Simplifying/Streamling of rules. Love it or hate it.

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.

**Pdogg614**

I wanted to see what peoples opinions are of the rules being simplified in recent codexes, the new necron codex and blood angel codex hit it on the mark with things that make them unique vs not having too many bogged down rules. I feel like when im playing games with buddies everything just flows well(compared to years ago) and now in 7th vs 6th it also helped clear up some messy bits in the core rules.

I do think that its a good move to reign in the rules to make it smooter especially when playing larger point games.

**angelofvengeance**

Err.. wrong section.

**Pdogg614**

Sorry can this be moved to general discussion! Thought thats where i put it

**SGTPozy**

I hate it. I want armies to be complicated so that each person's list is different. E.g. making it equally viable to play mech lists, fast lists, slow and heavy lists etc.

**Pdogg614**

SGTPozy wrote:
I hate it. I want armies to be complicated so that each person's list is different. E.g. making it equally viable to play mech lists, fast lists, slow and heavy lists etc.

They seem to be doing a decent job of making diffrent list within the armies i think. With the special rules being relyed on though, I think you mean the lines blur more with one armies mech list to another armies mech list?

**Vaktathi**

Simple and streamlined rules are great.l

That said, this doesn't necessarily mean they can't be customizable or varied.

These things are not exclusive.

I don't think 40k is doing simple and streamlined particularly well however.

**SicSemperTyrannis**

I like that they are getting rid of the "mini-phases". Like Necron Reanimation Protocols and Tesla Arcing. It always disrupted our game flow. No more "Oh wait i need to roll for these 20 warriors" or "Tesla Arcs .... *rolls* not.... *rolls* not... *rolls* not.. wait is that unit in range? *endless debate*".

It still makes me wonder why they didnt change Imotekhs Lightning "mini-phase".

**Pdogg614**

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:
I like that they are getting rid of the "mini-phases". Like Necron Reanimation Protocols and Tesla Arcing. It always disrupted our game flow. No more "Oh wait i need to roll for these 20 warriors" or "Tesla Arcs .... *rolls* not.... *rolls* not... *rolls* not.. wait is that unit in range? *endless debate*".

It still makes me wonder why they didnt change Imotekhs Lightning "mini-phase".

Most likely the reason they changed it to a 1 time thing. Yea that a good call I never thought of it tha way, those "mini" phases always had issue with forgetting to do them and its like oh can i go back and do this. Like now with the main book having psycic powers all done in one phase definitly gets it all done in one go not trying to remember when each one needs to be done and missing them.

Less small things to remember means more capacity to just remember the main core rules and special rules. When you ask accross the table whats that guy do they can say he has X and X rules with maybe one unique thing special to him. Makes it easier than them spouting out all these rules you have no idea what they do cause thier only in that army, there is now enough special rules in the BRB that units can be unique while still making the game streamlined.

**Paradigm**

For the core rules, simple is better, so long as you have a solid base to work from. However, for unit-specific rules, then the more better, to give more scope for representing any possibility or combination thereof.

**Lobokai**

If looking at GK, Orks, BA, and Crons... I love all the simplifications. I do wish army creation was simpler. I've never minded the complexity of 40k, but it's a beast to teach.

I like the 7th Ed rebalancing and rules so far. I hope they leave CSM and DA alone and tone down Tau and Eldar next.

**JohnHwangDD**

Pdogg614 wrote:
I wanted to see what peoples opinions are of the rules being simplified in recent codexes, the new necron codex and blood angel codex hit it on the mark with things that make them unique vs not having too many bogged down rules.

I think it's a good thing. Simpler is better.

**Kojiro**

The game is an abstraction and, based on the scale of the game (points and minis) you want only so much detail. There's an intersection where rule detail, game size and miniature scale intersect that 40k has been... out of sync... for a while.

**Blacksails**

Having simple/streamlined rules and unique/fluffy rules for various factions are not mutually exclusive affairs, not by a long shot.

That said, GW's attempts to 'simplify' things both don't simplify the things that need streamlining, and also reduce flavour/do nothing to enhance the relationship between fluff and rules.

As always with GW, a good idea marred by poor execution.

So with GW's implementation, I'm not a fan. If it were any other company doing it, I'm sure I'd be thrilled, or at the worst, ambivalent.

**Kangodo**

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:
I like that they are getting rid of the "mini-phases". Like Necron Reanimation Protocols and Tesla Arcing. It always disrupted our game flow. No more "Oh wait i need to roll for these 20 warriors" or "Tesla Arcs .... *rolls* not.... *rolls* not... *rolls* not.. wait is that unit in range? *endless debate*".

Fully agree on this.

It still makes me wonder why they didnt change Imotekhs Lightning "mini-phase".

They 'did'.
It is not basically a shooting attack that can hit everything within 48" (and now only hits enemies!)

**Azreal13**

SGTPozy wrote:
I hate it. I want armies to be complicated so that each person's list is different. E.g. making it equally viable to play mech lists, fast lists, slow and heavy lists etc.

What you're actually asking for there is complexity.

Complexity means many options and possible variation, complicated just means awkward and hard to understand.

We have complicated rules that are lacking in complexity already, the reverse would be nice. But complexity doesn't preclude a streamlined ruleset, look at X Wing, a rulebook that barely scrapes 20 pages yet many, many options, few of which are terrible and even fewer of which are undercosted/overpowered.

**SicSemperTyrannis**

Kangodo wrote:
SicSemperTyrannis wrote:
I like that they are getting rid of the "mini-phases". Like Necron Reanimation Protocols and Tesla Arcing. It always disrupted our game flow. No more "Oh wait i need to roll for these 20 warriors" or "Tesla Arcs .... *rolls* not.... *rolls* not... *rolls* not.. wait is that unit in range? *endless debate*".

Fully agree on this.

It still makes me wonder why they didnt change Imotekhs Lightning "mini-phase".
They 'did'.
It is not basically a shooting attack that can hit everything within 48" (and now only hits enemies!)

Sorry I wasn´t clear about that. By change I mean get rid of it totally. I am aware that it´s only 48" now and only once per game.

**Peregrine**

I disagree with the premise of this thread. GW might be simplifying a few rules, but they make others more complicated (often for no good reason) and the game as a whole is still a bloated mess. So yes, I would love it if GW simplified the game, but that's just wishful thinking right now.

**Pdogg614**

Peregrine wrote:
I disagree with the premise of this thread. GW might be simplifying a few rules, but they make others more complicated (often for no good reason) and the game as a whole is still a bloated mess. So yes, I would love it if GW simplified the game, but that's just wishful thinking right now.

While there is some things that get more complicated here and there, we are more discussing the recent trending not the one off cases. For the most part i do feel like they are helping with what they are doing not hurting and i feel the game is way further away from being a bloated mess than it once was late 5th early 6th when i started playing.

**TheSilo**

Azreal13 wrote:
SGTPozy wrote:
I hate it. I want armies to be complicated so that each person's list is different. E.g. making it equally viable to play mech lists, fast lists, slow and heavy lists etc.

What you're actually asking for there is complexity.

Complexity means many options and possible variation, complicated just means awkward and hard to understand.

We have complicated rules that are lacking in complexity already, the reverse would be nice. But complexity doesn't preclude a streamlined ruleset, look at X Wing, a rulebook that barely scrapes 20 pages yet many, many options, few of which are terrible and even fewer of which are undercosted/overpowered.

E.g. of complicated rules, difficult terrain roll 2d6 pick the highest, 55% of the time you will roll a 5" or 6" move, 75% it'll be atleast 4" making essentially no difference to the player, but you have to roll everytime anyway. A good way to simplify is just to make it 3" or 4".

Randomly choosing a model, as is we're supposed to randomize it in that unit of 11 dudes. Unless you use a rng that's an awkward number to randomize. Easy solution, roll a die, on 3+ the controlling player picks, on a 1 or 2 the opponent picks, all wounds from the random attack are allocated from the direction of that model.

As is both these rules are complicated but not meaningful. You have to learn them, or work around them because they're there, but they don't enhance the game at all.

Simplifying and reducing randomness are good things imo.

**Blacksails**

TheSilo wrote:
Easy solution, roll a die, on 3+ the controlling player picks, on a 1 or 2 the opponent picks, all wounds from the random attack are allocated from the direction of that model.

Easier solution, let the owning player remove casualties as they see fit with no rolling at all.

That's rule simplification. No unnecessary randomness that needs to be accommodated by the players, player control is retained creating more meaningful decisions than hoping for a 1-2 on the dice, and you save another dice roll.

Details aside, I otherwise agree with you completely.

**JohnHwangDD**

Blacksails wrote:
TheSilo wrote:
Easy solution, roll a die, on 3+ the controlling player picks, on a 1 or 2 the opponent picks, all wounds from the random attack are allocated from the direction of that model.

Easier solution, let the owning player remove casualties as they see fit with no rolling at all.

That's rule simplification. No unnecessary randomness that needs to be accommodated by the players, player control is retained creating more meaningful decisions than hoping for a 1-2 on the dice, and you save another dice roll.

Exactly so. Being able to choose casualty models takes some of the sting out of losing models.

Adding another 4th step is a terrible idea. To-hit, to-wound, to-save, to-pick? No. Absolutely not. And if there were something like this, the least painful mechanic would be to allow the shooter to pick on a failed save of a "1". At least this leverages the existing to-save rolls.

But then, you also have to allow the defender to auto-fail the save, and pick their model. That creates a minigame, where small number of wounds on a unit with terrible saves can simply pull a few non-critical models, rather than trying to risk fewer casualties against losing a critical model.

**TheSilo**

Blacksails wrote:
TheSilo wrote:
Easy solution, roll a die, on 3+ the controlling player picks, on a 1 or 2 the opponent picks, all wounds from the random attack are allocated from the direction of that model.

Easier solution, let the owning player remove casualties as they see fit with no rolling at all.

That's rule simplification. No unnecessary randomness that needs to be accommodated by the players, player control is retained creating more meaningful decisions than hoping for a 1-2 on the dice, and you save another dice roll.

Details aside, I otherwise agree with you completely.

That is the better solution. I was hedging because some folks would flip out at he idea of removing randomly allocated wounds "how could you just decide which guy got hit by the thing."

Gameplay comes first.

**Azreal13**

Chosen casualty removal does neatly sidestep that cognitive dissonance of the random pleb leaving the plasma gun/chapter banner/ancient and irreplaceable relic in the dirt and merrily soldiering on with his standard weaponry.

It would just need a caveat that wounds on multi wound model units must be allocated in a manner that results in the most casualties to prevent allocation shenanigans.

**Blacksails**

TheSilo wrote:

That is the better solution. I was hedging because some folks would flip out at he idea of removing randomly allocated wounds "how could you just decide which guy got hit by the thing."

Gameplay comes first.

Which begs the question of why only one person in a squad can operate weapon 'X', or has any sense of leadership. Player decided wound allocation is the quickest and simplest method, and makes equal sense from a narrative standpoint as permanently losing your sergeant or your meltagunner.

But yes, gameplay absolutely comes first.

*Edit* Damnit Azrael! 39 secs...

**Azreal13**

Ninja'd you once again 'Sails!

**Blacksails**

Azreal13 wrote:
Ninja'd you once again 'Sails!

You ninja'd my edit!

feth it, I'm done for the day. You win this round.

*Further editing* Yes, multi-wound models should absolutely have some rule in place to prevent 5th's musical wounds shenanigans.

**TheSilo**

I'm fine with pull from the front. I only want to get rid of the horribly impractical random allocation issue.

**JohnHwangDD**

The rules should be:
1. Maximum number of total models removed from play
2. Owner chooses which specific models to pull.

In the case of multi-wound models, the first one helps a lot. Instant Death, etc. removes whole models first. No stacking of wounds, etc. Maximize casualties.

But the owner gets to keep the Sergeant, the Heavy until the very end.

**DarkLink**

You can debate simple vs complex rules all day, but it's better to state your goal as having elegant rules. Rules that have the depth of a complex rule while being very simple are unquestionably better than rules that are merely "simple" or "complex".

A good example is the basic shooting rules for Infinity. Whenever you shoot at someone, they can choose to shoot back (assuming they have line of sight). You both roll to hit. You have to roll under your BS, so rolling low is good, but you have to roll higher than your opponent does or his shots will cancel yours out. In practice, it's extremely simple, you and your opponent both merely roll a couple of dice each, once. A quick glance tells you if anyone got hit. Any hits, you roll damage, and suffer wounds or die as appropriate. Extremely simple, but there's a significant amount of depth in deciding which weapons you should take, whether or not it's worth shooting back versus dodging, etc. The rules are very simple to play, but have complex interactions that create a lot of tactical gameplay. That's elegance.

**Ailaros**

On the one hand, I do like the move to USRs from the old each-unit-has-their-own-weird-rules-that-no-one-remembers-correctly system that they used to have. I'm also not a big fan of some of the complexity they've added recently like allies, dataslates, etc.

However, I ultimately voted no. The only way that I'm going to approve of streamlining is if they cut the stuff I don't like, while keeping the stuff I do. The odds of that happening are astronomically low. Much more likely that they'll cut the few things I really like and keep a bunch of stuff I don't think should be in the game in the first place.

Especially if the 40k community at large gets to decide what gets cut.

Better to ignore complexity you don't want to use than to butcher the game down to a lightweight shadow of what it used to be.