Switch Theme:

Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Is Warhammer 40k Too Complex?
Big Yes - I can't wrap my head around it any more
Yes - But I deal with it anyway
Yes - But I enjoy the complexity
Unsure/Just want to vote
No - It's not really all that complex
Big No - This is the easiest edition I've ever played

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






40k is only complex if you remember the rules. That's my secret, I don't remember the rules.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 15:34:21


 
   
Made in fi
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot






I'm already deliberately not using all of the rules/features for my army (doctrines etc). From what I've read about the new AdMech dex, I'm not sure I ever want to play against them. Their special rules that activate on a tuesday but only for a model wearing a blue bonnet, and then only on turn X, make my head hurt.

And then there are the strats too.. It's a bit much

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 15:38:49


 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Another for not complex, just bloated/unwieldy/etc.

Maybe its me, but I used to feel I had a lock on the core game and 90% of the rules for 90% of the factions. Now I'm 90% on the core game (there are some very situational rules that I have to look up and figure out exactly what the vague-intent-but-overly specific wording is this time), fuzzy on a lot of factions and their various layers of specific mini game rules, and just utterly indifferent to various other factions and their specific minigames (which includes both strats, warlord traits, relics, color coded rules (chapter tactics, for lack of a better word), army purity buffs and etc).

I figure by the time I actually run into some factions on the table, they'll have a new codex anyway. GW has put a lot of effort into making me not care.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 15:43:28


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Sledgehammer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.


I agree with you. Hopefully player fatigue will set in.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

No, not really. It isn't complex, it's just memorization. You have to memorize what YOUR DUDES DO, and you have to memorize what THEIR DUDES DO, and all of the various strategems/etc that can change those things. It can be a bit "unwieldy", as others have said, because there is a LOT to memorize. But it isn't complex.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






I'd argue you don't need to memorise your opponents' rules and I would deem it common courtesy to answer any questions my opponent has about my rules as well as letting them see the Codex/Rulebook. People sometimes make mistakes with the rules and I've found it's always better to check with an opposing or neutral party.
I'm not a naturally suspicious person but if I ask to check someone's rules regarding something, especially if it's something really good, and they refuse, then I would be pretty miffed and likely not play with them again if possible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:10:51


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





For me, it's yes and no.

If I only played a single army, or maybe two. I don't think I'd have any issue with rules complexity except in corner cases which is pretty much the case in any game that's not super simple.

The thing is, I play almost every army. So remembering all the different stratagems and sub factions tactics are pretty rough. I make cheat sheets to keep them close at hand and try to think ahead as to what I'm most likely to use, but it's got it's limits.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

40k is complicated not complex

and every time GW want to make the game more simple because people argue that it is too complex, the more complicated it get

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in se
Fresh-Faced New User




Yeah I agree with complicated not complex. It would help if the rules and codices and consequent errata weren't always changed, but gotta make those doneros.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Sunno wrote:
Coming from other games, the depth and solidness of 40K rules is laughable. Its like being asked to draw a picture using crayons when you have previously used technical drawing tools, CAD etc. However, even with crayons you can still draw a picture.

The rules are good enough to get a fun beer and pretzels game out with like minded individuals. And that where GW is aiming their rule sets anyway so.... mission accomplished?



GW is aiming 9th at tournament players. Because for years they have tried to jam their proverbial square pegs in the round hole that was 40k and now they have got their way. 40k was never, ever geared towards tournament play for decades and now this is the end result of that, so.... yeah.
It's not even really that Tournament play is the problem. It's that the game necessitates you try your hardest to break the game in order to be as powerful as possible. The game rewards players for breaking the game, and then they design a system entirely around doing just that. It's about finding all those ways to win without actually playing. Finding what is good is essentially the game itself.

You can't really change your chances of victory on the battlefield. You do so with mechanics already baked into your army design. It's not like there are positional modifiers like flanking or side or rear armor values.


This is the deck building game business model. With record profits, it seems to be paying off well for GW.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't see it changing.

Pray with me that Xenos Rampant will be good.


I agree with you. Hopefully player fatigue will set in.


I like the way this has been phrased as I wouldn’t have been able to but it’s how I feel about the game. Clever algorithms to combine units strategems and other buffs to make your army OP. Working out how to give a unit buffs using CP which would make their point value go through the roof of those buffs were in the units data sheet. I get why some people like that but it results int along unit’s strategically to win. For me I want to take a helldrake in my CSM army cos it looks cool and will be fun to play with. I feel like the rules don’t really cater to that approach to building an army unless you also don’t care about the game element by which I mean playing to win but not minding if you lose as long as it’s fun

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:49:33


 
   
Made in ca
Sybarite Swinging an Agonizer



Ottawa

ccs wrote:
Well, to paraphrase a buddy who gave 9e a try for our 2020 Crusade after having not played for several editions....
" , there's more rules about playing my Marines than there are about playing the game! WTF?"
He was not impressed.

I tend to agree with him.

Marines in particular should be simple to play, IMO, as the "poster boy" army. They should have high stats but only the bare minimum amount of rules, compared to xenos such as Eldar and T'au who have low stats but more rules (because they're aliens and have lots of strange tricks up their sleeves). Instead the Marines seem to have more and more rules and gotcha's with every new update.

I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place, as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.

As has been said before, the number of stratagems needs to be pared down. Maybe 6-8 strats per army, and no unit-specific strats.

Missions and objectives should be simplified, too. Secondary objectives in particular are a headache.

.

Cadians, Sisters of Battle (Valorous Heart), Drukhari (Obsidian Rose)

Read my Drukhari short stories: Chronicles of Commorragh 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





-Guardsman- wrote:
ccs wrote:
Well, to paraphrase a buddy who gave 9e a try for our 2020 Crusade after having not played for several editions....
" , there's more rules about playing my Marines than there are about playing the game! WTF?"
He was not impressed.

I tend to agree with him.

Marines in particular should be simple to play, IMO, as the "poster boy" army. They should have high stats but only the bare minimum amount of rules, compared to xenos such as Eldar and T'au who have low stats but more rules (because they're aliens and have lots of strange tricks up their sleeves). Instead the Marines seem to have more and more rules and gotcha's with every new update.

I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place, as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.

As has been said before, the number of stratagems needs to be pared down. Maybe 6-8 strats per army, and no unit-specific strats.

Missions and objectives should be simplified, too. Secondary objectives in particular are a headache.

.


I really feel bad for new players who need to figure out which bolter is which when they build their new primaris models.


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Marines are simple to play, you just need to know the previous Editions/Books to know what the hell they are talking about in the rules

it is just a complicated wall of text, one that is written by people who know the game and just wrote down all the changes for the new Edition and models without ever thinking if a new player who don't know the game, can understand this while reading it

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.

Eliminate this 3rd level of rules bloat in every codex: (Super Doctrines/Command protocols etc.) They just add another layer of bloat to the game without providing any meaningful change.

Eliminate all bespoke rules/special rules. Who could have guessed that trying to memorize or sift through several thousand separate rules on a datasheet is more time consuming and cumbersome than just having the all self contained and standardized in the main rulebook? I'm shocked...shocked.

Only USR's exist. No extra rules added in codexes. They all follow the main rules outlined in the rulebook.

Change the game to alternating sub-phases.

Unit specific special rules are now all Strategems.

Strategems can only be used if HQ's are on the board or sergeants. Strategems performed by sergeants cost double.

Limit the number of strategems able to be taken per game (like a deck of cards)

Limit the number of strategems able to be used per game and phase.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 20:08:20


Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.



Yes, tedious is the word!
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

What can be annoying is when even within the same battletome/codex two different units might have the same ability modifier under two totally separate names. The impact on the game is identical, but they have different names.

I makes it very fluffy, but very impractical to remember and organise mentally. Just give the unit a nice 1 page lore blurb (or 2 or 3) and then let the rules be just rules.

A Blog in Miniature

The Swarm Arises

Do you ever notice, sometimes, there's an extra post? 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Voted no, its really not that hard to remember what your units and abilities can do and if you have any questions about your opponents army you can just ask them
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Not complex, just needlessly tedious in terms of remembering layer after layer after layer of Bespoke rules that are all worded differently because reasons.


Tedium is a good fit. GW style wargames are like certain modern RPGs (pathfinder 2 is basically an accounting volume), they're written in a way that's really simple for a computer to parse all the layers, modifiers, one-off rules, special circumstances and optional actions (strats, etc) and apply them, but they aren't convenient for a human to encompass and apply them all.

Especially so with the inconsistent and sloppy wording on a lot of rules. (In a programming format these would HAVE to get a consistent answer to work at all, rather than a debate at a table, which would actually be an improvement. I prefer a known but bad answer to a shrug).

I suspect I'd have a fun with Warhammer the turned based battle simulator. But doing it all by hand (and the 'apps' they've gone with don't actually help) strikes me as programming via punchcard. Needlessly laborious and tedious.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

I don't think that they ever played with their own rules (as written in the books)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Brainy Zoanthrope






The rules are voluminous but shallow. There are a lot of rules but the core mechanics are nothing.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 Sim-Life wrote:
I really feel bad for new players who need to figure out which bolter is which when they build their new primaris models.

I guarantee you its easier to start now and go "wait, what does that do again? let me look at the datasheet" than when I started in 7th and had to go "wait, what does that do again? let me look at the datasheet so I know what word to look up in the BRB's appendix so I can find the page with the rule".
   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

For me I don't think it Complex nor difficult.

Just Sterile.

The strats and buffs are fun if each game is conisstent with you doing well but if not, after a while, it just feels bland. Each List always feels like it's a race to get to 0% Probabailty of failing rolls and, well, that lacks spirit.

I fully agree that 40k needed an overhaul and streamlining after the debacle that was 6/7th ed. But this just feels hollow and empty. I don't feel like I'm playing 40k which feels odd to say considering it's offical 40k rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 21:39:16


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I like the complexity, if I want to play something simpler the sky is the limit to what I can play. There very few games with high ceilings as to how much theory crafting and research I can do. I know some people are like I'm too busy but if you're too busy this isn't the game for you anyways. Or people who are like, I wanna play competitively so I don't want to learn everyone's rules, but the majority of players are casual and for me, personally, I like being surprised by what other people can do with their armies. Simplifying this game would just make it more like any other game, which then I might as well save money and play something easier.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, there's a lot to remember about your army, but the base rules are pretty straightforward. Where in prior editions half the game consisted of reading the main rulebook, it's now searching for things in your Codex. I like the latter better because you can prepare for it by reading your Codex and write down the combos you want to use before the game, while in earlier editions you started to read the rulebook once a situation happened (and often not finding an answer due to lack of FAQ).


IIndeed, I think the basic rules now are actually pretty simple and the main complexity is remembering all the various buffs you can choose from different sources. Really though the buffs themselves often end up being quite similar to the degree there often not overlaping as much as you might expect given there coming from so many sources.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





-Guardsman- wrote:


I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place,


Well, the alternative is live with the problems for the entire edition like we used to up until 8th, and it was even worse because not every faction got a dex every edition. I'll be honest, I find FAQ's a little crazy to follow and sometimes exhausting, but I still prefer it to the alternative of "Whoops, because of an interdepartmental communication error, not only is your dex sub par (or curb stomping other dexes), it's going to stay that way for the next 3-8 years because reasons."

-Guardsman- wrote:

as well as the separate set of rules that apply "only" in matched play as if anyone plays anything other than matched play. Matched play rules are essentially the rules of 40k, and GW needs to stop pretending otherwise.


I think it's you that needs to stop pretending, as well as all the other ravenous 2k matched only folks that post on Dakka. Clearly 2k matched IS the most popular thing on Dakka, but the actual truth is that none of us, including me and GW themselves, know exactly how many people play which way and which size. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players neither play in tournaments nor post online about it, and I would guess that the vast majority don't play in stores either.

GW will have reasonable guesses based on GT mission pack sales vs Crusade mission pack sales vs open war deck sales, but since none of these add-ons are actually necessary to play any of the three ways to play even that doesn't really tell us anything. There is literally no way anyone can know.

But for the record, 9th is my favourite edition BECAUSE of Crusade, and it is the only way I play. I would allow myself to be talked into a matched play game if someone really, really wanted one, but so far I've been able to twist every arm into Crusade. I am also actually interested in playing Open War because there are a handful of Dakkanauts who swear by the open war deck and they seem like the chillest, happiest folks on Dakka.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 22:34:41


 
   
Made in us
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm





The way GW does FAQs is bad, especially needing to pay for points changes. They could just have the books be updated online, and have a FAQ section on their site for things that are rule changes. The only alternative is not "never get updates."

Setek: "My people shackled the stars, and broke mortality when the species you sprang from had barely left the slime pools it spawned in. Our wars burned reality, and the dominion of our kings is without limit. The ground you tread on is not yours; it is ours. "

Ahriman: "The Necrontyr; the sleeping ones"

Setek: "That name is not ours. Why give a name to totality?" 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

PenitentJake wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:


I'm also annoyed at all the FAQ's and erratas scattered all over the place,


Well, the alternative is live with the problems for the entire edition like we used to up until 8th
no FAQs is not the alternative to scattered FAQ

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

No vote cuz no good option.
I would have voted Unduly and arbitrarily complicated, if such an option were afforded.

   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




quantumquixote wrote:
I like the complexity, if I want to play something simpler the sky is the limit to what I can play. There very few games with high ceilings as to how much theory crafting and research I can do. I know some people are like I'm too busy but if you're too busy this isn't the game for you anyways. Or people who are like, I wanna play competitively so I don't want to learn everyone's rules, but the majority of players are casual and for me, personally, I like being surprised by what other people can do with their armies. Simplifying this game would just make it more like any other game, which then I might as well save money and play something easier.


Try Warmachine (or Dominant Species or Pax Renaissance ) to see how complexity actually produces choices and options instead of just memory load in a simplistic, random game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 06:36:53


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: