Over complication slowing the game?

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.

**Cyel**

A good, elegant game should achieve interesting, complex game states with simple rules.

WH40K achieves simple game states with complex rules.

You mention that you like depth of 40k. But it's all width, no depth. Want depth? ?Try something less grounded in the design philisophy straight from the 80's

**Sarigar**

vict0988 wrote:
I made a thread discussing it a while ago. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/785378.page

GW have improved some aspects of the game that were slowing things down. Choosing which unit to buff with your 10 different buffs is at least a choice, rolling FNP on Blightlords was not.

The change to auto-wound on hit rolls of 6 is a really neat change in the new AdMech codex. You roll 10 6s, 10 5s... You re-roll the 1s for your character aura. Now you take out the 1s and 2s, roll to wound for the 3s, 4s and 5s and just let the 6s sit, it is very easy.

AdMech holy orders and Doctrina Imperatives should just have been crusade content, crusaders love extra rules but matched play should not be that complicated. The answer to Holy Order WL traits being OP is not to give access to WL traits and Holy Order bonuses at the same time.

Sarigar wrote:
I'm learning a new 9th edition army (Necrons), but played a lot of 9th edition with Craftworld. The Necrons feel much more complex to play based on the command phase, among other phases. It does help me appreciate newer player challenges and to ensure I can help them through any games I play with them.

The game definitely isn't meant to be picked up by two people that have never played the game and then learn it together. Command Protocols being automatic if you make the simplest possible army is silly, you should have to jump through a few hoops to get them.

Personally, I think Command Protocols and other Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines should be mission specific.

Have a mission telling the narrative of a Necron Tomb reawakening and going through different protocols to fend off invaders, give the Necrons Command Protocols and the invaders something to make up for the difference in terms of easier to score missions or extra points or something like that.

Have the mission give the player playing against Salamanders a reason to take both lightly armoured hordes and heavily armoured vehicles, now melta and flamers become neat and the Salamanders player can feel good about their fluffy weapon choices in that mission.

I've played every edition and while I enjoy 9th, the new armies have quite a bit more in built complexity which does not make for a quicker game. I don't recall GW stating they were trying to speed up the game, but remember some playtesters making that claim in videos when the game was being released. After nearly a year, I don't see the game as being any quicker to play. It seems like the time consuming aspects of the game got shifted into different game mechanics.

Why would the game not be intended for two new players to learn the game together? That idea is counter to expanding a customer base, intent on making more money. Is it easier with one person familiar with 40K? Yes. Is the game designed with that in mind? I've yet to read any publication stating such.

The Command Protocol is unnecessarily cumbersome in my opinion. The Admech mechanic (forgot its name) of just picking one and can't pick it again is much easier and still offers the player choices.

**Kanluwen**

Doctrina Imperatives got stripped out of the Skitarii codex to be gatekept as stupid Stratagems.

Them being back is literally the least that GW could do for how badly they mishandled that design element. Couple with the asinine restriction on special weapons now and it shows the wild disconnect between players, designers, and playtester groups.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to screw with those special weapons counts on Skitarii needs a slap upside the head. If the problem was, as always, plasma being too good...maybe it's time to really sit down, shut up, and think about why it stands out so heavily across factions.

**Sim-Life**

I find it kind of funny that people are trying to defend the rules bloat by saying they just have a notepad of reminders. 40k is a casual game for most people and always has been, it shouldn't need people to have to take notes (or in the case of one of my groups players, a spreadsheet and checklist). People play 40k to roll dice and have some laughs with their friends, not to stop to look at extra documentation or flick through their codexes every time they want to shoot at the opponent.
Most of the games of 9th I've watched in person involve at least 1/3 of the game time consisting of people looking up what weapons, stats or rules a squad has on their phones.

**Kanluwen**

Something that I really wish GW did for 40k is the warscroll/datasheet cards that we get in AoS.

They really do make a big difference, in my experience, as having handy reference makes a a lot of the "your thing does what now?!" moments irrelevant.

**SemperMortis**

bullyboy wrote:
I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

I'll be honest, i played against 2 Ad mech armies in my recent tournament and dear lord in heaven above does their turn take a ridiculous amount of time. I had more than 2x as many models on the table as him and it took me less time to do my turn

**Sarigar**

SemperMortis wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

I'll be honest, i played against 2 Ad mech armies in my recent tournament and dear lord in heaven above does their turn take a ridiculous amount of time. I had more than 2x as many models on the table as him and it took me less time to do my turn

Does player familiarity with a new codex play a factor in this? For, there is a big difference in my speed of play with my Craftworld (70+ 9th edition games played) vs Necrons (3 games played).

**Sim-Life**

Kanluwen wrote:
Something that I really wish GW did for 40k is the warscroll/datasheet cards that we get in AoS.

They really do make a big difference, in my experience, as having handy reference makes a a lot of the "your thing does what now?!" moments irrelevant.

I honestly don't know why every tabletop minis wargame doesn't have physical stat card. Playing Malifaux and Warmahordes is so much faster and easier with them.

**Pancakey**

The modern design of 40k is removing all depth and replacing it with layers upon layers of complexity.

How many words are dedicated across all books to basically say “add +1 to your hit roll”?

**DarkHound**

Sim-Life wrote:
I find it kind of funny that people are trying to defend the rules bloat by saying they just have a notepad of reminders. 40k is a casual game for most people and always has been, it shouldn't need people to have to take notes (or in the case of one of my groups players, a spreadsheet and checklist). People play 40k to roll dice and have some laughs with their friends, not to stop to look at extra documentation or flick through their codexes every time they want to shoot at the opponent.
Most of the games of 9th I've watched in person involve at least 1/3 of the game time consisting of people looking up what weapons, stats or rules a squad has on their phones.

You can definitely just play the game casually if you know your armies. Maybe you forget a rule here or there, who cares? You may have rose tinted glasses for older editions, because you still needed your codex on hand to look stuff up then. Particularly in 2nd.

Pretty much every up and coming tabletop game I've seen in the last couple years has included stat cards with all the rules for their units. The fact is any game plays faster and simpler if you have reminder cards. Having a cheat sheet doesn't make it any less casual, you already spend time doing all the other prep. And once you have one, then the game gets a lot easier to play (more casual?).

I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

**Sim-Life**

DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

**AnomanderRake**

DarkHound wrote:
...I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

Progressive scoring makes the game a little deeper once you've gotten past the vast gulf between good models/Codexes and bad models/Codexes. If you're playing models you like rather than what's good it's much easier to have lost during list-building than it was in past editions, which I think makes the game much shallower.

**DarkHound**

Sim-Life wrote:
DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".
40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

**Jidmah**

DarkHound wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".
40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"
It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

**Sim-Life**

DarkHound wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".
40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"
It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

Thats a complicated way to say you killed stuff then moved up to take objectives. You didn't actually refute my argument or back up yours.

You said secondaries are more dynamic but scoring them is still just a matter of not being killed as much as the other guys. When I think of dynamic I think of stuff like pushing models out of zones or clever positioning and model combos to avoid/enable killing the warcasters in Warmachine or using fast models designed for speed and avoiding damage to place scheme markers in Malifaux. What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have? Nothing. Because to score it needs to be able to kill whatever is standing near the objective. If it can't do that its worthless. Thats why every model in 40k is rated by "how well can this kill stuff?" or "how well can this makes stuff kill stuff better?" and sometimes "how well can this NOT be killed by stuff?" (usually the tie breaker if there are two units that kill stuff equally well) . There is almost no other metric because no other aim exists in 40k.

**AnomanderRake**

Jidmah wrote:
...I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

Pretty much. I've played about five actual games of 9th, and the thing that's convinced me it's time to quit playing with GW's rules was that when I asked people why I got steamrolled the answer was pretty universally "you bought the wrong minis, go buy a new army of minis you don't like or wait months or years for a new army book and pray GW has noticed that your models are useless and need fixing, and then you're allowed to participate." If I can make the game not work by buying minis outside of whatever narrow subset of models the game does work for I think I'm going to accuse the game of not working. The game works for balanced matchups, but the subset of minis you can use to make a balanced matchup is pretty small.

(I played a lot more of 8th, and while I don't like 8th much either because of the level of abstraction I wasn't steamrolled because I bought the wrong minis anything like as much until SM2.0 came along.)

**Sim-Life**

Jidmah wrote:

I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

I would say our boards have an above average level of terrain but not so much that its constricting. There us never a clear line from one side to the other and often the largest open space (if there isn't a simple barricade or something it) is about 1" square, just to keep things interesting. But hey, just go and keep making baseless accusations of a group of very veteran 40k players. I'd say collectivly we have about 100 years experience in the hobby but sure, we just have bad board set ups.

**Jidmah**

Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.

**yukishiro1**

GW likes width over depth, width sells new rules supplements and promotes churn.

If you look at the new AOS 3.0 rules, there's even more bookkeeping in the hero phase (their version of the command phase) than there is in 9th edition. It's clearly something they think is a positive, not a negative. Give the player a bunch of "choices" to make (that usually aren't really much of a choice at all as there is a clearly optimal choice in almost every circumstance) and it creates the illusion of depth, whether there actually is any or not.

The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

**The Red Hobbit**

yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

**PenitentJake**

yukishiro1 wrote:

The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system.

I'm going to guess it's because 40k outsells Lord of the Rings by 10, 15 or even 20 times.

Edit: Not to invalidate your point at all- just in terms of raw numbers, if you looked at the annual balance sheet, you'd assume 40k was doing just fine and probably that LOTR needed work.

**yukishiro1**

Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

**Sim-Life**

Jidmah wrote:
Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/731663.page

Here's a thread of batreps from 8th one of our group did. The level of terrain is still about the same for 9th but he hasn't be writing reports so much, feel free to critique our terrain set ups.

**Blastaar**

Pancakey wrote:
The modern design of 40k is removing all depth and replacing it with layers upon layers of complexity.

How many words are dedicated across all books to basically say “add +1 to your hit roll”?

Far too many words, in tortured paragraphs. At the least, they could use profiles and keywords again.

Reading the war scrolls for Dominion and the 3.0 "core" rules, I was overwhelmed by how boring it is. Everything boils down to modifiers to hit, to save, to cast, rerolls, running and charging, mortal wounds, etc. That's 40k as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

LOTR SBG is not marketed remotely as vigorously as 40k and AOS. Nor does it receive new releases as frequently.

Sad. LOTR is a fantastic game- one I do not have opponents for in my area. :(

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Red Hobbit wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

LOTR alternates phases. Heroes have a variety of Heroic Actions they can make, like challenging an enemy hero (although this mechanic is non-functional RAW

) Heroic Shoot, allowing warriors to shoot out-of-sequence, Heroic Move to move out-of-sequence, and so on.

Magic is rare and powerful. Buffs, rebuffs, blasts that knock warriors back, possibly into an obstacle or off a ledge.

Monsters have unique abilities, like grabbing and throwing an enemy, trampling through enemies, etc.

Heroes have 3 special resources: Might, Will, and Fate. Might points allow Heroes to reroll dice for duels, attacks, and other things. Will points are expended to resist magic, or to cast spells. Fate can be expended to prevent wounds.

Heroes often have their own unique abilities.

Terrain matters. Warriors gain bonuses when defending from behind a wall, can climb and jump by taking appropriate tests.

**yukishiro1**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

I'm not an expert by any means myself. But the short version is that LOTR's rules system is really easy to learn, but hard to master, because the decision points are more about what to activate when as opposed to what weird gotcha special rule to spring on your opponent. The system is very tight in the sense that units don't tend to have a lot of weird bespoke special rules of the type that characterize AOS or 40k. Stuff pretty much just does what it says on the tin. The strategy comes not so much from leveraging wombo combos, but more from how you position and engage, and how you use your heroes, who feel like real heroic individuals thanks to special resources only they can use, not just a stat brick. A lot of the strategy in the game comes from deciding when to use these limited resources your heroes have, because they can do quite dramatic things that can turn a game on its head if used correctly. There is a lot of depth in all the systems - for example, smart movement can allow you to block off areas of the board with much greater impact than it has in 40k, and the way combat works is really interesting in that the losing model is forced backwards, which again can do quite dramatic things re: positioning on the battlefield (and with dramatic impacts if a model can't back away). Add to all this a semi-alternating activation system (player with priority moves, then opponent proves, priority player shoots, then opponent shoots, whereas combat is a contested roll-off so it's not like one player's model strikes first and then the other strikes back, it happens together).

Someone who plays the game more regularly can probably give a more in-depth answer.

**The Red Hobbit**

Thanks for both your answers, sounds like quite a fun game that doesn't overly rely on special abilities. The heroic resources sound like the best part as well as fun monster abilities like throwing a unit.

I'm curious how the Middle Earth rules when you mention that smart movement can block off areas of the board. I'm guessing that's in reference to reinforcements? If so, how is that different than screening deep strikes like we do now?

Thanks again.

**AnomanderRake**

yukishiro1 wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

I'm not an expert by any means myself. But the short version is that LOTR's rules system is really easy to learn, but hard to master, because the decision points are more about what to activate when as opposed to what weird gotcha special rule to spring on your opponent. The system is very tight in the sense that units don't tend to have a lot of weird bespoke special rules of the type that characterize AOS or 40k. Stuff pretty much just does what it says on the tin. The strategy comes not so much from leveraging wombo combos, but more from how you position and engage, and how you use your heroes, who feel like real heroic individuals thanks to special resources only they can use, not just a stat brick. A lot of the strategy in the game comes from deciding when to use these limited resources your heroes have, because they can do quite dramatic things that can turn a game on its head if used correctly. There is a lot of depth in all the systems - for example, smart movement can allow you to block off areas of the board with much greater impact than it has in 40k, and the way combat works is really interesting in that the losing model is forced backwards, which again can do quite dramatic things re: positioning on the battlefield (and with dramatic impacts if a model can't back away). Add to all this a semi-alternating activation system (player with priority moves, then opponent proves, priority player shoots, then opponent shoots, whereas combat is a contested roll-off so it's not like one player's model strikes first and then the other strikes back, it happens together).

Someone who plays the game more regularly can probably give a more in-depth answer.

Yes and no. How you position and engage, how you pick your fights, keeping your shieldwall in place and positioning it to do what you need it to do, keeping your flanks secure, etc. are very important, but there are absolutely silly wombo-combo lists that can just run over whatever you put in front of them. Aragorn can and will solo armies by himself (which is great for narrative PvE, but less great for PvP), trolls are incredibly hard to do anything to if you don't have specific named heroes, and there are some pretty extreme elf combo lists (the Thranduil death-ball, and the family outing list that uses Elrond and Lindir to Wrath every turn, with Arwen for backup if Elrond's doesn't go off) that I've never found an effective counter to.

LotR can be one of GW's best-written games if you have a friendly environment and people aren't too attached to getting to use specific named characters in every game, but in a tournament setting it can be just as bad as any other GW game.

**Galas**

I disagree. All heroes including Aragorn can be played agaisnt even if you don't have heroes that can go toe to toe with them, and no matter how powerfull a tool is, if used badly, like Sauron or the Balrog, it won't make the impact it should.

The same goes for monsters. Yeah there are some lists like Gallawhir carryng the Mirror of Galadriel to regain full Fate each turn that are more of a broken rule that hasn't been fixed yet , but even competitively it doesnt approachs the levels of AoS or 40k.

At the end of the day, the best part of the LoTR ruleset is that it made playing like playing a total war how you should play without half the rules Fantasy had.

Making a proper cavalry charge from the flank, making a good shield wall or spear wall, using properly your shooting units, is much more satisfactory in LOTR that it was ever in Fantasy, for example, and it has no bonus for flanking, no bonus for attacking reaguard, etc...

**yukishiro1**

Yeah, I wasn't talking about balance so much as the basic structure of the game. It's still a GW game, it's still going to have balance problems.

**Voss**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

Some of that is the setting (and armies). Its a different market, more similar to historicals (in that the game can make things happen wrong)