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 got back into 40k just before Christmas and although I love painting the models I'm finding the gameplay plain difficult and dis-jointed.

Now it may just be me but I find most games typically follow he following breakdown:

40% playing the game
50% reading he rule book
20% in discussions of the result of reading he rulebook.

now it could because I'm new and eventrually I'll just get it, but I'm finding this format not very enjoyable at he moment, it also doesn't help when we get confused wih previous editions and FAQ being thrown in the mix. I seem to spend far more time reading and discussing rules han playing.

Does anyone else find this or is it just me?

Besides the cost (another beaten to death discussion) I'm finding this pushing me away from GW and considering other brands for the first time, namlythe Mantic Deadzone and Warpath for he selling point of them being faster paced and easier to play.


thoughts?

How many previous edition changes have you been through?

There's always a transition period. This is my third edition switch, and this one happens to have a lot of little fiddly rules and changes. It probably took me 40-50 games before I really felt comfortable with this edition, but then, I play often enough and really work at mastering the rules, so for me "comfortable" means knowing the rules really well.

I don't think this editions rules are any more complex than the last. If anything, I'd say they're simpler (not based on any evidence, just gut instinct).

They unified a lot of edge case rules. If you both know your armies well enough, the core rules are pretty darn easy to learn .

I believe this is the effect of this random edition, you have to consult a table for this, and a table for that, roll 42D6 because random is fun, hell, daemons can even play by themselves if you just roll on that warp storm table!

That and many of the rules just aren't very well-written, too many contradictions here and there, just look at YMDC in this forum, it's bloody in there. Once you got used to most of the core rules though, it's mostly just flipping back and forth for those all-so-fun random tables as you roll all those random dice for the random effects on the random table in the book of randomness!

So, I'd say it's half and half, partly because you're new, partly because GW just write craptastic rules.

well I got out at 2nd then back in with this edition change so I would say I was starting fresh.

I would certainly agree with lots of fiddly and niggly rules.

Maybe Its he quantity I need, typically I will only get one game a week and that is taking most he evening at the moment (600pts).

I would agree that for me comfortable would be the stage where the game play and pace is he majority of game.

I agree the core of the game is simple, move, shoot, assault even with checking tables every few seconds!

Coming back to 40k recently after leaving over a year ago because I found 5th edition to be absolutely unplayable (especially balance-wise), I found 6th edition to be a lot better written, with clear, easy-to-learn and intuitive rules.

So you could say my experience has been quite the opposite of yours.

Looking into other games is never a bad thing, however. I did so for a year, and it is lots of fun. I am now a big fan of Warmachine/Hordes and the relatively young game Godslayer, both of which are awesome. I also really like Infinity, although I never quite played it enough to really know the rules by heart.

Baronyu wrote:

That and many of the rules just aren't very well-written, too many contradictions here and there, just look at YMDC in this forum, it's bloody in there.

This. It is like this in every edition of 40K. It's not that there is lots of rules. It's just it's lots of rules that are not well-written and too many contradictions as Baronyu said. 4th edition was what, one of the most simplified, streamlined versions of the game? Or was that 3rd?

Anyway there was always arguing how the rules worked. Look at YMDC, before 6th edition and you will see pages apon pages of how the rules worked for 3rd, (was Dakka around for 3rd?) 4th, and 5th edition.

GW doesn't not know how to write out rules for 40K. Can't speak for Fantasy, but at least Lord of the Rings was pretty well written. So GW just doesn't know how to WRITE, CLEAR, CONSISE rules for 40K.

TL;DR, 6th edition is not complicated, GW can't write clear concise rules for 40K. Almost all 40K editions were complicated because of poor written rules.

Dakka was originally started as a website in support of a local league playing 2nd ed 40k and Necromunda. The site's popularity first started going national and international during 3rd ed.

Each edition has generally gotten clearer and cleaner; 3rd was a big jump from 2nd, but got a bit messy with trial assault rules and revised vehicle rules published in White Dwarf partway through the edition. Then 4th was largely a cleanup and refinement, as was 5th.

6th has brought back some more detail in some places, and has made a lot of rules more model-centric and visually-oriented, like casualty/wound allocation to the closest model. It's a bit less abstract, less unit-to-unit, more focused on the positioning of the individual models. Which for some folks is very intuitive, and for others, used to more squad-focused games, feels fiddly and like a step backwards.

I think 5th was the best and overall clearest edition in terms of the rules, but the addition of allies to this edition, among a number of other changes, has opened up the metagame so wide and allowed such a larger number of armies to compete using different builds, that it's really refreshed my interest in and excitement for the game.

It takes a lot of matches to be fond of the rules but as time goes by, you will soon start being less and less in need of the rulebook all the time. Wound rules are very unintuitive and clunky, but you will get used to it. They certainly are a step-up from 5th and thus worth the additional effort.

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Hetelic wrote:

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Made me laugh too.

Hetelic wrote:

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Gah, you shouldn't have said that!
I just wanted to ask him how he can put 110% in a game, cause I want to do that too!

I feel there is tad too much "clutter" in 6th edition rules, particularly in the way battles are set up: if your army has lots of psychic powers and/or other similar abilities which has to be decided pre-battle, it can be chore to roll them all + warlord trait etc. And then of course mystery terrain & objectives etc. I'd never want to play Daemons with their enormous amount of random effects, Warpstorm and whatnot, and subsesquent book-keeping. None of them are unreasonable in isolation, but when you add it all up, it gets tiresome.

Also, there are some minor rules and abilities which just feel bit pointless and sometimes difficult to remember in heat of battle - abilities like Fear or Precision Fire etc.

Of course, in some ways rules were simplified and made less random than in 5th: reserves, Vehicle damage and Deep strike are all less random. Once the game gets going, I don't feel it is any slower or complicated than 5th - Wound allocation, once you get the hang of it, is faster & more intuitive, I also prefer 6th edition assault rules and that melee weapons have AP. But I just feel that few weeks of more playtesting and bit more streamlining the ruleset could have been improved.

I don't think they are "too complicated" rather than they added a lot of little things you have to roll for and such. Little things like Look Out, Sir! I forget half the time and don't really effect casual games. The core rules themselves are pretty solid, IMO. There's just a lot of discrepancies between the BRB and codexes that cause people to argue endlessly until an FAQ (hopefully) fixes the problem.

I am new tot he 40k game and I would agree it seems overly complicated. The thing that bothers me most is the fact there are all kinds of rules fould in all different places in different codexes etc.. It becomes hard to track down exactly where the rule is. You know you read something about it but can't remember where. Was that in the rule book, or in the codex??? Now what page was that again??? Somehow the rules need to be better organized so it is easier to find what you are looking for that is my main complaint. So maybe it is not a problem with complexity but a problem with organization.

Having all of the codexs for the different races makes for a rich background and tapestry for each, but I really have no hope of "knowing" the rules for some else's army. I have to take their word for it when they tell me a rule affecting their stuff. I am too new to say any different. That aspect kind of bugs me too.

I think that one of the things we're seeing in 6th is pushing the special rules into the BRB rather than having them all in the codex. So now a codex entry can just say "fleshbane" and we know what it is, as opposed to having multiple units and weapons across armies that are similar but not exact. Makes it easier to FAQ too (or so you would think). Part of the complication results from the overlap of non-updated codecies. I think that 6th is overall good, though there are still some cases where I think it is too specific and could be simplified.

They're less complicated than 2nd edition, so no.

It does feel complicated. If I play against a deamons or chaos codex I start to go a little cross eyed. I'm rolling for this and this and this. O and this guy has this or that plus this. I just have to take their word for it. To much to remeber on top of what I have so I just tell em to update me as we go:

Keeping track of random buffs isn't complex. It's not interesting either, but that's a whole separate thread.
Pen + paper = buffs + warp charges. Or if you're fancy you can even use some sort of newfangled electronic gizmo.

The learning process is quite difficult for the game. I'm in the same boat as the OP, in that I find myself taking 4 or 5 hours to play a relatively small game. But I do find that as the individual games go on I need to check certain things less and less. For example hit/wound/save rolls. I guess it will be the same for other rules.

The bit that annoys me is learning a rule after the game is finished. When you find you haven't applied something pretty important it's a bit of a pain in the ass. I do that a lot :|

Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp, the game isn't that random even though lots of whiners claim that rolling for warlord = whole game is lost on a dice roll.

Also check your figures, they add up to 110%

I think it's better than 12 years ago, when you had White Dwarf come out every month, with a new chapter in it, with new rules, and if you did not keep up with that, then you fell behind. (Having to buy a copy just to double check the White Scares player, who might forget his copy) But White Scares, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, all had Chapter Approved, and then there was IG all armor armies and their rules, and Ork-ish Human IG armies. Then the mini codex for Assassins which could be used by a lot of armies, then you had the Mini one for Catuchan Guard.
I do think 6th is getting close to things that drove me away from WFB, like having to roll to see what random magic thing was going to happen. Or when I got out of Hero Clix, when you had random effect cards. Not a fan of Warlord traits (that's why I buy HQs with effects that go to the army) or not knowing what power I will have (why I drifted away from Thousand Sons, which was not cheap having bought them all when they were metal, and hard to find around here.)
It's the little things that bog it down, and it's like they added to many little things, when they could have added say half of them, and then brought the rest in, in 7th.
At least the Hit/Wound/Save chart is like the same for years and years, but it has a pattern that makes it easy.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Hetelic wrote:

ids1984 wrote:


40%
50%
20%

Sorry, and don't want to be mean, but this did actually make me chuckle

Gah, you shouldn't have said that!
I just wanted to ask him how he can put 110% in a game, cause I want to do that too!

guess that gives me the answer to my problem! A little mince lol

MarsNZ wrote:
Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp,

I remember back when to figure out how far your vehicle moved if you didn't go in a straight line you had to figure out the arc of the curve, you had an entire flowchart to dictate how your robots moved, and the Ultramarines had a half-eldar Librarian.

Anyway, it's not just the OP, but I'm guessing it's because he's new with a three edition jump between his last games, and really, the only reason that you didn't YMDC as 'bloody' then as it is now is because wide spread easy internet access is a lot bigger than it was in the ye olden days. 40K in the current edition is a pretty simple and straight forward game.

Personally I think certain rules are just worded in a too complicated manner:
Examples

- "The unit suffers a number of Strength (X) hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the template"
Why not just say "each model under the template takes a Strength (X) hit?" I know this is to stop Barrage weapons sniping characters etc but it's just too unecessary to word it in that manner.

- "At the start of the fight sub-phase roll a D3. The enemy unit suffers a penalty to their Weapon Skill and Initiative values equal to the result of the D3 until the end of the phase".
Why not just say "Enemy units suffer a D3 penalty to their WS and I values for the rest of the phase."?

Erm, barrage can snipe characters. And if you say "each model under the template" people would argue that "oh, he's not completely under the template, thus not a model under the template".

They're more complicated than they need to be, 40k has more pages of rules than the vast majority of wargames out there. A big part of this is because 40k can't decide what it wants to be and what scale it wants to represent. We have rules for every possible form of close combat weapon and differentiations between every possible small arms, replete with rules for individual challenges and rules that cover each blow a model may may make against an opponent. Then at the other end of the spectrum 40k tries to also represent orbital bombardments, artillery fire, aircraft, squadrons of armor, allied forces of vast disparity, etc. 6E has exacerbated this more than any other edition, with more emphasis on both ends of the spectrum. The game doesn't know if it wants to play at an RPG level, a company wargame level, or a skirmish level. It's a mightily confused ruleset that can't make up its mind what it wants to be so it tries to be everything.


There are plenty of other games that cover almost as much with far fewer rules/space. A game of Heavy Gear can include 15ft tall mechs, heavy battle tanks, infantry formations, electronic warfare, airstrikes, artillery, and more, but doesn't get bogged down in the same things 40k does (it also uses 1/2-1/4 the models). Dropzone commander likewise has rules for a vast array of forces but doesn't get bogged down in the same tedious detail that 40k does. While 40k can still be fun, it's very obvious that at this point it's trying to be too many things at once.

6th edition isn't complicated at all. It's got a lot of additional rules, which means more to remember to do, but the mechanics of everything is very simple. The only real issue I have is remembering some of the new stuff added for 6th that doesn't get used very often, stuff like Deny the Witch.

The biggest issue isn't being complicated, it's being unclear. That's not the same thing.

If you want a system that's complicated and clearly written, go give Infinity a try. Have fun with Face to Face rolls.

Yes.

Each edition comes with these minor persnikity changes in the main rules and each codex and frankly I can't keep track of it any more.

And the addition of more and more and more random charts in 6th does nothing for me. Roll for warlord trait, roll for psy powers, roll for magic terrain powers...

@#$% it. I'm sitting this one out. Between $50 codexes, price hikes, finecast, and of course being overseas I just have no enthusiasm for the tabletop game.

6th edition is my first for 40K (played fantasy before that) and I agree there is allot of stuff you need to know, im struggling but each game you get better.

My advice would be to get an excel spread sheet, write out your army list and then specifically write out what unit special rules you have per unit and exactly what they do. Then print it out so you have a reference for the game.

For instance its not worth me writing "model X has stealth" I have to write "model X has stealth (which gives you +1 cover save... etc.... so I can easily refer to that during the game.

I have started to realize that things like points, weapon ranges, strength, etc... have begun to sink in for my army.