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.

Oh yes,

W40K is set in 40.000 years, and has 40.000 rules!!

With the release of the last armies' codex (each SM chapters getting different options) and the 6th ed rulebook (flyers, psychic, interactive scenery, general's traits, etc) we now have sooo many rules, quibbles, options, enough to make a lawyer go mad.

Point is: all this complexity enhances the game experience?
Or simply kill the fun?
IMHO, they make the game too suit to nerdish power lawyers-players.

cheers!

40K is set in 40 years?

Someone hasn't played earlier editions...

Ahh, 2ed.

When a 2k game could take a week.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Ahh, 2ed.

When a 2k game could take a week.

Oh yes. I sadly have not had the chance to play it, but I did have a look at the first edition, and it looked more like a RPG than a tabletop wargame.
It's something like double the size of the 6th ed book, and most of that is filled with fluff and art.

If you ever got chance, I'd recommend it. Every man in a squad could shoot something different, Units all moved at different speeds, there was a whole pyschic power/card game phase and all the armies were simultaneusly broken

was it a skirmish game then? or you had many units as today?

 PredaKhaine wrote:
If you ever got chance, I'd recommend it. Every man in a squad could shoot something different, Units all moved at different speeds, there was a whole pyschic power/card game phase and all the armies were simultaneusly broken

If all armies are broken, then doesn't that mean it was perfectly balanced?



Cruddace knows what he is doing. That Genius.


I am so so sorry. Couldn't resist

It was a skirmish game and points values were approx double what they are now eg Tactical Squad was 300 points for 10.

That being said, IMO a 2k game of 2nd Ed would take about the same as a 2k game of 6th Ed. Really, issues only emerged when two horde cc armies played each other or a player had something like a max size squad of Freebooters with Autocannons (because no one owns 58 Sustained Fire dice so the number of hits had to be generated one-by-one for 29 models - though last time someone put that down opposite me I unleashed the full Cyclone payload in one go and only left the Nob standing, which was a relief ).

I tried playing tyranids in 2nd ed.

There's obviously a balance between being too simplistic or having too many special rules to represent every minute degree of awesomeness a unit may have.

40k falls more in the camp of being overburdened by its own rules. It could be simplified immensely and still provide deeper gameplay.

I'm a casual player, not an expert of W40K. When I play, I find much funnier to simplify it to the basic rules.

I simply want some realx, who cares about the balance among armies

I haven't played 2nd ed. But judging by what everyone else has said about it here and elsewhere, it sounds like the worst edition of the game ever.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Someone hasn't played earlier editions...

Someone hasn't played very many wargames period. I always found GW games to be on the lighter side of crunch and complexity, not that that's a bad thing. If I want to play Phoenix Command, I'll play Phoenix Command.

They enhance the game as long as the rules feel intuitive and they don't contradict each other.

IMHO, they make the game too suit to nerdish power lawyers-players.

I think you misunderstand the term.
To me power-lawyer-gamers are mostly people who try to bend the rules in their favour even though it completely goes against 'RAI'.
That has nothing to do with 'too many rules' but moreso with 'badly written rules'.
A great example would be the "Graviton and cover saves"-discussion.

6th edition is not really overly complicated. We don't have Target Priority like we did in 4th. Casualties are closest model, which really isn't that hard.

 Wilytank wrote:
I haven't played 2nd ed. But judging by what everyone else has said about it here and elsewhere, it sounds like the worst edition of the game ever.

In a way it was.

Entire armies could be wiped out because of a couple broken models(I've heard nasty things about Pulsa Rokkits)

It's not the amount of rules, its the quality. The rulebook could have 1500 pages of rules, but if they are well written, you wouldn't even have to pick the book up during a game, except maybe to look up stats or something.

It's the poorly written rules that jump all over the place in the book that kill the fun.

More details, more rules, happier me. I love it!

I enjoy it, I like being able to find a rule that explains a situation. On the flip side though, I've been a gamer for over 15 years and I've developed an uncanny ability to remember things. For some new players it really is frustrating to pick everything up.

To make it easier I'll actually just play 1k point games with people or even 500 and we try to jam as many rules as we can into the game so people can learn it. IE. Cover, ruins, LOS, Going to ground, templates, terrain etc etc

Hi all.
40k has been loosing game complexity, (in game choices,) and growing in complication since it changed into a battle game in 3rd ed.AND kept WHFB skirmish rules ,( heavily mutated now into a nonsensical mess.)

Compared to Epic Armageddon rules , 40k rules are awful in terms of clarity and brevity.

Well defined intuitive rules , allow more game play with less rules, and less rules arguments.(Good for everyone!)

40k rules are far too complicated .EG they use multiple resolution methods to cover ONE interaction.

Eg damage resolution uses AP vs AS,AND Str vs AV.
And Str vs toughness, AND damage charts.AND feel no pain, AND Invunerable saves, AND Eternal Warrior, AND instant death, etc.

Most other games use just ONE , armour vs weapon (roll to save.) resolution, followed by a roll to damage resolution.

There are a lot of rules because a lot is going on. If you want to play the whole game as a coin flip, go ahead and see how well it works out. It's been working effectively for over 20 years now with minor tweaks, why is it just now that there are "too many rules"? Mainly because newer players have no perspective. They move from MTG and Pokemon to the big boy games. Time to move up in the world.

Solo.. MTG has more rules than WH40k!
Rules-wise going from MTG to WH40k is a step down.

Kangodo wrote:
Solo.. MTG has more rules than WH40k!
Rules-wise going from MTG to WH40k is a step down.

And 90% of them are written on the cards, requiring no memorization or effort to activate more than a card turn. The rulebook is small enough to pack inside a deck box, if they do that anymore...

You're not really familiar with the game, right?
http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130927.pdf
200 pages filled with rules that work good and not contradict each other every other page.

It's not hard to memorize everything because they are well-written.

Kangodo wrote:
You're not really familiar with the game, right?
http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20130927.pdf
200 pages filled with rules that work good and not contradict each other every other page.

It's not hard to memorize everything because they are well-written.

They work well because they are simple rules. I have played MTG since The Dark. And there are plenty of rules that have been argued to the point that they were abandoned. Remember banding?

Banding is still a rule, it just doesn't return on new cards
And even Banding was only a problem because it was complicated, not because it contradicted rules or because there were situations where the book doesn't give an answer.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28
Just look at that 'YMDC'-forum!
Why don't they have discussions that are 10+ pages? Because the rules are clear and indisputable

But back on topic: I like it when we have many rules, I don't think it's complicated.
It's only annoying when rules work counter-intuitive, that is often the reason why people forget to apply them.

 Bobaram wrote:
I enjoy it, I like being able to find a rule that explains a situation. On the flip side though, I've been a gamer for over 15 years and I've developed an uncanny ability to remember things. For some new players it really is frustrating to pick everything up.

To make it easier I'll actually just play 1k point games with people or even 500 and we try to jam as many rules as we can into the game so people can learn it. IE. Cover, ruins, LOS, Going to ground, templates, terrain etc etc

I've been meaning to play with myself (get yer minds outta da gutta ) so that I could face one squad against just one other squad and go slow making sure I've followed all the rules so I can understand how they all work.

Blacksails wrote:...40k falls more in the camp of being overburdened by its own rules. It could be simplified immensely and still provide deeper gameplay.

Yup, it was called 5th edition.

Wilytank wrote:I haven't played 2nd ed. But judging by what everyone else has said about it here and elsewhere, it sounds like the worst edition of the game ever.

Nah, 2nd edition had a ton of rules, but it was an entirely different game. Typically 2nd edition is heralded as one of the best editions. 3rd edition is generally regarded as the worst edition. 3rd edition threw the game into a blender and hit frappe. Gone was a skirmish game, gone was the idea of individuality. 3rd edition refocused the game on large conflicts with 'units', not 'models'. 6th edition gives a nod to 2nd edition by pulling back in to the individual model; it's nice.

Overall I like 6th edition, but still miss the simplicity of 5th.

 oni wrote:

Yup, it was called 5th edition.

I'm talking even simpler with even more tactical depth.

You want lack of rules to be less fun? ok, I run Dark Angels, my rule is I win. Your rules? you don't get any, because I won. This is why games have rules, otherwise it's like pkaying checkers with a 5 year old.