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 have been really happy with the current flow and design change of 40k. I like that the army lists are flexible but not overly complex.

My complaint about 40k in the recent years was that things where a little too fluid. I like a lot of options, but unfortunately in older codexes you see a lot of "no-brainer" choices. The new codexes might not succeed 100 percent, but at least there is an attempt to have units balanced with each other and the factions have a distinctive play style.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

This argument is kind of unfair, because they where damned as soon as they released the Angles of Death Codex in Second Edition.

If it was up to me, all the variant SM chapters would be regulated to PDF downloads, and I am a Dark Angel player.

However, it seems that Eldar, Chaos, and Orks, all have lists that are variable enough to field multiple "themed" competitive lists.

>>Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks.

I did a textual analysis of representative samples of DBA and a couple of other rules sets.

DBA scored over 13 on the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade level test, indicating a level of complexity that is suitable for people with 2-4 years of university. The other rules were about 8.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with the grammar of DBA, but it is too complicated for a lot of readers to understand, because they don't have the required level of education. That does not reflect on the quality of the rule mechanics, but on the way they are explained.

As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major internanal corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

Kilkrazy wrote:As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major international corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

Ahh, yes, Kilkrazy, but you're operating under the false assumption that GW employs editors or even hires them temporarily.

Double post

GW can write rules well -- look at Warmaster Ancients. They simply choose not to bother for 40K.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Coming from the historical end of the hobby also, I have to call you on this. DBx is popular among DBx fans, yes, but it's otherwise regarded as an incredibly poorly written set of rules. Barker-ese is a common line heard to describe the incredibly terse language used in the rulebooks.

I did a textual analysis of representative samples of DBA and a couple of other rules sets.

DBA scored over 13 on the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade level test, indicating a level of complexity that is suitable for people with 2-4 years of university. The other rules were about 8.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with the grammar of DBA, but it is too complicated for a lot of readers to understand, because they don't have the required level of education. That does not reflect on the quality of the rule mechanics, but on the way they are explained.

As for ambiguities, no human language is free of them. 40K has been through 4 editions and still abounds with ambiguities.

I would certainly hope that a major internanal corporation with 30 years experience of writing rules could manage to put out a clearer set than some guy in his garage.

I dont know what that game or that particular method of evaluating complexity, and I know there are exceptions to everything. I thought it was worth mentioning that most of the people Ive played who are better at wargames than me aren't college graduates. I dont know much about the topic, but I'm not sure if the sort of education that I got at the university level really is applicable to comprehension of rules.

Flesch-Kincaid is a text analysis process built into MS Word and recognised by the US Government for evaluating the understandability of text in contracts such as insurance policies.

The grade level reflects the US scholastic grade required to be able to understand the text.

Understanding the text is not the same as understanding the rules, of course. For example, while 40K is written in fairly simple language, the contradictions, ambiguities and lack of definition make some of the rules very hard to understand.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW can write rules well -- look at Warmaster Ancients. They simply choose not to bother for 40K.

Almost everything else they've done is higher quality -- Epic Armageddon, BF:G, Mordheim, Space Hulk, Talisman, WarhammerQuest, WAB, and even WFB. It really is ironic that their flagship game is easily the worst-written they produce. Ultimately, there has to be a "good enough" factor involved with 40K. There's no other explanation, given a staff of professional game designers and twenty years of time.

Well obviously it's because there's plenty of evidence to suggest the causation between good rules writing and sales. Just like this chart shows:

I think if 40k had been on one track as long as WHFB, it would be probably in a good state right now. The problem is that they did a reboot, then found a lot of errors in the way the game was played with the new rules. They have been trying to fix those issues, and bring more to the fore, but in doing so run into a lot of consistencies. This last edition had a lot of clarifications and additions to the game, but they added in a lot of new problems. If 5th can clear up a good amount of them, we would be off to a good start. Then if they would just FAQ those things that are problems...... all we can do is wait and see.

Toreador wrote:If 5th can clear up a good amount of them, we would be off to a good start. Then if they would just FAQ those things that are problems...... all we can do is wait and see.

That's your favorite thing isn't it? How long are we supposed to wait?

You're not the only one either, Toreador. A number of you seem to think that good rules are something that GW will achieve "once all the codices are redone". Just wait until the 5th edition comes out and all the codices are redone and then we'll have a decent game! Everything will be all right once we get to Tir Asleen! Newsflash: that's never gonna happen. Constant churning of the rules means that there will ALWAYS be armies whose codices "still need to be redone".

how many editions of WHFB are there like 7 ,from what people say its a good system so maybe by then when 40k is at 7 or 6 it well be good .
now what do you guys think of this one
#5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)

you think good or bad?

skullspliter888 wrote:how many editions of WHFB are there like 7 ,from what people say its a good system so maybe by then when 40k is at 7 or 6 it well be good .
now what do you guys think of this one
#5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)

you think good or bad?

I actually suggested that in the Rules Development forum here, and got shot down.

I think it would be a workable solution and would work well to represent the ability for Snipers to hit holes in armour, and the greater penetrative power of a Long-Las with hotshot vs. a regular Lasgun.

DarthDiggler wrote:Very interesting. I understand now why I am anathema to Johns train of thought in many posts. It is the 'simpling' of the rules that IMO are driving 40k into the ground. Many of us were attracted to the complex system and now don't like playing as much with the rules dumbed down. Tournaments are down and sales are down. It's like the old Decipher Star Wars game. That game had a strong following and a complex system to play. When Wizards took over the Star Wars CCG game, they simplified the rules and gameplay and the game tanked. Many of my 40k playing friends have been turned off by the game while still trying to hold on to it in some way. I think we are missing the complexity, even of 3rd edition, and hoping for a return to it. I don't know how long we will wait around for it though and it might be to late as is.

Yeah, this is the kind of loaded language that makes conversations like these very hard.

‘Dumbed down’ implies the rules are producing simpler play, with less strategy and skill. With my experience in 4th ed there’s a learning curve in playing the game that never used to exist, as people have to learn the value of maneuver and mixed unit tactics. It isn’t particularly deep, but it sure plays a lot deeper than 2nd and 3rd ed games. There people would go away and play with their army lists for a couple of days, and turn up with a twinked out lists, plonk them down on the field and go to town and be as likely to win as their veteran opponent. In 2nd ed, at least, there was a little mobility and adaptability possible (though not much), come 3rd ed 8 year olds could dominate as much as anyone else, either running rhinos straight up the field or standing completely still and firing off their mass of heavy weapons. There was a lot of rules and a lot of options, but the most successful play revolved around one-dimensional strategies with little skill in their successful execution.

I’m not saying the new rules are wonderful for the simple reason that they aren’t wonderful, they’re often poorly worded, poorly thought out and inconsistent. But the rules have never been particularly good, they just used to be a lot bigger.

‘Streamlining’ is a much more accurate term for the recent rules approach.


And it’s a big mistake to assume that the poor sales of the last few years are the result of GW’s rules changes. 40k has never had particularly good rules, and sold pretty well. But what they have been in the past is a lot cheaper and the only fish in the tank. There’s also the LotR thing, and some natural level of sales reduction in the newer US market. There are a lot of possible reasons that people aren’t buying new stuff, assuming that they’re turning away for the same reason as your personal bugbear smacks of narcissism.

All I have is time...

Been playing games for close to 30 years now, and I have never found a "perfect" rules set in anything I played. It's kinda like movies. I don't really need a deep plot or intricate story lines all the time. What counts is if I enjoyed myself. I still enjoy 40k, and a myriad of other games, so yeah, I have time to wait. I had fun playing WHFB back in the 80's, but it now is probably the best it has ever been. It's not like I waited. I just kept playing and eventually it came to this point. Being in the infantry for 8 years, I guess you learn a lot of patience.

And I think in a way it is because of some of the rules changes. We didn't have this big ol nasty net back in the day, and we sat around a shop, or someones house and argued rules. If we came to impasses we usually house ruled it. It was usually centered around one game shop, and any games or tournaments played at the shop and most people were familiar with all the house rules. We didn't really have an expectation of FAQs, or fixes. We played with what we had, and fixed what we needed to.

Now with more emphasis pushed onto tournament play and a whole world wide system that anyone can show up at a shop and play with anoyone without really having to do the whole "house rule" thing, I think it becomes more dramatic when rules have loopholes or errors. We want instant gratification, we want the designers to fix things now.

And really, there are only two real choices. Either quit, or wait and see.

If I ever meet JohnHwangDD at a tourney, I hope I'm playing an all-Last Chancer list with magnetizable switchy upgrades that are WYSIWYG but very difficult to see.

And every singly one of them will be psychic.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

Meh.

The SM are powerful enough to be able to brush off Inquisitors to a certain extent, allowing them to make certain limited deviances from the Codex Astartes - Ravenwing / Deathwing / Assault Veterans / Baal Predators. These are relatively small, and to some extent, would appear to be Codex to the casual observer. Obvious major deviances get Chapters wiped out when they are discovered by the Inquisition. IOW, if the Inquisition ever found out about the Fallen / Red Thirst, the DA / BA would be at extreme risk of being purged. Also, it is no accident that the actual purging is done by brother marines, as a way to limit visibility outside the Astartes.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

With respect to the UM, it has been stated that something like 70% of the Geneseed in use is UM-based. Further, the overwhelming majority of SM Chapters conform to the Codex (or at least have the good sense to appear to do so when an Inquisitor is around and about). The SM are very nearly perfectly uniform for 90+% of what they are and what they do.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

As an example, why should IG be able to shoot 12" in cover, when the superhuman power, centuries of experience, extensive continuous training, and augmented abilities of a SM don't allow it? You have SM Devastators with several human lifetimes worth of actual combat experience, built upon many more human lifetimes worth of training and drill, and yet they can't do this...

I'll be very satisified to see Doctrines go away for the most part.

Wehrkind wrote:Well, suddenly 90% of my and John's arguments make sense. He want's "40k lite" or more properly "40k from the Oval Office/Command tent."

He doesn't care about what the Sgt's name is, he just wants him hitting with a power fist. He doesn't care why that squad ran, just that it did, and whether or not it came back.

Really, I think there is room for both. But not in the same system.

I think that is really the question though, can 25mm really do large scale battles reasonably well,

Yeah, I like grand sweep viewed from orbit.

You named your IG minis?!? None of my guys have names - they're an army.

I agree. Different systems for different purposes.

As noted on scale, 25mm isn't suitable for large scale tabletop gaming unless your "gaming table" is a warehouse floor.

Savnock wrote:If I ever meet JohnHwangDD at a tourney, I hope I'm playing an all-Last Chancer list with magnetizable switchy upgrades that are WYSIWYG but very difficult to see.

And every singly one of them will be psychic.

Go for it.

Just be aware that I'll be fielding a "counts as" list.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

What the hell are you talking about? Why would the Inquisition care if an IG battalion was mechanized/drop troop/light infantry (or any of the other doctrines in the IG codex). Infact, they apparently don't care because all of the doctrines are based on actual units in the fluff.

Sorry John but your argument here is very flawed. If you want to argue that doctrines are hard to balance and/or don't fit the new streamlined vision of Jervis, that is one thing. I flat out disagree and I'd guess 99% of the player base would as well, but there's atleast some argument to make there. But the IG doctrines are very much based on the background, almost to a fault.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

Well for one, SM are variable, even the ones based on Ultra geneseed.

But even if SM weren't variable (or become so, say in 5th ed), it is a very easy question to answer: because there's alot more variation between IG regiments and alot more IG regiments then SM chapters. There's what, 1000 SM chapters with 1000 marines each. There's quite abit more IG regiments, each one as much or more tied to the environment they train in and defend then the Space Marines are. As well as long standing traditions and doctrines that very from regiment to regiment (unlike the Codex most chapters adhere too). That's why the Steel Legion are so very different from Catachan Devils. Or Harkoni warhawks are so different from Death Corp of Krieg. Infact, the fluff for all these armies points to a much more variable set of doctrines and equipement then you will ever find in the Space Marines. All of the above is right there in the background, I suggest taking time away from your grey marines to take a look.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I can see limited specialization for Veterans, maybe a single stat bump or minor exception across the line. But at the level of detail at which 40k abstracts things, nothing more than that. IG Doctrines work fine at the squad level, for something like RT or Inquisitor. It doesn't work at the 40k level, and it was a huge mistake to add them to the Codex in the manner they were added.

So at the 40k level of abstraction the differences in organization, equipment, tactics, etc between IG armies are so small as to be negligible from a rules standpoint? Yet at that same level of abstraction Ultramarines, DA, and BA are all different enough to require separate stand-alone rulesets? The IG consists of billions upon billions of guardsmen. Between the 3 of them the Ultramarines, DA, and BA have ~3000 marines. That's 3000 total in the entire galaxy. So there's 3x more variation among those 3000 marines than in all those billions of guardsmen? How do you reconcile that? Wait, lemme guess - it's a logarithmic scale!

Meh.

The SM are powerful enough to be able to brush off Inquisitors to a certain extent, allowing them to make certain limited deviances from the Codex Astartes - Ravenwing / Deathwing / Assault Veterans / Baal Predators. These are relatively small, and to some extent, would appear to be Codex to the casual observer. Obvious major deviances get Chapters wiped out when they are discovered by the Inquisition. IOW, if the Inquisition ever found out about the Fallen / Red Thirst, the DA / BA would be at extreme risk of being purged. Also, it is no accident that the actual purging is done by brother marines, as a way to limit visibility outside the Astartes.

The IG are much weaker than the Inquisition, so they need to follow things more rigidly.

With respect to the UM, it has been stated that something like 70% of the Geneseed in use is UM-based. Further, the overwhelming majority of SM Chapters conform to the Codex (or at least have the good sense to appear to do so when an Inquisitor is around and about). The SM are very nearly perfectly uniform for 90+% of what they are and what they do.

If the SM can't vary, why should IG be even more variable.

As an example, why should IG be able to shoot 12" in cover, when the superhuman power, centuries of experience, extensive continuous training, and augmented abilities of a SM don't allow it? You have SM Devastators with several human lifetimes worth of actual combat experience, built upon many more human lifetimes worth of training and drill, and yet they can't do this...

I'll be very satisified to see Doctrines go away for the most part.

Wait - what? I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something, but at any point in your rambling incoherent response did you ever address my point? Apparently logical argument isn't exactly your strong suit JohnHwang, so I'll restate it very simply for you. 3000 marines = 3 army lists. 1,000,000,000+ guardsmen = 1 army list. Are you actually arguing that there is more variation among those 3000 marines than among the 1,000,000,000+ guardsmen?

This thread has gotten well away from the original subject. Please stay on topic, and feel free to start additional discussions on these side topics in another forum (and you may want to post links to those discussions here in this thread).

Thank you!

(Edited to get it back on topic) Someone mentioned modifiers to target priority checks. I'd love to see this take place for assault units being near you, vehicles tank shocking, the unit attempting the test being under fire or similar situations. Does anyone have any details on how this will work, or theories on it?

Yea, I really can't get behind IG having less variance than Marines. 1000 Chapters, all started from the same organizations, vs literally billions of planet's PDF's, some of which planets hadn't seen the Imperium for millenia before the Emperor stopped by, or the warp storm cleared up, etc. Tie in the fact that some come from planets that are densly populated, some come from planets without light etc., I just don't see how you couldn't have tremendous variation without taking all the cadets to one or two central training stations.
I mean, Earth has all manner of different armies that fight better or worse in different manners due to where they come from and how they are trained.

I would say the Imperium's armies look a lot more like a cross section of Earth's various armies at around 300 BC. Some cultures favor heavy infantry, some light, some naval engagements, etc.

@Asmodai wow you got shoot down .
Asmodai wrote I think it would be a workable solution and would work well to represent the ability for Snipers to hit holes in amour, and the greater penetrative power of a Long-Las with hotshot vs. a regular Lasgun.

I totally agree with you snipers on the battle field most of the time are highly skilled in there craft so with rending i think this would be good to say wow he got a head shot.
and maybe a new pinning table or modifier like -1Ld or some thing. i think most army's have snipers in there codex? so this would be good for all armys.

edit not all armys choas, necrons, dark eldar, nids, not sure on orks

The other advantage is that it would increase the odds of snipers scoring a casualty and thus bring their psychology role into effect.

It would also add some nice variety into the game by having anti-Terminator weapons that aren't also anti-tank weapons.

winterman wrote:I suggest taking time away from your grey marines to take a look.

It has been a very long time since I've gone through the Fluff in my 2E IG Codex.

But FWIW, for the past few months, pretty much *all* that I've been doing is working on IG stuff. I recently finished 3 Chimeras, a semi-scratch-built counts as Chimera, a scratch-built a Hydra Flak tank (despite a total lack of Flyers in my playgroup), and am working on an counts-as Indirect Basilisk with enclosed crew compartment.

Once that is built, I'll be semi-scratch-building a couple Hellhounds and an Atlas ARV (count as another Chimera).

Then I'll get around to my new CSM force or maybe my grey SM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It has been a very long time since I've gone through the Fluff in my 2E IG Codex.

But FWIW, for the past few months, pretty much *all* that I've been doing is working on IG stuff. I recently finished 3 Chimeras, a semi-scratch-built counts as Chimera, a scratch-built a Hydra Flak tank (despite a total lack of Flyers in my playgroup), and am working on an counts-as Indirect Basilisk with enclosed crew compartment.

Once that is built, I'll be semi-scratch-building a couple Hellhounds and an Atlas ARV (count as another Chimera).

Then I'll get around to my new CSM force or maybe my grey SM.

Way to get back on topic

I saw the rumor on Warseer about the combat resolution for assault being similar to Fantasy. I am not familiar with fantasy rules. How does the combat resolution work in fantasy? I assume since formations are more regimented that there may be parts that do not apply.

Quick rundown of Fantasy combat res:

Each side performs the following calculation:

Number of wounds inflicted
Number of ranks*
If the unit has a standard, +1*
Unit is in the flank: +1*
Unit is in the rear: +2*
Items which improve combat resolution: special*

Then compare totals. The side with the lowest total makes a Ld check and adds the difference between the two results. Compare to units leadership.

EG: High Elves, 2 ranks, standard, inflicted 4 wounds: 7
Goblins: 4 ranks, inflicted 2 wounds: 6

The goblins lose by one, so roll Ld (on 2d6) and add 1 (the difference between the two results), then compare to their leadership. If the test is failed, they break and run.

Note that only "wounds inflicted" applies to 40K as-is.

Viperion

P.S I know there's a bit more to it than that, but for this discussion that will be relevant enough