehow. Doesn't make up for the broken all-Ld10 but it's...something.

Poor Sgt. Centurius is too scared to go into the deep woods.

stonefox wrote:Poor Sgt. Centurius is too scared to go into the deep woods.

Reminds me of the Spooked! rule from the old catachan codex. Man, I loved the crap out of that one, marines blazing away at ghost images in the auspex, nids stopping to smell the exotic local flora, orks razing the jungle because they can, etc

- Salvage

I can see what you mean Mann, I guess I always think more in terms of "ok, I want to move this unit this direction. Damn, rolled low, so they only move X" in that direciton" not so much rolling to see what I get, then deciding. That would be an issue.

I, for one, am much fonder of the idea of known movement. I really hate that difficult terrain slows you to 2d6 take the highest. The fact that it's random takes the tactics out of the game in favor of randomness. I don't really care about the reality or lack there of that it presents. What burns me is that all your carefully laid out plans can be blown by something as simple as one roll that goes wrong and keeps a unit out of position. That is annoying, not fun. It also leads more and more to situations where one die roll decides the game (well if my stealers can get a good difficult terrain roll, a good fleet roll, and another decent difficult terrain roll, I can assault you off the objective and win). I'd much rather see that situation be decided by careful movement and placement of unit than by the luck of the dice. Having set movement rates doesn't turn the game into pattern matching, it turns things into real choices with results and consequences rather than just a random chance to have an effect that may or may not be good enough to accomplish what you want / need.

I would really like to see difficult terrain cut movement down to 4" (3" would work too, but 2d6 take the highest seems to favor higher rates of movement than just half). I'd also like to see running get set at a flat 3" and maybe fleet change run to 6" instead of just allowing you to assault in the assault phase. Nothing in the 5th edition rules has upset me more than the d6 run and the change that made fleet units move just as fast as everyone else. Sure fleet assault units got a bump (comparatively) but non assault units just got their mobility clipped.

Wehrkind wrote:I agree with Tetchy, but not with this system. -begin pontification-

40k is a tactical, skirmish level game.

<SNIP>

So to wrap up, yes, you are correct, just for the wrong system. On the scale of 40k, we do care that Sgt. Speedy remembered his pistol, where as in the scale of the Battle of Gettysburg, we don't so much.

Makes me wonder if Epic is worth buying into...

Well, something like Necromunda with handful of models, I can deal with that level of detail. When I have got 5-10 squads of 5-10 models on the table, plus vehicles and what not, that level of detail gets to be a pain. For me.

And yes, Epic is totally worth buying into! Much, much better system. And none of this IGOUGO crap either for a start!

Phoenix wrote:I, for one, am much fonder of the idea of known movement. I really hate that difficult terrain slows you to 2d6 take the highest. The fact that it's random takes the tactics out of the game in favor of randomness. ...

...

This is an interesting point because in Ancients a lot of players are thinking the opposite. They hate games where a player can be 100% certain that he can move his unit 43mm and know it will be 1mm outside the enemy's charge range and be safe. Because the real world isn't like that, and it just allows a geometric, rules lawyerly style of play to succeed over tactical good sense. That is why some rules have a random dimension to movement, such as the unit can't move as far (or maybe moves further than expected) or else can't organise to make the move needed (a command control roll.)

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there are various views on the subject.

GW could have done a better job on that part of random movement.

Phoenix wrote:I, for one, am much fonder of the idea of known movement. I really hate that difficult terrain slows you to 2d6 take the highest. The fact that it's random takes the tactics out of the game in favor of randomness. I don't really care about the reality or lack there of that it presents. What burns me is that all your carefully laid out plans can be blown by something as simple as one roll that goes wrong and keeps a unit out of position. That is annoying, not fun. It also leads more and more to situations where one die roll decides the game (well if my stealers can get a good difficult terrain roll, a good fleet roll, and another decent difficult terrain roll, I can assault you off the objective and win). I'd much rather see that situation be decided by careful movement and placement of unit than by the luck of the dice.

But dice average out. In the example you gave, your unit of Stealers has three rolls; not just one, and thus the odds are lower that one bad roll will screw you. Unless, of course, you're starting the whole thing 16"-18" away from your target, in which case your odds are low. I actually DO like this, and don't find it AT ALL incompatible with tactical play. If the Tyranid player were a better player he'd have moved his unit a turn earlier, and would be (on average) 9.5" closer, making it much easier. And if he didn't think ahead and his stealers wind up having to cross 17" in one turn, he's got to get lucky, and there is drama and excitement in that. Part of tactics is also setting yourself up to maximize your odds and minimize the chance of being screwed by unexpected factors.

Phoenix wrote:Having set movement rates doesn't turn the game into pattern matching, it turns things into real choices with results and consequences rather than just a random chance to have an effect that may or may not be good enough to accomplish what you want / need.

I completely disagree. The choice is equally "real" whether the odds of success are guaranteed or uncertain. Would you say it's dumb to resolve combats with dice? Why shouldn't the genestealers just automatically kill the unit they assault when they make contact, like in Chess?

In real combat you don't KNOW if you can cover the open ground between two buildings before the enemy shoots you. In good dramatic fiction and movies, your uncertainty makes things exciting. If you know exactly what's going to happen, it's boring. IMO games which have exactly set movement distances and in which you know the distances involved (either by premeasuring or by counting spaces, like on a chessboard) are less exciting and less realistic. They lend themselves to a more exacting, chess-like play experience, which while certainly a valid type of game and capable of giving lots of tactical depth, is IMO less fun. 40k is fun and interesting for so many people partially because of all the dice, the suspense of rolling, and a similar excitement to gambling, only without losing all your money (or at least getting cool models in trade for it).

Phoenix wrote:I would really like to see difficult terrain cut movement down to 4" (3" would work too, but 2d6 take the highest seems to favor higher rates of movement than just half).

How does the lower movement rate work if you start outside the terrain?

Kilkrazy wrote:This clunky D666 system is necessary to avoid lookup tables and modifiers.

Only because the tables that this system does use are easy to memorise. There are easier ways to do it, that don't involve a counter-intuitive save after the model has already been wounded...

Warmachine (unless it's changed at some point in the last few years), D&D Minis and Star Wars use the much easier 'roll a die, add your attack score, if the total beats the target's defence it's a hit' system... which actually does avoid the need for tables.

I prefer the Silhouette system of rolling a die, subtracting the defense (either a roll or set number), and multiplying the result by the effect of the weapon. The product is then compared to the target's armour, and after that it depends on the level of detail you want if there's tables or not.

What it does mean is that you can represent the difference between accurate fire and inaccurate fire, and at least four different levels of damage, all in a single roll (one die, or multiple dice and selecting the highest/lowest/etc).

You don't really get that kind of integration in Warhammer except when rules like Gauss and Rending are implemented and those are very ad hoc.

Heya Nurglitch...Silhouette is a game? I haven't heard of it personally. Just by reading what you said it sounds more complicated then any system I've ran into so far. I'm sure it's easy once you use it, but on paper (or monitor, so to speak) it just seems wacky.

Silhouette is the core uber-system that Dream Pod 9's games use. Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, Gear Krieg, and a few other RPG and Wargame settings all sued variants of it, albeit tweaked to the specific genre.

In practice I like it, and I think it's pretty elegant. before the most recent release, Heavy Gear Blitz, it had an issue that there were a LOT of modifiers to resemble. You had (as a base) fire control, maneuverability, range, weapon's accuracy, speed of the target AND of the firing platform, and probably a few others I've forgotten. Blitz greatly simplified this with little sacrifice in 'functional' complexity.

Still, the core system is elegant. Attacks are resolved with two die rolls. (In the older versions, damage can involve chart lookups, but let's not dwell on that.) It's an opposed roll. The neat thing is that the difference between the two rolls is the 'margin of success' or 'margin of failure' and can be used to express how well an action succeeded: 1 point MoS means you barely hit, while 8 points means you really trashed someone. (8 points is unlikely, but if a stationary sniper targets a broad side of a barn it could happen.)

Damage is not random. It's the MoS multiplied by the damage multiplier of the weapon, which is then compared to armor.

The net result is that good pilots hit and damage better than poor pilots.

Blitz takes this further, as it moves from a hard ammo tracking to a system similar to games like Necromunda. In this case, you have the weird but neat aspect that good pilots apparently use less ammo as they are less likely to roll a fumble (all 1s)... This seemed weird at first, but now I kind of like it, as it represents veteran pilots using short, controlled bursts while rookies fire away merrily.

Another aspect of Blitz that would appeal to 2nd edition players is that, yes, it does have a form of Overwatch. In fact, it's almost the default state for units. Note that it avoids turtling as units standing still are generally dead due to the above system.

But I digress...

insaniak wrote:Only because the tables that this system does use are easy to memorise. There are easier ways to do it, that don't involve a counter-intuitive save after the model has already been wounded...

The BS table in 40k is a definite clunky relic of the game's past. From a new player's POV, it's a single-axis table that is used to look up a number that never changes. So, basically, GW COULD have jsut said "OK, the BS score will be replaced in new books with some other acronym. If we use the new acronym, it's the number you need to hit, instead of subtracting it from 7 first...

Although that does mean you'd have one stat that you wanted low, which would also be clunky.

insaniak wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This clunky D666 system is necessary to avoid lookup tables and modifiers.

Only because the tables that this system does use are easy to memorise. There are easier ways to do it, that don't involve a counter-intuitive save after the model has already been wounded...

...

Yes, I agree.

The thing is, 40K is basically an adaptation of WHFB, which itself was published over 25 years ago and was far from state of the art at that time.

I have always held the theory that GW knocked off the rules quickly and simply and were surprised by their success, then could not afford to revise them extensively. For all the editions, the core stat line and so on have barely changed.