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.

bodazoka wrote:
6th edition is my first for 40K (played fantasy before that) and I agree there is allot of stuff you need to know, im struggling but each game you get better.

My advice would be to get an excel spread sheet, write out your army list and then specifically write out what unit special rules you have per unit and exactly what they do. Then print it out so you have a reference for the game.

For instance its not worth me writing "model X has stealth" I have to write "model X has stealth (which gives you +1 cover save... etc.... so I can easily refer to that during the game.

Those kinds of rules aren't the problem. It's the little rules that sneak into the game that people just forget over the course of a game. Psychic powers is a good example. I always forget to do Blessings at the start of the turn. I always forget to do Deny the Witch on offensive powers. This is due to 40k not having a psychic system since 2nd edition, just having attacks that require a leadership roll to make.

The worst offender is the assault system and wound allocation. They change every edition. Considering I barely get a game in every month, when I finally get into a groove with them they get changed. Not more or less complicated, just different, and learning them all over again.

I still thinking adding rules for every ax, mace, maul, flail, hammer, fist, and chainsword was a bit much. Not only does it just get to be to much, when most of those weapons should fall under the same rules, but you have an issue I faced at change over. My Chaos Terminators had a power mace in one of their hands. One of my Space Marines had a Power Ax. Now, they were fine Power Weapons, and the look was a little extra cool and showed them as not having a normal sword. And being metal minis from years ago it's not like I can snap it off, even if I knew there would be a change, like I did when their base got larger as Eds passed. My Khorne Berserkers came out of the box with axes and swords, but if I want to use the axes, now I have to pay extra, and I have new rules, where if I knew there would be a change like that I would have found a way to use all swords...and who knows what the next change will bring, so why buy more or mess with what is there. I just have to roll hits/wounds separate.
I modeled some of my Chaos Marines with two pistols years ago, since it was two close combat weapons, and it made them look like gun swinging cowboys, then every Marine got a bolter and bolt pistol, and close combat weapon, so little changed, now we have gun slinger rules, so I have to watch using them so not to confuse anyone.

I read something the other day and looking at how my bro and i play the games trying to add stories with them... Jervis Johnson recomends using a GM like in the old days... perhaps if you have a third person (with my bro and I its just us right now) to write a story and be the rules guy on issues that come up and what he says goes etc and run and monitor the random stuff might make it a lot more fun as well as he has been mentioning and i think perhaps where they wanted to go with the game.

Games i played so far are not too bad. I forget minor rules.. the overall game play is the same for me and overall its all a lot easier to play than 1st and 2nd edition lol .

 Bookwrack wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Compared to 2nd this edition is pretty easy to grasp,

I remember back when to figure out how far your vehicle moved if you didn't go in a straight line you had to figure out the arc of the curve, you had an entire flowchart to dictate how your robots moved

Haha tell me about it, every vehicle had a unique damage chart, and the combat rules... wow. Somehow I still remember how to conduct a 2e assault flawlessly, probably because of the amount of study one had to do back then just to figure it out.

Haven't seen a 12" radius S6 (-3 save) explosion since the 'good old days' though.

TBH the biggest problem isn't that the rules are complicated, it's that there's no elegance at all to them. It's just a giant pile of changes on top of changes on top of changes, many of them clumsy in execution, with GW's traditional inability to write clear rules. So you have the obsolete core mechanics from the 1980s, but also whatever GW thought was the cool new idea for 2012. Meanwhile each codex has to be new and different (including way too many marine armies that exist just for the sake of having lots of different marine armies), so you've got tons of special rules that only apply to a unit or two.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game doesn't know if it wants to play at an RPG level, a company wargame level, or a skirmish level. It's a mightily confused ruleset that can't make up its mind what it wants to be so it tries to be everything.

Exactly. Every edition GW just picks "all of the above" and you get your skirmish-scale wound allocation rules being used to turn artillery batteries into character snipers.

The rules are not complicated but the rule set is cluttered which makes them cumbersome.

I would simply remove some of the cinematic crap. I feel like this edition is a step backwards.

I hate the fact that LoS drawn model to model , but wound allocation is done unit vs unit. the rules are simple if you have 5 identical models fighting another 5 identical models. the problem starts when you are in melee with a 11 man GH squads he has a totem guy a WG and RP a hidden MoTW some normal dudes and some plasma dudes and you have a blob of 30 IG with 3 sgts and a comissar. then to get everything right you have to roll everything separate and it turns them game in to 3 hours chore.

Hi folks.
Just to say 40k has ALWAYS had complicated rules.
When you define complexity as lots of different systems to cover one function.

And simple game play when you define complexity as the amount of diversity the operation of the system/game.

2nd ed had very complicated rules, but also had lots of complexity in the game.

3rd ed onwards has most of the complexity stripped out to make way for the massive amount of over complication in the rules!

The CORE rules of 40k, cover standard infantry , with standard weapons.Which is about 20% of the game play.
The rest of the game play is covered with additional systems and exclusive rules.

This by definition makes 40k rules over complicated!

I started playing Warhammer 40k in 6th edition and I don't think it's too complicated. Before I started, I learnt a lot from Miniwargaming's bat-reps. Just by watching, I had the important rules down: Movement, Shooting and Assaulting phases rules.

After reading the rules and some games, me and my friends have the "basic" rules down, but ofc we still check the codex / rulebook for any special rule. There's loads of those and ofc we don't know them by heart.
Another thing I always check to make sure I'm doing it right is the movement for the different types of vehicles. Thankfully the tables at the end of the rulebook have all this.

This last weekend I was teaching a friend how to play 40k and a veteran player was helping me. He mentioned how everything was so simple nowadays compared to the 2nd edition. Hell, I was so surprised when he showed me his RT era Space Marine with the helmet attached to his leg, because he wanted him modeled that way, but if he didn't have an helmet the smoke would give him penalties

I wouldn't say this edition is complicated, so much as just tedious.

Too much dice-rolling. Too much randomess.

Agree with Bodazoka that writing stuff down helps alot - to be fair you are also less likely to "assume" that things are still the same - something that players of all abilities tend to do - we now try to enforce the check the rules first. Im my expereince Tournament players are often the worst offenders in this as they seem to assume they are right (even when they ae soooo not despite what they play in torunaments)

Alot of the problems IMO are due to the rules lawyers trying to constantly twist every little thing in their favour.............but that may be just me, I don't think its that complex compared to previous versions.

There are many things I like about this edition - premeasuring, random charge mechanic, scenarios that are more than just kill points (like in WFB) there are others I am not keen on.

I think learning the rules is a constantly evolving process; it also depends on how often you play. I play about 4-5 games every week, and have played since 3rd Edition, so it mostly comes like second nature (the finer points will be memorised in time.) I still have to check the rulebook ever so often, however, because you forget rules or have been playing them the wrong way.

I think they are. I have been playing sense 2004, I still question everything I do ingame.

I find the rule book setup very, very clunky, kinda unorganized.

Matt Ward absolutely destroys every codex he touches.

Everything seems to have away of having some form of feel no pain.

I cant remember the last time I could roll a normal armor save.

But! I absolutely adore 40k. Everything about it, from the storys to the art is just magical to me. .

ids1984 wrote:
I got back into 40k just before Christmas and although I love painting the models I'm finding the gameplay plain difficult and dis-jointed.

Now it may just be me but I find most games typically follow he following breakdown:

40% playing the game
50% reading he rule book
20% in discussions of the result of reading he rulebook.

now it could because I'm new and eventrually I'll just get it, but I'm finding this format not very enjoyable at he moment, it also doesn't help when we get confused wih previous editions and FAQ being thrown in the mix. I seem to spend far more time reading and discussing rules han playing.

Does anyone else find this or is it just me?

Besides the cost (another beaten to death discussion) I'm finding this pushing me away from GW and considering other brands for the first time, namlythe Mantic Deadzone and Warpath for he selling point of them being faster paced and easier to play.


thoughts?

its all practice man. Games for me are now about 80% gameplay 10% reading 10% dispute/ debate

BlaxicanX wrote:
Too much dice-rolling.

I still love seeing people make this complaint. It cracks me up.

I think 6th Ed is one of the best versions of 40k I've played, probably actually better than 2nd Ed really. I stopped after 3rd, perhaps early 4th, because things were way TOO standardised and simple.

Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

 Melissia wrote:
Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

2nd was damn near unplayable. I have nightmares about the half hour 'blind grenade phase' that launched every turn.

Roll to see how each of the 10 blind grenade templates blows, roll to see which expire, draw line of sight to see which models are blocked...

I still firmly beleive a lot of praise 2nd edition gets is Rose Tinted Glasses syndrome. I don't doubt that some people thoroughly enjoyed it, but a lot of the mechanics people touted as superior plainly weren't. It really does just feel like nostolgia talking. Even still, when I hear people talk about 2nd edition and a bad mechanic is brought up, the common repsonse is 'we house ruled it so...'.

I mean, when a designer comes out, apologises for a wargear item and recommends it be torn up, you know there's problems.

 -Loki- wrote:
Those kinds of rules aren't the problem. It's the little rules that sneak into the game that people just forget over the course of a game. Psychic powers is a good example. I always forget to do Blessings at the start of the turn. I always forget to do Deny the Witch on offensive powers. This is due to 40k not having a psychic system since 2nd edition, just having attacks that require a leadership roll to make.

The worst offender is the assault system and wound allocation. They change every edition. Considering I barely get a game in every month, when I finally get into a groove with them they get changed. Not more or less complicated, just different, and learning them all over again.

That is more forgetting the rule rather then not knowing the rule though, 'little rules' are a massive problem for our group who only play once a month and have a heap of new Codices coming though. For instance my group mis read the wound pool allocation rule and would have an IC with a 2+ 3++ use his save first before deciding whether to then roll for look out sir. As you can imagine that changes the game greatly! also things like Tau players using a squads own marker lights, and Necron players assuming scythes have QS etc...

Speaking of wound allocation I have just realized that you cant assign wounds to models out of someones weapon range. We always play you cant shoot at models out of weapon range but all wounds accrued even as models are removed from the front are still counted. Once again a pretty big game changer!

been playing since second. 5th was a much cleaner set of rules, probably the cleanest yet. They really muddied up CC in this edition and made shooting a lot more difficult to manage. Not sure why they did it.

In my honest opinion: no.

In fact, I would say, its even easier than before, as in my perspective so many things are more uniform and streamlined.

Perhaps the people in your group and play circle are not used to the new edition yet, or some other factor.

Some of the suggestions here on making references until you learn your army or rules are good ones.

Of course, these are my opinions, and the results of others may vary....but overall, I think its easier.

best of luck and have fun!!

 RicBlasko wrote:
I still thinking adding rules for every ax, mace, maul, flail, hammer, fist, and chainsword was a bit much. Not only does it just get to be to much, when most of those weapons should fall under the same rules, but you have an issue I faced at change over. My Chaos Terminators had a power mace in one of their hands. One of my Space Marines had a Power Ax. Now, they were fine Power Weapons, and the look was a little extra cool and showed them as not having a normal sword. And being metal minis from years ago it's not like I can snap it off, even if I knew there would be a change, like I did when their base got larger as Eds passed. My Khorne Berserkers came out of the box with axes and swords, but if I want to use the axes, now I have to pay extra, and I have new rules, where if I knew there would be a change like that I would have found a way to use all swords...and who knows what the next change will bring, so why buy more or mess with what is there. I just have to roll hits/wounds separate.
I modeled some of my Chaos Marines with two pistols years ago, since it was two close combat weapons, and it made them look like gun swinging cowboys, then every Marine got a bolter and bolt pistol, and close combat weapon, so little changed, now we have gun slinger rules, so I have to watch using them so not to confuse anyone.

Agreed. More trouble than it's worth, on several levels.

At its core, the system is great! But there is a preponderance of cluttered rules layers that serve to spoil good game play. 6th Ed. was a lateral move as was 5th, and now the rules and the scope of the game seem to be clashing with itself. As Valkathi and Peregrine pointed out so well, the game is confused about what it even is supposed to represent anymore.

 Melissia wrote:
Way better than 2nd edition. 2nd edition was pretty lame

2nd edition sucked, but mostly we didnt know it at the time.

2nd ed still had tons of broke stuff in it like virus grenades and sustained fire. 3rd was the bringing of 40k as we know it now. 5th was the pinnacle and 6th is a step backwards IMO.

Regarding the bit on "different rules for mace, ax and hammer" some players like this, as it allows for more diversity of builds, and feel that it gives more creedence to what a hero might be wielding...

I also do recognize, however, that this fact, like many others, if not accounted for when a player made the minis - can be troublesome later.

Personally, I would not change them - as long as they are homogenous units, just say "hey, all these guys only have power weapons, they are all the same, I just like them because they look cool".
As long as it'ts not "oh, this unit the axes are swords, and the maces are powerfists, but on this unit the swords are axes and power fists are pistols.." any reasonable player should not have a problem with it.

I would happily play against you if you did such.

I do admit, the rules suffer from not enough rounds of play testing and proof -reading (they used the same individuals too long - I see it all the time in software development) but overall I feel they are not that complex.

Or rather, the EDITION rules are not that complex...add in all the army specific special rules....well, that gets to be quite the challenge - but that I play too many armies...

best of luck and have fun!

The main reason 40k rules are STILL over complicated, is they are STILL using WHFB game mechanics .

If they re -wrote 40k using Epic game mechanics I am sure the level of rules complication would reduce, and game play and balance would improve.

davethepak wrote:
Regarding the bit on "different rules for mace, ax and hammer" some players like this, as it allows for more diversity of builds, and feel that it gives more creedence to what a hero might be wielding..

The point is that it's an example of GW not really knowing what they want to do with the rules. Having different rules for different power weapons makes a lot of sense in an RPG or skirmish-scale game where the game is all about a small number of characters and you want maximum detail in their actions/equipment/etc. Having different rules for different power weapons makes no sense at all in a company-scale wargame where the difference between a power axe and power sword for the sergeant makes little or no difference in what an entire unit is capable of. The detailed rules that are great in the small-scale game just add pointless clutter in the large-scale game.

Rules issues were common at first. 6E is much more of a simulation than it used to be, so they are doing MORE things that "make sense" than they used to (wound allocation being one of them) but because they are... It's creating confusion with the other half of the brain that wants balance.

I'd say that it will come naturally but it will take games to figure it out. Trust in your opponents good will and it will go a long way towards makign the rules lookups seem a friendly exercize.

tgf wrote:
been playing since second. 5th was a much cleaner set of rules, probably the cleanest yet. They really muddied up CC in this edition and made shooting a lot more difficult to manage. Not sure why they did it.

5th edition was cleaner but a lot of the simplifications were pretty silly. The way that cover worked essentially meant constant 4+ cover save for everyone, as long as you use the proper amount of terrain. Whenever I built a list I regarded AP3 as irrelevent unless it was on a flame template, since it just means the save goes from 3+ to 4+. Add in 4+ feel no pain and you get blood angel infantry that are tougher to kill than TH/SS terminators.

And close combat gave us hidden power weapon shinanigans, the entire cornerstone of blob guard was loading the sargents and commissars up with power weapons so that you could remove grunts while every turn your power weapons felled 2 or 3 marines/terminators. The new method is more combersome but it's not as silly.

 BryllCream wrote:
The new method is more combersome but it's not as silly.

So having a Basilisk be the best sniper weapon in the game is "not as silly"?