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.

Basilisks aren't the best sniper weapon in the game.

Pathfinders and Vindicres are far better. This is all assuming that your enemy would leave his really expensive warlord just strolling around the back of the field out of line of sight of everything in your army.

 BryllCream wrote:
Basilisks aren't the best sniper weapon in the game.

Pathfinders and Vindicres are far better. This is all assuming that your enemy would leave his really expensive warlord just strolling around the back of the field out of line of sight of everything in your army.

Sigh. Nitpick all you want about whether it's technically the absolute best or just near the top, but the point of that statement remains: the wound allocation rules may have stopped the "silly" hidden power weapons, but they simultaneously enabled the equally silly barrage sniping that turns Basilisks into sniper rifles.

Right but the frequency of that occuring - of Bassies picking out a charector (don't they get look out sir! anyway?), is less frequent than each shooting attack getting 4+ cover, and each combat with a tactical squad with a hidden fist in it.

 BryllCream wrote:
(don't they get look out sir! anyway?)

Unless you're sniping the melta gun out of a squad instead of the character. And even if you have LoS you have to keep rolling it for every wound until you die or run out of wounds, and even a single failed LoS probably means a dead character.

Also, the hidden power fist may have been more common, but the sniper Basilisk is much more fluff-breaking and obnoxious. The sergeant usually surviving to the end could be rationalized as a combination of the sergeant being the best fighter in the unit and the cliche of the hero character always surviving until the end (or until it's time for a heroic death). The sniper Basilisk is just stupid in every way.

So the "best sniper in the game" will scatter 2/3 of the time, a single S8 AP3 wound and the target *always* gets a 2+ save?

You think that is as game changing as 4+ cover in every single shooting attack in every single game you ever played? Or the hidden power fists in every single tactical squad in every battle ever played? Really?

 BryllCream wrote:
So the "best sniper in the game" will scatter 2/3 of the time, a single S8 AP3 wound and the target *always* gets a 2+ save?

1) It scatters 2/3 of the time, and some of that 2/3 will still result in a close enough hit to get the job done. Compare this to a normal sniper rifle, which "scatters" 5/6 of the time, allows the same 2+ save, only wounds on a 4+ instead of a 2+, doesn't ignore most armor, and doesn't inflict instant death.

2) Where are you getting the idea that it's only a single wound (at STR 9, not 8)? If you hit six models in the unit and roll five wounds the target has five wounds to take (or attempt to LoS away).

You think that is as game changing as 4+ cover in every single shooting attack in every single game you ever played? Or the hidden power fists in every single tactical squad in every battle ever played? Really?

I didn't say it was game changing, I said it was a stupid rule. The question was whether GW's different choices of rules were silly or not, not whether they were unbalanced.

Also, I didn't say anything about "universal" 4+ cover (which had a lot to do with people ignoring the rules for terrain that wasn't 4+ cover), I was comparing wound allocation systems.

...were you touched up by a Basilisk when you were a kid or something? You seriously can't compare basilisk sniping to 4++ universal cover, or hidden power weapons.

The fact that 6th has less aggregate silliness is clearly better, no?

Interestingly enough cannons are one of the best sniper units in fantasy. In couple of editions we will have one rule set!

/sarcasm off

Well they are STILL using WHFB game mechanic in 40k over 15 after they stopped being suitable for the game play ,so what do you expect?

What whfb mechanics are in 40k that are not appropriate?

Do you get all of the FAQ mods in the Ipad edition of codices?

Message to original OP:

They have tried to streamline the rules to get new players in.

Us old Roguetrader, second edition types are finding core mechanics too simple.

The loose wording of the rules and people taking those grey zones to the max can make it very complicated rules lawyering.

There are more streamlined game systems out there, all of us have a "go to" beer and pretzels game to fall back on if the the latest FAQ changes hurts the brain.

Relax and enjoy, good luck!

bodazoka wrote:
Do you get all of the FAQ mods in the Ipad edition of codices?

IIRC, they could get updates before the FAQ/errata! I remember hyperphase sword being AP3 in the ebook weeks before they released the FAQ, so people were arguing that it could be an axe for all we know! Hyperphase sword, an axe!

The ebooks tend to have the first 'hotfix' FAQ updates, due to GW being able to work on them right up until launch, while the print codex needs to be finalised months beforehand for print, storage and distribution.

A good example is Tau missile drones being limited to Broadsides. The ebook always had that restriction, the book does not. They fixed it before the ebook version was put on sale, but after the print book was sent to the printers.

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?

Before I read the rest of the thread. I do not think WH40K is complicated at all. The basic rules at least are not all that complicated.

What does annoy me about this ruleset however, is that they are consistently badly written.

There are no or very few clear definitions of what certain words mean within the rules. Wording between different rules that are doing similar things can be very different. Rules between various books often contradict each other. And so on and so on. Just spending a few days in YMDC has made that very clear.

Then again, this is the only Miniatures game I play. The other games I do play however are

DnD: Similar level of complexity, much clearer rules.
ASL: Massively more complex. Much clearer rules.
SFB: Massively more complex, current edition is much clearer as well.

So for me, no, the problem is not complexity. The problem is that these rules are not properly "technically" written.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Personally I think certain rules are just worded in a too complicated manner:
Examples

- "The unit suffers a number of Strength (X) hits equal to the number of models in the unit at least partially under the template"
Why not just say "each model under the template takes a Strength (X) hit?" I know this is to stop Barrage weapons sniping characters etc but it's just too unecessary to word it in that manner.

- "At the start of the fight sub-phase roll a D3. The enemy unit suffers a penalty to their Weapon Skill and Initiative values equal to the result of the D3 until the end of the phase".
Why not just say "Enemy units suffer a D3 penalty to their WS and I values for the rest of the phase."?

a) Because it isn't the models under the template. In previous editions (4th I think) that was how it worked and then you had weird rules to swap the models that were under the template with others and such, it was a mess. Now it is very clear. Count ow many are under the template, the unit suffers that many hits and they are resolved as normal shooting attacks.

b) Your version leaves open the discussion on whether you roll one die for both penalties, or a separate die for both.

In both cases here, the GW rule as written is actually better.

Baktru wrote:
SFB: Massively more complex, current edition is much clearer as well.

I think the problem here is design intent. SFB was designed from the beginning to be the most "realistic" possible simulation of Star Trek starship combat, and executes that plan as effectively as possible. So you have detailed rules, but written by people who know they're writing a complex system and pay attention to things like careful organization and limiting the number of ships involved. 40k, on the other hand, feels like the designers just throw on whatever rules they feel like adding at the moment. So you have the rules paying careful attention to tiny details like exactly what type of power weapon a model is armed with while simultaneously abstracting everything away to the point where a unit can't have the autocannon engage a tank while the lasguns shoot at an infantry target. The authors aren't working under any kind of overall plan or complexity budget, so the result is a complete mess.

SFB has vast rulebooks with hundreds of pages and truely massive amounts of errata that have accumulated over the decades in each edition of the rules.

Its a different game for a different mindset and taste....

40K is designed to be fun pick up game and for the most part it works although there are things that are annoying - but thats all games of whatever complexity.

The problems seem to be more when people twist every possible meaning of a word to their own advantage siting RAW as an excuse for bad behaviour especially when the RAI is obvious. But then they do this in SFB as well as a regular on their forum..........

Hi BryllCream.

The WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods that are less than 'optimum' for 40k include...

A)The game turn mechanic.
Alternating player turns are fine if the units start out of effective range of the enemy, and have to manouver into effective range.
In WHFB most units have to get in to close combat to be in effective range, as ranged weapons are used mainly in support of close combat .
The much lower model count in RT and 2nd ed made 'manouvreing to engage' a very important part of the game play.

The majority of 40k unit carry ranged weapons , so after the increase in model count leading to cramped battle fields, most armies units can engage in turn 1.
Also the waiting for your opponent to move, then shoot, then assault, with everything is rather boring , and can lead to players loosing interest in the game.

Alternating phases, or alternating unit activation, would increase the player interaction and tactical consideration in the game, while removing the complication of additional rules to get more interaction.(EG 'over-watch' etc.)

B)The damage resolution.
WHFB damage resolution mechanic is fine for the simple weapons and armour found in the WHFB world.
A lump of metal/wood/rock is swung or thrown at a target.The targets protection (armour) is either plates/strips of hide or metal of some sort.
Most weapons are low velocity, or low yield impact, which allow the target to dodge or deflect the potential hit(s) making them reasonably survivable..

So the roll to hit- roll to wound - roll to save makes sense.
An orc swings an axe at the head of an elf.(Roll to see if the orc would hit the elf.)
Then see what damage the axe will do if the elf doesnt deflect/dodge the blow.(Roll to wound.)
Then roll to see if the elf can dodge out of the way or deflect the blow with armour/shield.

Compared the most of the ADVANCED weapons of the 40k universe, lasers, plasma,energy /powered edge weapons , mostly high velocity and or high yield impact.
Generaly when hit, the target simply relies on its armour protection.(Not much chance to dodge out of the way...)
If its lucky the armour reduced the impact of the hit to make it survivable.
Using damage resolution similar to FoW or Epic would make for a more straightforward and intuitive damage resolution process.

I could go on , to cover ALL the current game mechanics and resolution methods in the current 40k game but ill stop there...

If more appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods were used ,the core rules could cover far more game play, reducing the amount of extra rules that cause over complication in the rule set.
Which would leave more room for actual game play.(Complex game play with intuitive rules, rather than complicated rules and simple game play.)

(Are you familiar with any other rule sets apart from 40k?Epic Armageddon seems to have more synergy with battles in the 40k universe, than the current 40k game does.)

Lots of people seem to think that well defined , intuitive rules would destroy narrative games.In my 3 decades of playing table top war games, the more defined and intuitive the rules the easier they are to adapt and evolve to suit narrative requirements.

Who cares, as long as it's fun. Dont lose sight of what matters.

Hi Jancoran.
IF you like reading EXTRA pages and pages of rules that are counter intuitive and confusing for fun, rather than playing the game .
Or enjoy arguing about what the rules are supposed to mean rather then playing the game.

Compared to people who have fun playing the actual games , you have lost sight of what is important IMO!

The game play of 40k could be covered in a fraction of the pages of the current rules take up.IF it was written for game play rather than sales of individual minatures.

I have no problem with the game play of 40k, its ideal for its target audience.

But the instructions to play the game(rules,) are over complicated and counter intuitive, when compared to other rule sets.

FUN game play is the most important thing.Poorly worded , counter intuitive and over complicated rules detracts from this.

I dont find it complicated and the rulebook reads more like a REFERENCE guie once youve been through it.

As for arguing, thats on the players, not the game. the intent is obvious more often than it isn't and if you have pople who care about the other persons fun, then that will be enough in the oddball places.

This comes down to players. Really. I literally play more non-online games than anyone I have ever met, miniature or otherwise. The list is...staggering. I am as eclectic as they come. One minute Im playing Babylon 5 A Call to Arms, then its Monsterpocalypse, then its Warhammer fantasy, then its 40K, then its Flames of War, then its DBA and so on.

And in every game, the rules are vastly different but onething stays the same: people want to play together and push reallly really REALLY cool models around and kill each other with them.

So you can get wrapped up in WHAt the rules are or you can do what I do: learn them and enjoy them for WHATthey are with people who aren't a douche about it.

Tend to agree with everything that Janacorn says in this matter

Are you really calling some people's friends "douche" for arguing about rules? Seriously?

I play tabletop games with my friends as well, we're a good bunch, none of us are TFG or seriously bent on WAAC in any game we play, but now and then, regardless of game we play, we'd get into debate or discussion on how some certain rules worked or how it isn't worded the most clearly, and WH40k is the one game that we have to constantly look online to find answer for rules, a game normally takes longer as we have to look up rules for this, rules for that, FAQ for this and that, or online discussions for the most popular solution/RAI, and occasionally have to ask for 3rd party's opinion to decide stuffs!

What I'm saying is: arguing about rules doesn't make it douchey, especially when the rules are so poorly written. A fun game can have clear, well-written rules, even competitive rules, heard of sports? Heard of tennis? I heard it's this competitive sport that a lot of people play casually for fun, I'm never invited to one, so I don't have any first hand experience... Or how about video games? Halo, CoD, CS, Street fighters??? Or MtG? D&D(well not competitive, but well written rules)? Pathfinder? I can keep listing games that are fun with well-written rules.

And it's great if you're fine with the rules, if I ask you how far a jetpack infantry can move, and then how many dice to roll for beast in terrain, then what does '3' meant on the personal warlord table, and whether drop pod can have a mishap if it doesn't scatter or whatever the current YMDC hot topic is/was(I can't use drop pod, so I didn't follow! ), and you can answer all that without looking in the book or online for answer/solution, kudos to you, high five yourself and open a bottle of champagne. But there's no need to throw insults at those people who hold a different view.

I don't think he did or I would not have agreed - what line says that?

Every tabletop game I have ever played has had things that I needed to look up but on a average night at our club - only a few mins are spent checking things - and thats about it.

To be honest the only time we have really have an issue is when someone is trying exploit the rules - then it can take a bit of time to sort out.

We are all different

So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)




I don't believe that these people are stupid or malicious in their misreading of the rules. I also don't think that these rules are misread because, looking at the rules in the book, there's little room for misinterpretation. I think players are simply forced to juggle so many different rules nowadays that it's easy to confuse things for other things, especially between editions.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)

Well the first is correct:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Read the FAQ.

I couldn't find anything on the second. The rule book even states "rounding up".

 Griddlelol wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So a bit of anecdote...

I traveled to a GW store to play a game with my Death Wing. Either the rules are unclear, or peoples' house rulings are goofy because both my opponent and the store manager claimed the following:

Look Out Sir! rolls can only be made on the closest model to the "sir" (false)

Reserves are allowed for 50% of your units rounding down (false as far as I know)

Well the first is correct:

Page 16 – Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Read the FAQ.

I couldn't find anything on the second. The rule book even states "rounding up".

That must be in the FAQ as the rulebook says pretty clearly, "On a roll of 4+,the look Out, Sir attempt is successful. You must pick a model from the same unit within 6" and resolve the Wound against them instead."

Leave it to GW to completely change a rule with an FAQ.,

I still miss when you used a template, only the ones under it could take the wounds from it/die from it. Not giving people the change to scatter it all over the unit as they liked.

The definition of over complicated is using more elements than needed to describe a function.

40k rules use multiple resolution methods to cover single functions.
Therefore it IS over complicated.

Every extra resolution method and 'exception rule' (special rule,) adds to the complication of the game, and diminishes the complexity of the game play.

As with many in this thread the problem is not the rules themselves so much as the presentation. Having just got back into after 16 or so years it is quite a steep learning curve and the rule book doesnt always make it easy especially the ability chains i.e. a model has this special rule which also grants this special rule which leads to another special rule (and a lot of frantic searching in the rule book and between the codex and rule book).

Having said this it would be difficult for them to make it as complex as rogue trader (plus expansions) was, and I started when i was 9 (I dont think we once played to the proper rules)