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.

EDIT : I decided I didn't need my post said. I'm going to retire from this argument.

Pinning, now there's an effect created to benefit MEQs since they're immune or virtually immune.

HI all.
If you want to write a straight forward comprehansive rule set that has intuitive resolution methods and mechanics.
Then you have to maximise game play with the minimum amount of rules.
(Actualy using the mtethods of modifying D6 rolls outlined on pg 2 of the 40k rule book woiuld be a good start!)

Having a statistics as direct analouges of in game performance.
And situational conciderations as modifiers to this, appears to get the most game play for the minimum amont of rules.

40k appears to try to avoid simple maths , (-/+ 1 or 2,) and sustitute a range of exceptions based on poorly percived and written rules.

The most detailed historical games I play use very simple resolution methods , but larger amounts of modifiers to achive 'historical accuracy'.

40k uses the most complicated set of rules I am aware of (more exceptions than actual rules!).To cover the simplest game play.

If you are unable to add or subtract 1 or 2 , from values of 1 to 6, I doubt that table top gaming is for you.
GW PLC realy underestimate the abilities of thier customers IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I don't think its an issue of underestimating player's math skills.

I've played enough RPGs where people have had arguments about what modifier actually applies when that I get why they made all the special rules.

The special rules or at least the simple ones remove math from the issue so that there is less question of what applies and when. By saying Cover Saves are 4+ for everything when in cover you stop people arguing things like, you're model's head can be seen so clearly he isn't really in cover" or "your model ran so I should be able to see the cover moving and there by reduce my cover difficulty".

The Special Rules make these arguements a non-issue as they precisely state when the rule applies as well as how it alters mechanics, modifiers are rarely described in the same detail. At least thats what they try to do, the more long winded Special rules get and the more spread out among books they are the less affective this becomes.