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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just a little poll to see how people feel about the state of the game.

In my opinion, it's become a bit arduous to play. You've already got a unit's faction abilities, subfaction abilities, the keywords, some units get Core, some don't, which affects auras, and then you've got the stratagems and unit upgrades, wombo-combos... and THEN you've got your secondary and primary objectives and keeping track of loads of points... I love the models but have zero motivation to work on them to play the game because of how much there is to learn and keep track of.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Complex or complicated?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Complex or complicated?

This. I voted, "Yes, but I deal with it," but it's less that the game is "complex" and more that it's just busy. Like, in the sisters 'dex, you can have buffs from...

* Innate unit abilities/options (Sacresants)
* Character auras
* Strats
* Miracle dice
* Litanies (or whatever their equivalent is called)
* Targeted character buffs
* Order Traits (your chapter tactic equivalent)
* Sacred Rites
* A couple other subsystems if you're playing a Crusade game.

That's a lot of (somewhat redundant) subsystems and floating special rules to cram into a single army. You could probably ditch half of those and still have plenty of design space for a satisfying amount of complexity and mechanical depth. As is, it feels like GW is throwing a few too many systems at the wall at once, and I suspect that most of them won't be around in five years.
   
Made in au
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend




Australia

I don't think so. Some books (like the Adeptus Mechanicus) take things too far but by and large I don't think this edition is complex at all, and inexperienced friends seem to be enjoying it. That isn't to say that it's perfect, though.

edit: I'm with the above two posters on the "complex vs complicated" distinction.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 05:58:13


Emperor's Children
The Fourth Seal  
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





It's not complex, it's the lazy card like design approaches games workshop have taken.

That and new DLC and models being clearly better than old options (Ork Codex, I'm looking at you!).

Stratagems are the worst addition they could've possibly done.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Eonfuzz wrote:
It's not complex, it's the lazy card like design approaches games workshop have taken.

That and new DLC and models being clearly better than old options (Ork Codex, I'm looking at you!).

Stratagems are the worst addition they could've possibly done.

I've given stratagems a fare shake since they were introduced. They're not a terrible way to go, but the execution has never felt quite right either. Now, we have both stratagems and a huge pile of other subsystems all present in a given game.

At this point, GW should probably start looking at ditching "stratagems" and just switch to using CP to fuel some character buffs and unit abilities. Spending CP to have my autarch actively issue commands that make my army fight better makes more sense than spending CP to do a barrel roll (Lightning Fast Reactions) anyway, and ditching the stratagem section of the book would reduce the number of floating special rules dramatically.

The way the new AoS command phase works makes me think they're already considering making that switch.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Too many Stratagems. Gotchas. I prefer the new AoS system where there’s just a handful a global ones, and a few on specific characters.

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.

Yep. Now consider, if you will, a world in which they eliminated all but, let's say, 4 army-wide stratagems, and all other strats were CP fueled abilities tied to specific datasheets. So you can still do cool, cinematic things and still have CP as an incentive for not souping, but you don't have a literal deck of cards full of special rules to whip out at any given time. Tying it to characters could help reduce some of the game's buff-related lethality too.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





No it's not complex at all, once you break the game down over all the mechanics are pretty simple.
you have the to hit numbers, to wound is easily caluclated (to the point where if it's an issue at all that's a "you problem")

the real only "complexity" is in the form of stratigiums, and that's not complex so much as there's a LOT of them and thus it's damn near impossiable to know all of them. but that's not complexity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there are too many systems. Two many rules layered on top of rules layered on top of rules. Too many moving parts.

And most of it is utterly unnecessary.

Yep. Now consider, if you will, a world in which they eliminated all but, let's say, 4 army-wide stratagems, and all other strats were CP fueled abilities tied to specific datasheets. So you can still do cool, cinematic things and still have CP as an incentive for not souping, but you don't have a literal deck of cards full of special rules to whip out at any given time. Tying it to characters could help reduce some of the game's buff-related lethality too.


I'd not mind unit specific strats just being tied to the datasheet rather then being grouped as a strat. so terminators, for instance, would on their datasheet have "One terminator unit in your army, per turn, may for 1 CP add +1 to attack rolls" mechanicly it's the same thing as fury of the first but is slightly "cleaner"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 06:47:44


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






The game mechanics are simple (possibly too simple). Stratagems add unnecessary complication/irritation, they could reduce them by 80-90% and the game would be a better place. They could remove them altogether and I wouldn't miss them, really.

There are also too many bespoke rules. More "generification" would be greatly appreciated.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


Yeah. I've never been all that impressed with 40k as a competitive game. I've found myself wondering if it would be better off foregoing some of the game slowing rules in favor of something lightweight, cinematic, but not especially balanced. Basically, rules to capture that smashing action figures together type feeling. Narrative rules that help to tell a story and capture an army's feel rather than just being a less-balanced version of Matched Play. That sort of thing.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




H.B.M.C. wrote:I think there are too many systems.


That's the heart of it for me. We've got multiple different detachment types for building our army, stratagems, relics (and SM have Special Issue Wargear, which is similar but different), warlord traits, character upgrades, unique character equipment we pay for instead of it being a relic, Core as a fairly arbitrary designation, army-wide buffs, sub-faction specific buffs, aura buffs, non-aura buffs...and probably a lot more. In some cases it's obviously a result of a lack of depth in the core rules but a lot of those systems are just unnecessary. The problem GW has had for a while is a lack of direction. Nobody seems to be sitting down at the start of an edition and mapping out how things will work and then applying that to every army. So we get Core varying wildly between "pretty much everything" and "these 5 units". We get anti-tank weapons that switch from D6 damage in the first few Codices to D3+3. We get arbitrary caps on the number of mortal wounds a strat can do (sometimes 3, sometimes 6, sometimes more).

AnomanderRake wrote:It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


This has been 40k's core gameplay problem for a while. There's just not enough to it despite all the layered systems in play. The combination of IGOUGO, near-perfect information and shallow rules makes playing the game a weird combination of simple yet time-consuming. Most "tactics" in the game boil down to remembering to do stuff and constantly measuring distances, while resolving actions takes forever due to the buckets of dice and proliferation of re-rolls of various types.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Slipspace wrote:
...
AnomanderRake wrote:It's fairly straightforward to make gameplay decisions, just long and awkward to resolve anything. If you made the game more straightforward more people would probably notice that the actual decision-making is kind of dull below the competitive level.


This has been 40k's core gameplay problem for a while. There's just not enough to it despite all the layered systems in play. The combination of IGOUGO, near-perfect information and shallow rules makes playing the game a weird combination of simple yet time-consuming. Most "tactics" in the game boil down to remembering to do stuff and constantly measuring distances, while resolving actions takes forever due to the buckets of dice and proliferation of re-rolls of various types.


And to me 30k/3e-7e do a much better job of being the straightforward smashing-action-figures-together cinematic ruleset than 8e/9e trying their hardest to be Warmachine and failing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 08:09:43


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Slipspace wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think there are too many systems.


That's the heart of it for me. We've got multiple different detachment types for building our army, stratagems, relics (and SM have Special Issue Wargear, which is similar but different), warlord traits, character upgrades, unique character equipment we pay for instead of it being a relic, Core as a fairly arbitrary designation, army-wide buffs, sub-faction specific buffs, aura buffs, non-aura buffs...and probably a lot more. In some cases it's obviously a result of a lack of depth in the core rules but a lot of those systems are just unnecessary. The problem GW has had for a while is a lack of direction. Nobody seems to be sitting down at the start of an edition and mapping out how things will work and then applying that to every army. So we get Core varying wildly between "pretty much everything" and "these 5 units". We get anti-tank weapons that switch from D6 damage in the first few Codices to D3+3. We get arbitrary caps on the number of mortal wounds a strat can do (sometimes 3, sometimes 6, sometimes more).


I've wondered about tying some of the systems to specific game sizes and/or changing how they work at different game sizes. So maybe you DO get relics, warlord traits, and all that character customize-y stuff in Incursion-sized games where your cutsomized character isn't sharing the spotlight with a ton of units. But then at 1500+ point games, you simply don't get access to relics and warlord traits but instead gain access to doctrines or advanced chapter tactics or whatever. Maybe chaplains can choose specific litanies in 1,000 point games, but just get a single generic litany that you don't roll to activate in 2,000 point games. That sort of thing.

To take the idea a step further, you could use some of the freed up design real-estate to give armies flavorful rules that work at a given game size but would be fiddly or too powerful at other game sizes. So like, maybe tyranids have a bunch of rules for respawning horde units in larger games but not in smaller games where the resulting points advantage could be too powerful. Instead, maybe they get access to more Adaptations in smaller games so that you can customize ur dudez and savor their uniqueness.
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

I wouldn't say complex... but it's certainly clunky.

KT, 40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




I think you may misunderstand WH40K complexity problem. It may be not that complex in general but it is far too complex for what it offers - a simplistic game with few impactful decision points (outside purchasing decisions) and extremely heavy upkeep element. Such a simple game should have simple, elegant rules.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Cyel wrote:
I think you may misunderstand WH40K complexity problem. It may be not that complex in general but it is far too complex for what it offers - a simplistic game with few impactful decision points (outside purchasing decisions) and extremely heavy upkeep element. Such a simple game should have simple, elegant rules.

Definitely, I play games with more complex mechanics than 40k and enjoy them because you feel that complexity born out in dynamics.
I also play simper games with simpler dynamics than 40k and enjoy them because they have correspondingly simple mechanics and don't pretend to be greater.
Although in general simple mechanics that great elegant and dynamic gameplay are rules that I looove. 40k is the exact opposite of this.

I think 40k really suffers from feature creep. Every new book or codex needs to be selling something new. That's why they've layered on rules after rules after rules. They don't ever want to cut anything as players don't like having things taken away, so it just builds up and up.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 08:46:49


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





All I know is that about the age of 13 I got into 40K around 2nd or 3rd Ed and worked it all out pretty easy and knew the rules like the back of my hand. Now I’m 40 and returned to the hobby around the switch from 8th to 9th and I don’t know what’s going on.

I possibly don’t have as much time to invest in it but to be honest it feels like the whole game is about clever application of buffs to stats via strategems and other methods and I can’t be bothered with it.

But maybe my old brains doesn’t work as well as it used to.

I would prefer it if all the rules were in the units data sheet and war gear section of the codex.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I used to spend every lunch time with my friends reading each other's codexes and chatting about the game. I used to write army lists for basically every possible theme, unit, and/or combination imaginable.
Thems were the days.

Nowadays, I don't have that time. I play maybe once a week, sometimes less. I might have an hour or two to write up a list before the game, but generally I'm reusing the same list over and over.
There's just too much information for me to learn and track before and during games now.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





mrFickle wrote:
All I know is that about the age of 13 I got into 40K around 2nd or 3rd Ed and worked it all out pretty easy and knew the rules like the back of my hand. Now I’m 40 and returned to the hobby around the switch from 8th to 9th and I don’t know what’s going on.

I possibly don’t have as much time to invest in it but to be honest it feels like the whole game is about clever application of buffs to stats via strategems and other methods and I can’t be bothered with it.

But maybe my old brains doesn’t work as well as it used to.

I would prefer it if all the rules were in the units data sheet and war gear section of the codex.


I'm in the same boat. I know it's not my brain because I have a 50+ board game collection where I could pull out any game and I'd probably only need a quick refresher on the more complicated ones to get playing, but I don't think I've played a game of 40k since 8th got its codexes where I've remembered everything well. I have a friend who has an entire spreadsheet and checklists made up to make sure he gets everything right. You really shouldn't need spreadhseets to play 40k.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Sim-Life wrote:
I have a friend who has an entire spreadsheet and checklists made up to make sure he gets everything right. You really shouldn't need spreadhseets to play 40k.


Lol, I've got a friend like that as well. He plays SoB - & has this arcane looking flow chart made up that he references at the start of each turn.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Is not complex at all but its very bloated and cumbersome which is even worse.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





Voted for Yes - But I deal with it anyway.

I like complex games, bare bones early 8th edition for too simple for me. But it's becoming too much of a headache now to deal with everything. I'd prefer the core rules were more complex (maybe even bring back USRs?) and then scale back the add ons that each codex has.

I also don't like how each codex having so many rules created gotcha moments, as I don't have the head capacity to commit every army to memory. My own is hard enough! I'm really sick and tired of having to explain my army to my opponent each time;
"So this warlord trait switches off re-rolls, so this guy makes you fight last etc etc."
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I've found games like infinity and warmachine were far more complex and had far more moving parts than 40k. So I think 'complex' isn't the right term.

I think, likewise, complicated isn't the best term to use. 40k has an excess of dice rolling and a huge amount of bloat, that's not the same thing as 'complicated'.

Personally I think it's fairer to say 40k is 'excessively bloated' and 'excessively clunky' in resolving in-game actions. Kind of like going back to some 90s era early playstation games. The controls did their job, but the Control interface was far clunkier than what we'd expect now.





greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I think you're right Deadknight. Neither word is sufficient.

BattleTech is an intensely complex game with rulebooks out the wazoo, but it's far easier to play it than 40k. At the same time, 40k isn't really complicated in that it isn't difficult to play.

There's just so much of it though.

So... unwieldy then.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... unwieldy then.


I think that's the perfect word. Unwieldy.

Between the constant updates (which, in a vacuum are fine), the ever expanding rules (flavour, in a vacuum is fine), the increasing supplements (which, now and then is fine) and the expanding rosters of units and factions it's all just so much when combined and for an adult with a full time job, kids a partner and other areas of life, it starts to make the game inaccessible. I can't imagine it being very good for younger players either.

I literally have to make excel reference sheets to play as otherwise i'm flipping through book after book, app after app every phase and it's maddening and extends the game length to laughable proportions in a way that's not fun.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 10:15:20


- 10,000 pts CSM  
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




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).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 10:21:05


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: