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 was watching a fairly casual game between Harlequins and Orks. The Harlequin player made a number of rules errors related to the Strength and abilities of the Harlie Weapons and psychic powers. I've seen similar issues with Ad Mech, Renegades, the Tau Formations, and much more severe issues with Corsairs. The players aren't trying to cheat, but the rules for the armies are complicated and difficult to learn, and impossible to learn at the same speed as armies like Necrons or Space Marines.

Over Time I've started to cringe every time I hear a newer / less practiced player starting one of those armies, because the learning curve is so severe, and it always seem to put strain on the social contract between players.

I appreciate that those armies play like nothing else in the game. They are truely a unique play experience, and I see why people are drawn to it.

My question is, do you think that the complex rule mechanics that make those niche armies so distinctive are worth the strain they put on the casual gaming community? I.E. Would you rather Harlies were to Eldar in the same way as Militarum Tempestus are to Imperial Guard with applications of basic rules concepts being what separates them, or do you like them as they are (And similar examples for other armies).

ETA: One issue with divergent and complicated rules is that players can't help each other out, because the rules mechanics that apply to their own army are so different than their opponent.

I'm fine with the rules. They're not perfect but they do okay.

The only person I've seen struggle with rules has been playing for about five years and has not grasped Infantry move 6" in the movement phase.

Reading is hard.

I've play with people who are not new players anymore and they still screw stuff up. Veteran players have the added hurdle of remembering how it used to be, and confusing that with how it works now. It's not just a 40K thing.

Personally, I don't feel that the rules for Skitarii and Harlequins are particularly complex compared to other armies. As you well know, I'm still getting the hang of my harlies, but I think that has more to do with how rarely I play them and how they tend to die before I can use some of their special stuff than it does with the complexity of the rules.

Personally, I find that unique rules are the main thing that draws me to an army. Sometimes increased diversity means increased complexity. I'm very willing to sacrifice some simplicity for the sake of cool, flavorful rules.

Complex bad wording: Tank shocking especially if done by da rippa

That's why I like my deathwing/ravenwing army.

Pretty much auto pass all pin, fear, and most leadership tests, and get some special rules on turn one.

I do like complex rules. I just don't like bad rules and complex clusterfucks

For example. The chaos boon table is rather complex allmost all players have to look it up but it really adds something to the game.

Poorly written stuff like: failing a charge because you rolled 8" when you needed 7" for your charge distance resulting in your modes just reaching difficult terrain and only being able to assault 6" or unclear wording is what I really dislike

There's a distinction between complicated and complex.

Complex rules are great, they offer a great many rules interactions and can offer deep, layered and nuanced gameplay.

Complex rules can still be simple, concise and easy to interpret.

Complicated rules are unnecessarily involved, they may require remembering multiple steps, exceptions, modifiers etc above what would be strictly necessary to arrive at the same result.

40K just now has too little of the former and too much of the latter.

Complex rules are bad. The problem with 40k is that the rules are really complicated, but they aren't very deep. So you have a lot of rules to memorize and interactions to argue about but in the end you're still making the same strategic decisions as you would be in a much simpler game. You could take out huge chunks of 40k's rules and not lose anything, IMO.