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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
This company has books novels, game books, miniatures that just get better and better

Which is a matter of opinion. IMO the miniatures get worse and worse (centurions, apocalypse, etc), and the rulebooks are just garbage. Meanwhile competing companies put out much better work for equal or less money.

Games Days

1) That's missing the point of this thread, which is about the game itself, not the stuff associated with it.

2) GW is doing their best to kill Games Day. Fewer of them, fewer interesting events at them, etc. Meanwhile countless general gaming/hobby conventions are a much more appealing option.

Tournaments

Again, killed off by GW*. All tournaments these days are run by third-party groups, which can run tournaments for other games just as well.

*Unless you live near GW HQ, in which case you can have the "privilege" of playing in some mediocre-at-best "tournaments".

GW Hobby Centers

Which are just independent game stores but with a much smaller range of products available and a ban on using anything in the store that isn't a GW game/model. If every single GW store disappeared overnight the miniatures hobby as a whole would benefit significantly.

Hotlines to ask any questions from rules to customer service

You mean the rule hotline that is notorious for having people who don't understand how the rules work and give you a different answer each time you ask?

to replace missing bits in kits.

Also known as "providing the minimum customer service as required by law". Fixing a defective product isn't something to be praised, it's just the bare minimum to avoid filing a fraud report and getting your credit card company to reverse the charge.

So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.
Or are you just trolling,
Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.

 Kelly502 wrote:
So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.

I still play occasionally because I love my DKoK fluff/models, not because the rules are worth playing. And the more I play X-wing (a well designed game, btw) the more I wonder why I bother playing 40k at all instead of just painting.

My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.

Yes, but the point is that's the bare minimum that GW is required to do by law. If GW sells you a kit with missing pieces they have sold you a defective product and are obligated to fix it. This isn't something to congratulate GW for, it's just what you expect when you buy something.

Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.

Read the OP again: the point of this thread is the game itself, with things like Games Day specifically excluded.

Also, have you ever been to a non-GW gaming convention?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.

I still play occasionally because I love my DKoK fluff/models, not because the rules are worth playing. And the more I play X-wing (a well designed game, btw) the more I wonder why I bother playing 40k at all instead of just painting.

My personal experience with tech support ie getting bits replaced has never been a problem.

Yes, but the point is that's the bare minimum that GW is required to do by law. If GW sells you a kit with missing pieces they have sold you a defective product and are obligated to fix it. This isn't something to congratulate GW for, it's just what you expect when you buy something.

Yes, Games Days are part of the GW gaming experience and the experience is part of the game, and something I look forward to.

Read the OP again: the point of this thread is the game itself, with things like Games Day specifically excluded.

Also, have you ever been to a non-GW gaming convention?

Sure have, quite a few as a matter of fact, about half were drunk-acons and the others 1/2 were historical wargames. Drunk-a-cons had about every system going on and I can't say I'd go to another. Got invited to most to run games, demos, tournaments. I enjoy meeting the tallented gamers, painters, and new bloods. Ran demos at the release of second ed. and out of 75 boxes ordered, 6 were left by day two.

I enjoy Games Days, organized and perpared, met loads of tallent, and enjoyed every single one.

There are some things I don't like but I get over it, and I don't whine. Over the years I've learned to be grateful. I try to see the bright side, I'll let slip my dislike of the Blood Angels last set of models and such. But I made due. I also don't care for the "growing" pains with new rules and new Codice, but when it boils down to it I'm so enthused when I get my mitts on the new stuff I forget to be disgruntled.

I love it, I'll demo it and promote it where ever and when ever I can.

I have to say that having attended one GW games day I'll never attend another. They were apparently great at one point but now it's just a giant Forgeworld stand in a convention hall with screaming kids everywhere. Nothing new or exciting to see, no opportunities to do any new hobby, just an hour+ queue to save the postage cost of FW stuff.

I still go to all the local indie shows though; where I can see new stuff on show, play new games, spend far more money than I'd ever planned.

 Ailaros wrote:
Wow, there's a lot here. To start, I'd echo a few things being said.

Firstly, 40k does have a simple rules set. This may seem odd given the size of the rulebook, but it's about the rules you use and how often that's important. 40k is simple because if I said "this is a tac marine squad with a missile launcher", you know that it's 8 models with the same weapons and statline, one model that's the same except he's got a close combat weapon and bolt pistol and +1Ld, and another guy that's exactly the same, except he uses a missile launcher - a well-known weapon upgrade.

That sounds pretty complicated by wargames standards; you've got a unit of 10 men that has 2 different morale attributes, 3 different weapon ranges, 2 different weapon types (direct firing and blast template), 2 different close combat attacks. That's before even considering if you've split them into combat squads.

Compare it to any historical army, you've generally got homogeneous units which may have a different command character, but is generally rolled into the unit stats. Like a formation of pikemen or a platoon of Grenadiers.

It's not too complex compared to RPG style skirmish games where a character can have lots of unique wargear, but in that case the 1 figure is equivalent to at least the whole tactical squad.



You seem to be arguing that because GW still has the momentum and market share, it's definitively the best game. But in my opinion, at least, it's still got the moment and market share despite the poor, overpriced rule set. Beyond some early 90's garage brew rules I've got for Napoleonic naval battles (typewritten and photocopied on card!), Warhammer 40K is the worst ruleset I own.

This question, for me, is answered rather simply- if I play 40K with alternate rules, is it a better experience? A while back, when I was unemployed for a bit I did a 40K to Warmachine conversion (link in sig) and it wasn't at all bad. It feels far more like younger versions of 40k but hey, I'm still moving around space marines and what not. I get to have the fluff I like and despite a wholesale creation of 100+ units *not one single rules issue*.

40K= rules bad, fluff good.

 Kelly502 wrote:
So do you even play then? You seem seriously negative about them.
...
Or are you just trolling,

This is a little off topic but this comes up waaaay too often in these threads so I'd just like to chime in here.
The idea that if you don't play you can't state your opinion, or that if you complain about the game you should just stop playing, or that anyone who plays but says negative things about the game is trolling are all stupid.



Back on topic I honestly think the best thing for 40k at this point would be to scrap it and create 40k V2.0 1st edition.
- Scrap everything so it can be rebuilt WITH BALANCE. There is literally no reason they shouldn't, it doesn't make the game any less sandboxy, or creative, and it doesn't harm 'fun' lists in any way (in fact it makes them better since you can play them with a chance of winning).
- Do away with the 'I do my whole turn then you do yours' mentality. I can't count the number of times in larger games where I nearly fell asleep in my opponents turns (not an exaggeration, playing till 1am is hard). The Lords of the Rings strategy game wasn't bad with it's 'I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot' approach and games like Dystopian wars are quite engaging with the 'I activate this unit, you activate that unit, repeat until all units are done'.
- Either ditch the measuring for each model and taking casualties from the front of ditch artillery and fliers. The game doesn't know what scale it is, it has skirmish game elements in it but it also has thing that absolutely shouldn't be in a skirmish game, as well as a model count well above skirmish scale.
- Get rid of the 3 rolls required to kill something, 3+ then 4+ then hope your opponent fails his 4+ is unnecessary. You could easily turn that into 2 rolls, one to hit with modifiers for things like cover and one to kill with modifiers for things like armour. If you wanted to branch into things other than d6s you could do it in 1 roll with a lot of modifiers but that might be unnecessary. 3 rolls is too many though.
- Cover. Cover saves as they are suck. Marines standing in knee high rubble shouldn't get a 4+ against a demolisher cannon and being able to deploy your entire guard army in cover so a 5+ save army turns into a 3+ save army is just stupid. I don't know if it's still a thing in 6th but in 5th (in my area at least) it was accepted that hills are area terrain and you get a cover save for standing on them, that was .

This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:

Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?

Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.

jonolikespie wrote:Back on topic I honestly think the best thing for 40k at this point would be to scrap it and create 40k V2.0 1st edition.
- Scrap everything so it can be rebuilt WITH BALANCE. There is literally no reason they shouldn't, it doesn't make the game any less sandboxy, or creative, and it doesn't harm 'fun' lists in any way (in fact it makes them better since you can play them with a chance of winning).
- Do away with the 'I do my whole turn then you do yours' mentality. I can't count the number of times in larger games where I nearly fell asleep in my opponents turns (not an exaggeration, playing till 1am is hard). The Lords of the Rings strategy game wasn't bad with it's 'I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot' approach and games like Dystopian wars are quite engaging with the 'I activate this unit, you activate that unit, repeat until all units are done'.
- Either ditch the measuring for each model and taking casualties from the front of ditch artillery and fliers. The game doesn't know what scale it is, it has skirmish game elements in it but it also has thing that absolutely shouldn't be in a skirmish game, as well as a model count well above skirmish scale.
- Get rid of the 3 rolls required to kill something, 3+ then 4+ then hope your opponent fails his 4+ is unnecessary. You could easily turn that into 2 rolls, one to hit with modifiers for things like cover and one to kill with modifiers for things like armour. If you wanted to branch into things other than d6s you could do it in 1 roll with a lot of modifiers but that might be unnecessary. 3 rolls is too many though.
- Cover. Cover saves as they are suck. Marines standing in knee high rubble shouldn't get a 4+ against a demolisher cannon and being able to deploy your entire guard army in cover so a 5+ save army turns into a 3+ save army is just stupid. I don't know if it's still a thing in 6th but in 5th (in my area at least) it was accepted that hills are area terrain and you get a cover save for standing on them, that was .

Quoted because this is the only viable solution to make 40k a playable game. Full ground up rewrite, perhaps even by a different company unassociated with making money from miniatures, to prevent any temptation to make pricey units better. Alas I don't think this will ever happen, especially at the rate GW releases Codexes and updates.
10 and 20 years from now it'll still be the same basic fantasy-melee-kludged-into-sci-fi stat line (WS, S, I, A...uh but we use guns sometimes!), the same tedious UGO-IGO snorefest, rolling hundreds of dice per game and dozens per single attack (which is the most common action in the game, and one of the worst), and the mess of contradictory Codex specific rules. Hopefully more people will have figured out how bad 40k is from a pure playability standpoint and moved onto something else.

Ratius wrote:

And up until fairly recently Games Workshop did in fact encourage and endorse tourneys.



That does not however make their ruleset competitive or even balanced



umm, that was kind of my point.

Apologies, I misread your post/intention.

 heartserenade wrote:
This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:

Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?

Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.

I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.

My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)

The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!

*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:

Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?

Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.

I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.

My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)

The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!

*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )

In his defense, Grump, I think it's more along the lines of him asking his friend if he's attracted to his significant other. Instead, he responds in every way BUT his feeling of attraction. I've dated girls in HS who went on to have small time modeling careers, as well as girls who wouldn't win a beauty pageant if their lives depended on it, but I was always attracted to at least something physical about them. While I agree that physical attraction is not the most important part in a relationship, it should at least be included.

Looking only at the rules for 40k:They are garbage.

Game mechanics are meant to be used, not create a whole series of rules so you can override them at every turn:

Leadership check - unless you are Fearless or ATSKNF or shoot a guy in the squad or have 30 models in the squad or....
To Wound - unless you use Poison.
# of Wounds - unless it doubles your toughness or force weapon or ...
Armor Save - unless AP is used.
Cover Save - unless a template is used or the multitude of things that ignore it.
Add an extra die roll - Feel no pain!
Add re-rolls - TL, various spells, master craft....
Difficult/Dangerous Terrain - Skilled Rider, Monsterous Creature...
....
Yes, I left MANY things out.
There are so many if, but, or, freaking SPECIAL RULES.

I have played SO many games in my lifetime that have few gray zones, good rules (Battletech, X-wing, BlackPowder, Star-Commander) and yes they may be inflexible for those wild and wooly epic massive battles you want but some games like Risk can give you counters by the handful.

It is utter garbage for competitive play and I laugh when people win and claim to be the master general because it really boils down to just playing the most broken army and allies with the right units and a plan of attack.
Yes, being great at analyzing the combinations to the best effect is still a good exercise but those four choices initially give a huge leg up.

I play 40k because I can make a scenario I think has a good story or reason for the battle, control points level, goals and deployment and then test it many times.
The games are usually fun, things go wrong (sometimes hilariously so) and oddly enough my friends "the players" see the scenario, play in character, and it is usually a fantastic bloodbath with many surprises.
The game is good because it has enough bones to it we create the balance needed GW cannot be bothered to do and we are lazy and have played GW for decades so it is very familiar.

It may be garbage, but it is garbage I am used to along with many other people so I can make it work even if I should not have to.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
This reminds me of conversations with my friend about the girl he was dating:

Me: So is she cute?
Friend: She's really nice.
Me: Nice is nice! But how attractive is she?
Friend: She's really into the music I like.
Me: That's not what I asked.
Friend: And she's a musician! How cool is that?

Granted, I don't think that attraction should be solely based on physical beauty, but the point is if someone is asking you if someone is attractive and they're not answering the question, it's like asking if 40/WHFB rules have merit and answering "the fluff is nice, and it's very sandbox-y! And oh, everyone is playing it, so it must be good!" Which means the answer is no.

I'm with your friend on this one - physical attractiveness is the least important thing on the list.

My girlfriend is nice - I like her a lot, we hang out together.
She's (mostly) into the music that I like.
And she's a musician! How cool is that?! (She even dragged me into a short lived punk band... not an easy thing to do.)

The Auld Grump, plus, she's really freakin' cute!

*EDIT* More importantly - she games! (And is really cute! )

In his defense, Grump, I think it's more along the lines of him asking his friend if he's attracted to his significant other. Instead, he responds in every way BUT his feeling of attraction. I've dated girls in HS who went on to have small time modeling careers, as well as girls who wouldn't win a beauty pageant if their lives depended on it, but I was always attracted to at least something physical about them. While I agree that physical attraction is not the most important part in a relationship, it should at least be included.

And just like miniatures, you should be attracted to the look of the miniatures at least and not just the game world and the rules (but they're important as well!).

Yes, I just compared relationships to miniatures.

 heartserenade wrote:

And just like miniatures, you should be attracted to the look of the miniatures at least and not just the game world and the rules (but they're important as well!).

Yes, I just compared relationships to miniatures.

I actually agree with this. Here's a similar analogy.

I once took a "year off" from college and worked at Guitar Center. I would tell parents that it's a good idea to buy the best guitar they can reasonably afford, but that's it's still ok if your kid's first guitar purchase is based largely on looks. Most anything in the store can be setup to play reasonably well, but if looking at it doesn't inspire your kid to pick it up and play then they're probably not going to play guitar for very long.

For most folks, it's the same with miniatures, both the game you play and the faction you choose. It's got to look cool to you. I rarely play 40k anymore, but it was definitely the cool minis that made it my first (and for 10 years "only") wargame.

When someone posts "40k's rules are simple!" I really have to ask if they've ever stood back and looked at the rules with fresh eyes? The rules might be easy to someone who's played continuously for years but they are not in the least bit simple. Let's start with some very basics.

Ballistic Skill.
All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.

Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.

These are just two examples, but trust me when you stand back from the 40k rules and look at them with fresh eyes they are not "simple". They are bloated, overcomplicated for no good reason and terribly written.

 gossipmeng wrote:
I stick with GW mainly for the fluff and miniatures that follow. The only reason I play the game system at all is to see my army on the table using my semi-competitive/fluff lists.

I haven't dabbled in other systems too much over the last few years, but I was looking into infinity a few months ago (still debating on picking it up) and the rules just seemed so much more fluid and somehow simplified (while retaining a degree of complexity). GW's rules are dated, but it would take a massive overhaul to bring it up to speed - something that would invalidate many codices (probably take a year or 2 of steady releases to get things back into order).

What's interesting with Infinity is that the core rules of the game are actually fairly simple. Go and take a look at the rulebook, the pages for the core rules really aren't that log nor very complex. It's all the special skills and weapons that are more difficult to keep track of rather than "how do I move" or "how do I shoot."

40k feels like the opposite for me. There are so many little things that are core parts of the game (like wound allocation for example) that can and have caused huge debates for players. For me this is the biggest negative I would consider when recommending the game to someone. The fact GW has no real foundation for each edition (except for unit stats) makes the game not only difficult to play, but pretty much guarantees there are no improvements made from edition to edition.

To the topic of this thread I'd say no, GW games are not worth playing purely from a rules perspective.

To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.

Daedleh wrote:
Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.

It works like that because the alternative is worse. With stats you expect that higher is better, and that's how 40k does it. But if you change BS to be a direct value then you're making it inconsistent. Now you have most of your stats from 0-10 with higher being better, except BS which is 2+ to 6+ with lower being better. And even more counter-intuitively you have weapon skill and ballistic skill working completely differently. WS is a standard higher is better stat where you look up the required roll on a table, while BS is a lower is better stat where you get the required roll directly from your stat line. So you technically have a "simpler" rule, but at the cost of making it less intuitive for someone trying to learn the rules.

Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.

But that's not the same thing. Having a maximum movement distance of 7" (with a 6" default) and moving 6" but rolling 3D6 for difficult terrain are two very, very different abilities. One gives you a higher maximum move at all times, while the other lets you average closer to your usual speed even in circumstances that slow you down. Same with assault distance. Fleet vs. 7" move may end up the same if you're talking about one move/shoot/charge sequence, but they're very different if we're talking about an Eldar shooting unit that wants to spend the whole game moving out of charge distance.

The only way to simplify it is to remove difficult terrain and similar effects entirely and just standardize movement at 6" no matter what. That's a valid approximation to make when you're talking about a company-scale wargame vs. a RPG/skirmish game, but if you're going to have those varying movement distances then there are good reasons to have situational effects and abilities instead of (or in addition to) different base movement speeds.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.

Daedleh wrote:
Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.

...
...
...

There are plenty of rulesets that use different methods of deciding to hit chances and movement rates. It is often done with a look-up table, which saves memorisation, though of course frequent players usually end up remembering the important stuff anyway.

I think what GW wanted to avoid in WHF/40K was players needing to do calculations. A common method (in the 1970s) of To Hit determination was to have a percentage and modify it according to tactical situations. For example, your unit would be on a base 60% to hit, the target in light cover would halve this and you would have to calculate half of 60%. Similarly, your movement rate would change according to the terrain moved through.

It was useful to calculate the variations in advance and lay them out in a look-up table; some games did this for you. Ironically, GW have laid out the To Hit chance in a look-up table, but hardly anyone uses it because it is easy to remember.

The point of the To Hit, To Wound, To Save sequence is that it allows a wider range of probabilities to be generated from a D6.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, those aren't actually good examples of bad complexity.

Daedleh wrote:
Ballistic Skill.All this stat does is determine what score you need to hit something. You take a models BS and look it up in a flat table which gives you the score you need to hit something. You learn the numbers pretty quickly - BS3 means you need a 4+ to hit. BS2 you need a 5+ to hit. Except, why on EARTH do you need to look BS up in a table? This isn't even a strength/toughness 2D table - it's a 1 dimensional LIST of BS and score needed to hit! Instead of writing BS3, you could just write the score you need to hit. There is absolutely and undeniably no way that the BS table is needed. It's an extra unnecessary step which adds absolutely nothing to the game and only complicates it. Yes, easy to learn but a needless complication.

It works like that because the alternative is worse. With stats you expect that higher is better, and that's how 40k does it. But if you change BS to be a direct value then you're making it inconsistent. Now you have most of your stats from 0-10 with higher being better, except BS which is 2+ to 6+ with lower being better. And even more counter-intuitively you have weapon skill and ballistic skill working completely differently. WS is a standard higher is better stat where you look up the required roll on a table, while BS is a lower is better stat where you get the required roll directly from your stat line. So you technically have a "simpler" rule, but at the cost of making it less intuitive for someone trying to learn the rules.

Except they use the same 2+...6+ mechanic for armour saves, so it's not an alien concept.

The reason the WS needs to be a higher-is-better number is that it's a comparison; the higher your WS is over theirs, the easier it is to hit.

With BS, it's a straight conversion. WS3=4+, WS4=3+. The only times the number is used is to convert to a "to hit" roll, or when subtracting it from a D6 for a scatter, and that could easily be implemented in a better way; roll your "to hit" then if you miss, roll for scatter using 1 or 2 D6.

Then of course, you get this horrible 2+ to hit, or 2/3/4/5/6+ if you miss when you go above BS6 (which doesn't really exist in game anyway).

Herzlos wrote:
Except they use the same 2+...6+ mechanic for armour saves, so it's not an alien concept.

But saves represent something conceptually different. A save is something (usually) provided by equipment, WS/BS are inherent attributes. And a new player would reasonably expect that weapon skill and ballistic skill would work in similar ways, just with different attacks. They wouldn't necessarily expect that an armor save would work the same way because it's not a skill.

(Of course you could argue that saves should follow the same "higher is better, look up on table" pattern as WS/BS, but that's an entirely different subject.)

With BS, it's a straight conversion. WS3=4+, WS4=3+. The only times the number is used is to convert to a "to hit" roll, or when subtracting it from a D6 for a scatter, and that could easily be implemented in a better way; roll your "to hit" then if you miss, roll for scatter using 1 or 2 D6.

You're missing the point. Obviously the current method for BS requires an extra step. It's done that way to make it consistent with how the similarly-named WS is handled (higher is better, look up on a table), which means that it's easier for a new player to understand. Complexity involves more than just the number of steps you have to take, a slightly longer but intuitive process is less complex than a shorter process that doesn't follow the expected pattern.

I think that's making an assumption about cognitive perceptions of the game mechanisms that actually differ between individuals.

For instance, it's clear from previous conversations that some players have the concept that when you roll a D6 a higher number indicates a better result, even though this isn't true in all cases in the game (e.g. Leadership rolls).

The Save attribute is included in the unit's stat line so people might well assume it is a characteristic the same as the other ones and should work a similar way.

In fact, BS, S, WS, Ld, and Sv all use different algorithms, and often use add-on special rules as well. A works differently. I uses two different rules depending on circumstances, and can also be affected by special rules.

This is a considerable amount of variation, more detailed and less consistent than some RPGs.

Well I also think that a lot of rules of 40k are really complicated and don't bring anything except complexity for the sake of complexity.

If the "to hit" roll was worded like "to hit, make a BS test.". Same probability, no additionnal table, and you still have the "higher stat is better" design pattern GW love... this could also have been the case for armor save, with marines getting an armor of 4, reversing the 2 stats with the "inverse" pattern, armor save and AP...

WFB is better designed IMHO, even if I dislike the whole "ramdomfest" : when no army have the great idea to scout forests near the battlefield before going in... and with 5 out of 6 forest being magical ones, lumberjacks should wear full plate to survive!
But the movement is better (one move instead of move during movement phase, move during shooting phase, move durinfg assault phase of 40K), cover is logical (avoid being hit instead of getting a save only relevant when yours is worse than the tree...) and I preffer the modifiers to the "binary" nature of 40K. The IGOUGO also feels better in WFB than in 40K. (in WFB, it give a feel of great maneuvers, when in 40K you feel that you guys just wait to be killed... but it's not their turn to shoot!).

Does this mean that every other game is perfect? No. But most of the time, other games don't have such conflicting and bad written rules, and don't need the "Most important rule" to be functionnal...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that's making an assumption about cognitive perceptions of the game mechanisms that actually differ between individuals.

To a degree, yes. I think that having weapon skill and ballistic skill work the same way (higher is better, look up on a table) makes it more intuitive and offsets the theoretical increase in complexity from having to look up something on a table most people memorize almost immediately.

If you want an example of excessive complexity in the stat line then initiative is the better one. WS and I are very closely linked, there aren't very many units that break the rule of "high I = high WS", and the few that do don't make much difference in a shooting-focused game. So if you changed combat to go in descending order of WS you could eliminate initiative entirely. Really, the only reason initiative exists as a separate stat is that 40k is a re-skinned fantasy game (where melee combat is more important) and GW refuses to make any meaningful changes to the core mechanics.

Dark Phoenix wrote:
But the movement is better (one move instead of move during movement phase, move during shooting phase, move durinfg assault phase of 40K)

Which only works because you're simulating blocks of infantry that didn't have much ability to move and shoot. If you combine movement and assault in 40k you either have poor realism with units being unable to shoot as they close in to charge, or awkward shooting rules where you charge but pretend that you haven't charged so you can shoot. And having to commit to a charge before you can soften up the target with shooting (including waiting to see how well you did) would make assault even less relevant than it is now.

cover is logical (avoid being hit instead of getting a save only relevant when yours is worse than the tree...)

This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.

The lesson here is that sometimes abstraction is good, and in a company-scale game you don't need to represent every detail perfectly. The stupid thing about 40k is that it makes sensible abstractions like that for gameplay reasons, but then obsesses over details like the difference between an axe and a sword in a shooting-focused game.

The IGOUGO also feels better in WFB than in 40K. (in WFB, it give a feel of great maneuvers, when in 40K you feel that you guys just wait to be killed... but it's not their turn to shoot!).

I guess that's a subjective opinion. IGOUGO is just as bad in fantasy games, IMO. You're still dealing with the poor realism of having enemy units acting while your own units sit there waiting for a turn, and you're still dealing with the fun-killing experience of long periods of doing nothing while your opponent plays the game.

Daedleh wrote:


Movement.
All models move at the same speed. Great. That's easy to remember. Except for the huge numbers of models with special rules that dictate different (and often random movement speeds). Not having a movement speed would make sense for a human v human game (Bolt Action makes great use of standardising stats) but a game where every alien race moves at a different speed? It is much, much simpler to have a movement stat which tells you how fast a model moves. Movement for things like assault ranges, difficult terrain etc stay the same and it's only the movement stat which changes. Again, unnecessary and needless complications that only serve to complicate. And don't give me the "but they'd have to change all the codex's!" excuse - they added a HP stat to vehicles and they could have damn well added a movement stat for everything else too.

I never thought about it that way, but you're right. I really had problems digesting all the unit types/movement types when I got the 6th edition rulebook.

In Infinity, on the other hand, I had no problem with movement ranges, because it is a Statistic of the model. So you do have similar unit types moving the same speed (like Heavy Infantry usually being [4 inches and 2 inches] and Bikes being [8-6] but since that stat is integrated into the stat list it is very easy to look it up in case you forget.

There are indeed many things that could be improved in Warhammer, but, sadly, the company has no business doing that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Which only works because you're simulating blocks of infantry that didn't have much ability to move and shoot. If you combine movement and assault in 40k you either have poor realism with units being unable to shoot as they close in to charge, or awkward shooting rules where you charge but pretend that you haven't charged so you can shoot. And having to commit to a charge before you can soften up the target with shooting (including waiting to see how well you did) would make assault even less relevant than it is now.

i agree that "simulating" futuristics battle should be more... dynamic than medieval ones. But why the assult shoot must be fire the same way when you charge (or intend to charge and when you just stand there, waiting for the enemy? why do you move faster when charging? Eldar "Battle focus" should be a basic rule if you can move that far in the assult phase...

I understand the need of balancing the abstraction and the simulation, but I feel that 40K fail at both aspect. (simple example : everyone in the squad shoot at the same target, regarless of weapons... because the squad is the level of abstraction), but when taking casualties, the exact position of each model is relevant (the model is now the reference). And this doesn't prevent strange casualties with bending shots because you mesure between unit and not models...

 Peregrine wrote:

This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.

The lesson here is that sometimes abstraction is good, and in a company-scale game you don't need to represent every detail perfectly. The stupid thing about 40k is that it makes sensible abstractions like that for gameplay reasons, but then obsesses over details like the difference between an axe and a sword in a shooting-focused game.

Sure, good armor should be better, and really hard to kill in cover, that's the point! but, there is a really simple thing to balance this... Point cost! instead of having marines becoming cheaper and and gaining wargear each edition (because of their vulnerability), making them more resilient in cover, and uping the point cost seems better to me, and keep the "elite" feel of the army.

I agree with you on the bad abstractions : abstraction is good, and necessary, but should be used to remove complexity instead of adding it.

And modifiers make the game easier to balance, just look at the good old Heavy Bolter : Againt most xenos, it's a terrifing weapon. Wound on 2+, deny your armor save. Againt marines? it's really crappy. Wound on 3+, allowing your 3+ save. so not even woth considering. How much point do you give to such a weapon? give it a save modifier? xenos gets a worst, but still usable armor, when marine starts to think twice before running in front of those... Is it less realistic? Probably. Is it better for gameplay? I let you answer that, but I think it is.

 Peregrine wrote:

I guess that's a subjective opinion. IGOUGO is just as bad in fantasy games, IMO. You're still dealing with the poor realism of having enemy units acting while your own units sit there waiting for a turn, and you're still dealing with the fun-killing experience of long periods of doing nothing while your opponent plays the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

This only works because it's a fantasy game where shooting is weak and good armor is rare. It might make more sense to have to-hit modifiers for cover in 40k, but it would be a nightmare for game balance. Fluff-wise 40k's heavy infantry are supposed to be walking tanks that can survive even without cover, so if you represent that ability on the tabletop in a hit-modifier system you're making them almost invulnerable if they're in cover (or making cover so weak that units that depend on it to survive just die). It might be realistic, but it leads to very frustrating gameplay as you dump piles of shooting dice into a unit and fail to accomplish anything.

I've always found the 'I don't need cover' idea to be one of the most ridiculous facets of 40k.. I don't think it has always been there, probably from around 2nd edition when marines started appearing in gaudy colours (again, a rather silly idea in the context of warfare!) The first rule of warfare, and really this goes back to nomadic peoples on the muddy banks 8000 years ago, is that it's far better to avoid being hit in the first place!

Even coming into the modern age, it is well documented that tanks (for all of their protection) use cover features to protect themselves - or else use a 'feature' that allows them to damage the enemy while not presenting the possibility of damage to themselves. While the Tiger tank in WW2 was well protected, it was the advanced Zeiss optics and mechanical precision of its gun, which meant it could hit enemy tanks from 2 miles away, that helped give it its fearsom reputation. Light scouting vehicles rely on speed to stop the enemy from getting a bead on them. So, why if the 'walking down the street, saying "coming at me 'bro'" hasn't worked at any point in history, for any type of warfare, should we expect it to function in the future? The weapons are always one step ahead of the armour, in most cases, and the best defence will always be not to get hit in the first place.

So, conversely, I imagine the Astartes to be the most highly tuned fighters, rather than the crude Neanderthal-type representation they seem to have on the tabletop, running around in groups like a herd of kids chasing a soccer ball round at lunchtime. Using every scrap of cover, using feints and backing up their attacks with overwhelming firepower. The ultimate elite force - they've got armour which can protect them if needed, but it's a back-up that might give them an edge when the fighting ends up at brutal close ranges, not an end in itself. I think rulesets like FoW represent this well, making more 'veteran' troops harder to hit. Infinity allows heavy infantry guys to fight like this - they've got a bit more of a chance of surviving hits against low-calibre weapons, but the chances increase exponentially when you're in cover and through tactical application of force. In this context, the rules for shootouts in 40k, and tactics enacted on the tabletop, seem remarkably primitive.

Anyway! Peregrine, these comments aren't aimed at you in particular, just thought your comment could be used as a springboard to raise my own thoughts of how shallow the tabletop experience for 40k is. The tremendous imagery and miniatures prop up what is really a system that is in need of a fundamental re-design.

Kiwidru wrote:
If you break down the human population into three groups:

They say a sucker is born every minute; At the end of the day, That is why GW continues to be successful: Moreso than any other mini-company they pander to the weak, ignorant, follower personality type. .

Thanks for this post. It really made me laugh, it's such a perfect example of the "on the internet, every person who can type is an übermensch" phenomenon.

I am just going to throw an idea out here.

Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.
Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?

From a direct short term sales point of view the 40k rules and codex direction seems quite reasonable.
IF you ignore the damage this does to long term sales and growth.

There are several ways to follow the 'high stat is best' mantra in a much more straight forward and intuitive way.

Many games simply show the value needed to succeed directly Eg 5+.
(Eg to successfully hit this model in CC you need to roll a 5+)

Other simply use the stat value as the value you ADD to the D6 roll to arrive at a comparative score.

Eg weapon has a Armour piercing value of 6.
Targets armour value is 2.
Roll a D6 add it to the armour value of 2.
If this is higher than the AP value of the weapon you pass your save.

Using resolution methods because they are EASIER TO EXPLAIN (roll a d6.)Rather than because they deliver clearly defined and brief explanations of how the game is actually played .IS a slippery slope to poor game play.

Abstraction in the game development should reduce the complication in the resolution process.BUT keep the basic interaction true to the original .
(Simple simulation.)

It should NOT abstract the process , AND over complicate the resolution like 40k rules do!

Lanrak wrote:
Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?

You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.

Lanrak wrote:
.Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.

As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.

 Eilif wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Could it be the GW game developers have been trying to tie the rules to the 'inspiring fluff' directly , which leads to the diffuse and needlessly over complexity in the instructions to play the game?

You hit it on the headI think that "inspiring fluff" is exactly why the rules have become overcomplicated. 40k is a game targeted to teenagers. One thing marketers know is that pre-teens and teenagers have a larger (larger than adults) capacity for minutiae and they are wired for obsession. Ex. How many pokemon can a kid tell you about? 40k exploits this to the max. What adults might see as needless complexity, teens lap up as further emersing themselves in the 40k world.

Lanrak wrote:
.Perhaps because the game play of 40k became rather shallow after the transition to 3rd ed.

As for shallow post-2nd edition. That depends on your point of view. 3rd edition was more streamlined than 2nd, but that's largely because as the size of games grew, it became clear that for larger games (though not even close to the # of figs in a 1800 point game today) 2nd edition is a clunky mess. It's basically a ruleset that functions well with a few squads (an outgrowth of Rogue Trader) that boggs down at the level most folks play at. On a nostalgia kick I played a game of 2nd edition last year. It was like playing Necromunda with too many figures.

Pretty much agree with this, apart from the Adults and teens bit, but only because I think its just different types of people rather than an age thing, the rest of it holds true though for me.