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.

If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to 8 year olds in a GW store.

Fixed that for you.

Pony_law wrote:These rules don't pass the 10 minute test. If you can't explain the basic mechanics of how to play in 10 minutes you can't effectively sell the game to new players in a store.

*ahem*

Leaked PDF wrote:This section of the book explains the rules to fight Warhammer 40,000 battles in all
their dark glory. If you are reading this, you are probably either a veteran of a
hundred games or have already mastered the basic rules and are up for a new
challenge

See that? That's the very first paragraph on the first page of the leaked document. You don't need a 10 minute test for these, because the game has introductory rules ala BattleTech. This is a good thing.

I like how gw thinks were all idiots. They take away hit modifiers for a clunky ev stat, that then as the same dang hit modifiers. Ive played battletech so hit modifier is easy. Skimmer with jinks, your at +1 to hit. Massive, your at -1 to hit. Ect.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I like how gw thinks were all idiots. They take away hit modifiers for a clunky ev stat, that then as the same dang hit modifiers. Ive played battletech so hit modifier is easy. Skimmer with jinks, your at +1 to hit. Massive, your at -1 to hit. Ect.

Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Andrew1975 wrote:Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Yes, only nerds can do 1st grade level math.

Brother SRM wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Lets face it 40k is basically a nerds game (no offense, myself included), nerds tend to be good at math or at least capable. Stop dumbing down the game while at the same time making it more complex and clunky. We can all handle basic math...even the 8 year olds. I'm looking at you ap rules!

Yes, only nerds can do 1st grade level math.

No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I rather have the shooting modifiers, you moved -1, behind cover, -1, so now you need a 6 to hit. Wait their stationary, +1, you need a 5.

Real or fake, good or bad, this or that, I'll add my two cents later on. It does have some good thoughts too it and some 'whys' but whatever.

Now after just reading this "edition" Im honestly left wondering about this unit targeter thing, one dude is the base of line of sight and blah blah. Am I left to believe that a horde of termigaunts in their limited/non-existant mental and tactical thinking would have one bug in a squad of 20 be the deciding factor in line of sight? That just doesnt seem all to hive mind to me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say especially nerds either. It's basic, basic, math. It's replacing one mechanic with another, rather than throwing around a tired metaphor. AP = your armor save means no save is easier to figure out on the fly.

Brother SRM wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, but especially nerds. I've never understood why gw went away from +/- for these clunky rule sets. It's complexity for the sake of simplicity. It's like Screwing for virginity. It just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say especially nerds either. It's basic, basic, math. It's replacing one mechanic with another, rather than throwing around a tired metaphor. AP = your armor save means no save is easier to figure out on the fly.

It replaced a basic +/- system that was easy, people were used to and made more sense. If a weapon has stronger ap it should have stronger ap against everyone thus modified your save. It should not be an all or none deal, which is what ap did.

They created cover saves, when cover was a simple +/- mechanic, adding a level of complexity that has confused and annoyed many people for many reasons just so people would not have to do math. All for the sake of simplicity.

There are many examples of this in 40K, the newest being the EV stat.

@Andrew: I'm not saying that the AP system isn't simple, but seriously, what's your beef with it?

Zomjie wrote:

Drake118 wrote:Flyers are not a unit type according to the document. A skimmer becomes a flyer by performing a Supersonic Move.

No, there is a whole flyers section dedicated just to them, its near the end but there are without a doubt flyers

I know there is a section in the book dedicated to flyers. If you reread it, you will notice that in that "Flyers" section it clearly says that there is no Flyers Unit Type and that units become Flyers by making Supersonic Moves. So a unit can Take on the Flyer Special Rule until the start of its next turn, in which case it can Supersonic again, keeping the rules for Flying.

There's nothing wrong with the evasion system. It's the same as what you're all saying.

It's the classic Roll 7-BS to hit with modifiers. Those modifiers are the intuitive -1 if it's unfavorable (target has jink or is a swarm) or +1 if favorable (target is large or is stationary).

You're only complaining about how things are explained. Considering these are playtest rules, things will be reworded.

I don't see what's clunky about it - it's a comparative stat like Weapon Skill.

I mean HTH combat uses WS, S, Int and A. Why can't shooting be something more than just BS?

Luke_Prowler wrote:@Andrew: I'm not saying that the AP system isn't simple, but seriously, what's your beef with it?

It is simple, it's too simple. But it also required a new rule when the old rule worked just fine if not better and was just as simple. That is the problem

I'm pretty sure I just explained that. I mean in a sense it was good for me I usually play armies with good armor, but I remember when a weapon didn't have to necesarrily be super powerful to cut my save down to a 5+ or a 6+. It was just more realistic and it didn't require an entirely new rule set.

My point is that in general, in an attempt to get rid of all +/- modifiers GW made the rules very clunky unnecessarily. It was basic math, not rocket science, hell it wasn't even algebra it was first grade math.

To compensate they have given us things like ++ saves, rerolls out the wazzo, cover saves.

They replaced the rules of grenades, with an initiative modifier in CC. There is a constant dumbing down of the game. I don't have a problem with some streamlining, but I don't want to play risk either (well sometimes, but not when I want to play 40K). I certainly didn't want to play epic scale with full size miniatures.

Now it looks like they are bringing some of the complexity back. Overwatch is back (somewhat), Split firing is back (somewhat) I like that. But I've already seen people saying that the game is too complex now. It isn't, it really isn't. It's clunky and unnecessarily so.

Absolutionis wrote:There's nothing wrong with the evasion system. It's the same as what you're all saying.

It's the classic Roll 7-BS to hit with modifiers. Those modifiers are the intuitive -1 if it's unfavorable (target has jink or is a swarm) or +1 if favorable (target is large or is stationary).

You're only complaining about how things are explained. Considering these are playtest rules, things will be reworded.

I don't even think they need that. The rules seem exceedingly clear as far as the movement & shooting modifiers go.



Now, at a glance I'm exceedingly happy about these new rules. And that makes me worried. So, if anyone is questioning the legitimacy of this document, I think it would be wise to cross-reference it with the Necron codex -which is written with 6th Ed. in mind- and see just how well it syncs beyond a first glance: what is overpowered, do any rules make current units broken, do some of the stranger rules make sense now, etc.

I'll start:
-The ability to deep strike Deathmarks in response to your opponent bringing units in from reserve now makes perfect sense with these new rules.
-Tthe ability to deep strike Flayed Ones within 6" of an enemy via Imotekh's special rule is not useless with these rules.
-The high point cost of Heavy/Destroyers makes more sense with the change to Preferred Enemy.
-The general uselessness of Lychguard is no longer quite the case when you look at how the "Look out, Sarge!" rule pertains to Sword & Shield Lychguard.
-The Monolith is no longer made of glass thanks to the -3 modifier on the damage table it receives as a single-structure-point super-heavy. In fact, with its Living metal, the Monolith can ignore everything except a natural six on the damage table, making it just as durable as ever (arguably more so now) and thus the high 200 point cost finally makes sense.

Can anyone think of anything that doesn't work properly in the Necron codex under these new rules?

rules look interesting for sure. dark eldar kind of get a touch better with the fast movment and evasion rules...

does this mean titans will make a more common showing in games?

Nevermind titans & gargantuan creatures ...Does this mean that Baneblades might show up in regular games? *cringe*



Also, I just noticed that "removed from play" & "removed as a casualty" now mean the same thing. So stuff like Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh & the Necron Tesseract Labyrinth lose some power, however JotWW is no longer the go-to anti-necron shooting attack!

Andrew1975 wrote:It is simple, it's too simple. But it also required a new rule when the old rule worked just fine if not better and was just as simple. That is the problem

I'm pretty sure I just explained that. I mean in a sense it was good for me I usually play armies with good armor, but I remember when a weapon didn't have to necesarrily be super powerful to cut my save down to a 5+ or a 6+. It was just more realistic and it didn't require an entirely new rule set.

My point is that in general, in an attempt to get rid of all +/- modifiers GW made the rules very clunky unnecessarily. It was basic math, not rocket science, hell it wasn't even algebra it was first grade math.

To compensate they have given us things like ++ saves, rerolls out the wazzo, cover saves.

They replaced the rules of grenades, with an initiative modifier in CC. There is a constant dumbing down of the game. I don't have a problem with some streamlining, but I don't want to play risk either (well sometimes, but not when I want to play 40K). I certainly didn't want to play epic scale with full size miniatures.

Now it looks like they are bringing some of the complexity back. Overwatch is back (somewhat), Split firing is back (somewhat) I like that. But I've already seen people saying that the game is too complex now. It isn't, it really isn't. It's clunky and unnecessarily so.

First off, complexity does not automatically mean good. Second, modable saves works in Fantasy because most of the fighting is done in melee with a few ranged or monster units. Compare this to 40k, where access to high powered guns was far more common.. Invulerablity saves (unless you meant FNP) hasn't changed at all, and there are certainlly no "rerolls out the wazzo". Cover saves actually makes sense, because a to-hit modifier on top of the AP system would have made Terminators impossible to dislodge from cover.

And I can't believe you used the grenade example. You know what grenades were? Just another shooting attack. Grenades, as they are used now, actually has more connectivity and depth now than in 2nd edition.

So don't say the game is "dumbed down" just because you don't like it. You know what it really is? It's different.

azazel the cat wrote:
-The ability to deep strike Deathmarks in response to your opponent bringing units in from reserve now makes perfect sense with these new rules.

How, exactly? Does something give them defensive fire?

Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Long overdue blackfang IMO.

EDIT Never mind, I was wrong about this bit.


Hey, twin-linked is still the same. Shame.

What bit?

You've got me intrigued now!

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Also a good thing.

If they triple your WS, it's 6+ to hit.
If they double your WS, it's 5+ to hit.

If you double their WS, it's 2+ to hit.

It's easy to remember and rather gracefully done.

Is this the same GW we've known all this time, or have they been holding back this grandiose plan this whole time under the guide of incompetence?

At first glance I thought the BS and WS to hit tables are the same but they're not.

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Yup, seems like a pretty big boost to CC armies (who where complaining about their Orks again? ). Although for us Tau it doesnt really matter that much, we where guaranteed to be dead twice if assaulted, being dead three times over doesnt really make it any worse .

MoD_Legion wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:Anyone notice the WS table is different? There's 2+ and 6+ to hit now.

Yup, seems like a pretty big boost to CC armies (who where complaining about their Orks again? ). Although for us Tau it doesnt really matter that much, we where guaranteed to be dead twice if assaulted, being dead three times over doesnt really make it any worse .

This doesn't affect Orkz at all. They'll very rarely go up against enemies where such a difference even matters. Tau get screwed, but when don't they in close combat? The only real change for Orkz is that Warbosses with Waaagh! Banners will hit WS3 models on a 2+. Hardly spectacular.

So don't say the game is "dumbed down" just because you don't like it. You know what it really is? It's different.

I say potato, you say potatoe.

Complex isn't always good, but simple and intuitive is usually better than simple and clunky.

Terminators got super powerful because of the ap system. There save is not modified until it breaks.

Yeah it means Marines hit Firewarriors on 2's, but really who cares - it's not like you were going to beat them in the first place. This just makes the inevitable a bit quicker.