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.

Bunker wrote:

PieceMaker wrote:You shouldn't need to read more than 1 book to play a game.

Dungeons and Dragons called. They say they've been too busy proving you wrong for the past 25 years to properly address what you just said, but they want you to know they're thinking about you and to say what's up.

Technically if you want to play D&D you need the DMG and the Player's Guide. (Or whatever these books are called in the latest edition. The other stuff like Fiend Folio and Monster Manual are optional extras.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:My only problem with the fluff in Codices is with the new IG dex, and how they've replaced all the special rules, wargear options, and points values for standard units with overly long fluff entries. Don't get me wrong - I love the fluff, but when I have to flip to the back of the book for the actual INFO on a unit when it's entry is at the start of the Army List section, it's pretty ing annoying.

Other than that organizational failure of a dex', I find the game and the fluff in the books to be quite well laid-out.

SM codex is as bad.

If you want to think about a Dreadnaught, you need to refer to three different sections for the base options, points, and weapon stats.

Hi all.
If you think about it, the GW devs writing the rule books and codex/army books expect the reader to be taught how to play the game build an army in a GW store!

Most other games I play take about 1/2 an hour to an hour to read and understand completley.Because the writer knows thier written words are all the players have to make sense of it all.

Comparitively the 40k rule set is absolutley awfull in terms of clarity and efficiency.

Why use one simple method and two pages of straight forward rules , when 40k can cover exactly the same simple interaction with 3 or 4 systems spread across 13 to 15 pages of rules!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:If you think about it, the GW devs writing the rule books and codex/army books expect the reader to be taught how to play the game build an army in a GW store!

That would make sense if there was GW stores everywhere. It's just not the case.

The fluff is great and by far the strongest part of the game.

The problem, and I agree with the OP here, is the writing style. Too often, a simple rule is not simply stated but written into a number of paragraphs together with the background for the rule and some explanatory text - none of which is clearly marked as such.

The other problem is that 40K is inherently a complex system - almost everything is a special case or an exception, the core rules do not cover sufficient cases. This is a historical problem though as the 40K rules were based on WHFB with extra bits grafted on.

40K is fairly simple though clunky in its core rules. The complexity arises through the numerous individual special rules in the codexes.

For example, look at the oodles of bits of wargear and stuff available to SMs, such as adamantium cloaks, master crafted weapons and armour, purity seals, special purpose ammo, the Machine Spirit in a Land Raider, the Rhino self-repair rule.

Every one of those items steps outside the core statline and USR system.

Hi all.
So apart from lazy writing by the devs, not writing rules to cover the game play, and writing the rules and fluff together in a confusing way,the 40k rules are great!

Dark,
Yes, it is wrong for the GW devs to think everyone will be taught how to play in a GW store, but its how they justify such lazy writing.(And lack of proffesional editing and proof reading, aparently.)

AFAIK 40k is the only rule set with 23 exceptions to the basic rules, in the main rule book!Concidering the very simple game play of 40k, this is awful.IMO.

It is possible to include special abilities without writing exclusive rules for every case.
IF the characteristics and game mechanics are the most suited for the game play.....ahhh there is the main problem with 40k

TTFN
lanrak.

ph34r wrote:Nope. No idea what you are talking about. I wish that codexes had more fluff in them.

You don't need to read any fluff to know how the rules work. Get the rulebook and a codex. Read the rules parts. Done!

Regardless of how many or few fluff there is i would like it to be clearly separated from actual rules.
Print them in another layout, font, color, background or whatever, a seperate section, ...
Anything is better than their current practice of starting every rule with one or more lines of fluff, without clear typographic distinction between the two, and someone will invariably try to use as rule at some point in time.

rules "hidden" in the fluff seems like a good idea to me, if you know your codex better you are going to play better. I always enjoy the games with newer players where you hear "Burnas are power weapons? oh gak!" It's also suppose to be what helps learning a new army fun. you spent $20 on your codex so read it.

I'd just like to see Codi return to the way they were written in 3rd and 4th Ed - a minor Fluff section, an army list that fully details all units (points values, stats, special rules, and wargear options), an armoury, a faction 'special mission', and then a large fluff section in the back. There. You learn a wee bit from page one before getting into the actual rules, then it's purely rules for the next 20-25 pages, and then lastly abig fluff section in the back, so that if you actually felt like learning the stories as most of us do, you can keep reading past the rules.

That's what I miss about 3rd and 4th ed. The Codi were better laid out IMHO (At least for those that HAD a relevant Codex for that edition )