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.

All this arbitrary rolling of D6's gets tiresome sometimes, and frankly it feels rather trite most of the time. So, lets take away some (but not all) of some of this randomness. Another thread tried to do this but it just devolved into, "why don't we just rewrite 40k altogether!' which I don't want.

Running, difficult terrain, and anything else along the lines of "roll a die and move that far," change to flat 4"

LOS! does not roll. If you take LOS!, you get it on auto, but limited to once per turn per character.

Give the Vehicle damage, Warlord Trait, Psychic Powers, and deepstrike Mishaps a +/- 1 modifier, to the D6 roll. These changes will take away some arbitrary rolling altogether, and in some other aspects reduce the randomness without taking away the randomness that prevents terrible deathstars that would happen if we could cherry pick WL traits, psychic powers, etc.

Also, these little tweaks gave me ideas that don't really make the game itself smoother, but work to balance some things.

Change charge distance to D6+6"

Change Vehicle penetration to (D6 + weapon S) - 1 -------> a meltagun will glance on a 2, pen on a 3+ with this. Plasma needs a 5 to glance.

All of these changes will reduce some unnecessary rolling, makes assault more viable and vehicles more sturdy. What does Dakka think?

On the change to penetration, what Av value are you using?

I like most of these, though running/terrain-move 4" feels disjointed compared to the usual multiples and fractions of 6.
Could go with "running is taken in movement phase, move twice. Not allowed to shoot or assault that turn." And then moving through terrain could be half movement, incl when running over it.

Not sure what you mean here though:

 Powerfisting wrote:

Give the Vehicle damage, Warlord Trait, Psychic Powers, and deepstrike Mishaps a +/- 1 modifier, to the D6 roll. These changes will take away some arbitrary rolling altogether, and in some other aspects reduce the randomness without taking away the randomness that prevents terrible deathstars that would happen if we could cherry pick WL traits, psychic powers, etc.

Cover: change it from true line of sight to upgraded area terrain, if you're in the terrain you get the appropriate save (doesn't matter if the wall's in the way, the model is still in the ruin and gets the save).

Consolidate the special rules, too many are redundant with stupid, subtle differences. Then it will be easier to memorize or at least be familiar with the special rules as opposed to constantly having to look them up.

 Selym wrote:
On the change to penetration, what Av value are you using?

I like most of these, though running/terrain-move 4" feels disjointed compared to the usual multiples and fractions of 6.
Could go with "running is taken in movement phase, move twice. Not allowed to shoot or assault that turn." And then moving through terrain could be half movement, incl when running over it.

Not sure what you mean here though:

 Powerfisting wrote:

Give the Vehicle damage, Warlord Trait, Psychic Powers, and deepstrike Mishaps a +/- 1 modifier, to the D6 roll. These changes will take away some arbitrary rolling altogether, and in some other aspects reduce the randomness without taking away the randomness that prevents terrible deathstars that would happen if we could cherry pick WL traits, psychic powers, etc.

Basically, on every table roll you take you get to give or take 1 to it, so say my SM Libby is rolling for powers, and I roll a four, but I don't like the power, I can swap it for power 3 or 5. Now that I think of it, this doesn't really sound fun. The original intent of this post was to make 40k games smoother and quicker. I don't know. I may edit out the second parts out of the OP.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to play this game without spending 4 hours on it?

EDIT: the AV in my example was AV 13

I agree the intended game play of 40k is fast and fun.

However, the rules bloat caused by years of 'adding layer upon layer of extra rules to a core rule set that cant cope.'
Has left the 40k rules in a very poor state in every respect.

I think the problem is lots of 40k players assume they HAVE to learn diffuse poorly explained rules to play a game of 40k.
And so another rule set for 40k has to be a chore to learn.

However, anyone that has played Space Hulk or Epic Armageddon ,realize that rules written for the intended game play are much easier to learn and use.

So the most effective way to make the game play of 40k smoother, it to define what the game play of 40k should be.
Then write rules specifically for it.

The theme of WFB in space is fine for the art and background, but the WHFB based game mechanics and resolution methods, simply do not work that well with more 'advanced tech units.'(Hence the huge amount of additional rules .)

How many unit types are there in 40k, from a game mechanic point of view?(2)
How many different unit types does 7th ed artificially create due to use of inadequate core rules ?(14)
This is an indicator of how over complicated the 40k rules have become .

However, some simple changes to reduce clutter and improve game play.
The most common ideas are...

A)Tactical choices in the movement phase.
Players decide to make the unit remain stationary and use ranged attacks to full effect.
Players decide to move normally, with the option to shoot OR assault later in the relevant phase.
Players decide to move twice, OR move then assault in the assault phase.

This puts all movement decisions in the movement phase.

B)Forget about separate cover saves.
Simply apply a -1 to hit modifier for units in 'light cover', and -2 to hit modifier for units in 'hard cover' .
(If you use do not use extended to hit charts,a natural 6 to hit always hits.)

C)Also some players have found interleaved phases like LoTR uses improves the level of interaction in game .
Eg
A moves
B moves
A shoots.
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults

Would you be interested in using rules written inclusively to reduce clutter?
Would you like me to post some examples?

Lanrak wrote:
Would you be interested in using rules written inclusively to reduce clutter?
Would you like me to post some examples?

Yes please.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Cover: change it from true line of sight to upgraded area terrain, if you're in the terrain you get the appropriate save (doesn't matter if the wall's in the way, the model is still in the ruin and gets the save).

Consolidate the special rules, too many are redundant with stupid, subtle differences. Then it will be easier to memorize or at least be familiar with the special rules as opposed to constantly having to look them up.

Thats actually how ruins work in 7th. If they're in the ruin they get the cover save.

Hi.
If you want to write rules inclusively , you look at everything in the current game, and write rules to cover each interaction with a single resolution method thay covers all units.
This is why 40k 7th ed is so over complicated, it use basic rules that only cover about 20% of the game play, and uses special /added on rules for the rest!

EG with claiming cover in terrain , you define terrain as 'area terrain' that uses 'area terrain rules',or 'feature terrain' that uses 'feature terrain rules' .
Having a poorly explained mis mash of both systems is bad rules writing IMO.

Please note the rules examples I am about to post are assuming a complete re-write to correct all the core flaws with (WHFB in space , V3.5.2) , 7th ed 40k.

I assume we want to keep the 3 stage damage resolution for close combat and ranged attacks?
Roll to hit , roll to damage roll to save.
However, as we are not using basic swords and shields, and bows and arrows, but much higher tec weapons.

I think the following is more intuitive,
Attacker rolls to hit.
Defender rolls to save.(Just successful hits.)
Attacker rolls to damage .(Just unsaved hits.)

Using the attackers base skill to hit without modifiers is limiting in a counter productive way.As it fixes the chance to hit in a very counter intuitive way.
For ranged attacks the model has the same change to hit a very large model 1" away as it does a small model very far away.

Even using the attacker skill compared to the defender skill in a chart can deliver limiting results.
And in assault, the entire galaxy of weird and diverse combatants in 40k all hit each other on a 3+ or 4+ or a 5+ on a D6.

Can any one see why 40k has so many special rules ?

So what can be done? it the alternative pages and pages of complicated modifiers?

What if the chance to hit was based on the targets stat?

EG a unit with Stealth value 3 is hit by ranged weapons on a 3+

So units that are small/agile/good at hiding have a 'Stealth value' of 6, and are hit at range on a 6+(Ratling sniper.)
And large slow units that can not hide have s 'Stealth value' of 1, and are hit at range on a 1+ (Titans /Gargants etc.)

Units in light cover get +1 to their Stealth value.
Units in heavy cover get +2 to their Stealth value.
Units at long range (over 30" away) get 1 to their stealth value.

Attackers skill with ranged weapons can be represented directly by effective range of weapons they carry.(Good shots hit target further away, poor shots need to get closer to hit the target.)

Or by a to hit dice modifier.(EG Shooting skill +1 means add one to the dice roll.)

Just a note on modifiers.Effects that make success harder are added to the target score.(Stat.)
Things that make the chance of success easier are added to the dice roll.
(No '-1 to hit' as it can confuses newbs!)


If we apply the same method to close combat.

A units 'Assault value' is the score the opponent needs to roll to hit the unit in close combat.
So units like vehicles with no skill in close combat have assault value of 1 .(They are automaticly hit in close combat.)
And units with high weapons skill , like A GDOK get an assault value of 6.(Opponent needs 6+ to hit them in close combat.)

The 'Assault value' can also determine assault attack sequencing, with the highest 'Assault value' striking first.
(We can include a few modifiers to the assault sequence , to replicate initiative modifiers, for charging and weapon/equipment effects.

I am assuming players would be using 'units cards', or a 'force list' for easy in game reference, so looking at opposing units values is not an issue.
(Neither is units having their own particular weapon profile to show number of attacks effective range etc.)

Those are my ideas on how to cover the 'rolling to hit' for ranged and close combat attacks for all units in a simpler way that offers a wider range of results/options.
Roll equal or over the target units appropriate stat to hit them.With a few easy to use/remeber modifiers.

Ill stop there for any questions /comments before I post up my ideas for weapon and armour interaction next.

Look out sir is one of the worst offenders of rules bloat. It's like adding a whole extra phase of wound allocation: roll to hit, wound, LOS, save. And even LOS for a sgt can slow the phase down to a crawl.

I propose that you either take one ld test on his ld, or a 2+/4+ like before. If successful you can instantly switch positions with another model in the same unit within 3" of the character. You can only LOS once per unit per turn.

The other major offender for tar pitting the game is overwatch. Nothing like gathering and rolling 60 dice for overwatch with my conscript squad's lasguns. Allow units to forgo shooting to enter overwatch at full BS. If not in overwatch, a unit may only overwatch with assault weapons and pistols, albeit at full BS.

I totally agree that Look Out Sir is completely out of place in a battle game , and very wordy for what it does.


Over watch is just a poorly worded and implemented re-action mechanic that can be made redundant by a more interactive game turn.

To replace the multiple resolution methods for weapon and armour interaction, and the plethora of pointless 'special rules'.

I propose all models get an Armour value from 1 to 15.(Extend the current vehicle armour values down to cover infantry.)

All weapons get an Armour Penetration value from 5 to 20.

When a model suffers a weapon hit, roll a D6 and add the target models Armour value.
If this total is higher than the weapon hits Armour Penetration value , the model makes its save, and takes no damage.

EG a IG trooper Armour value of 2, is hit by a boltgun shell AP 6.
The IG trooper needs to roll 5+ to pass his save roll.(5=2=7 and 7 is greater than 6)

A Storm trooper Armour Value of 3 is hit by a boltgun shell AP 6.
The Storm Trooper needs to roll 4+ to pass his armour save .(3+4=7 and 7 is greater than 6.)

Basicly the Armour Value becomes the 'save modifier.'

This gives proportional scalable results across all units.(Which makes PV allocation much easier.)

Lanrak wrote:
I assume we want to keep the 3 stage damage resolution for close combat and ranged attacks?
Roll to hit , roll to damage roll to save.
However, as we are not using basic swords and shields, and bows and arrows, but much higher tec weapons.

I think the following is more intuitive,
Attacker rolls to hit.
Defender rolls to save.(Just successful hits.)
Attacker rolls to damage .(Just unsaved hits.)

There is a cost to manual operations that you have to consider.

If you are catering to the original post, this is the worst way to make things "smoother."

The reason that saves are rolled last is that it minimizes the turn-around cost of players switching who rolls. It means players have to switch who is rolling only once, instead of twice as in your order, and it means that the time is decreased because one of the players is able to pick up a greatly reduced number of dice, more so than if the defending player had rolled saves before any hits/wounds.

TheSilo wrote:Nothing like gathering and rolling 60 dice for overwatch with my conscript squad's lasguns. Allow units to forgo shooting to enter overwatch at full BS. If not in overwatch, a unit may only overwatch with assault weapons and pistols, albeit at full BS.

As bad as rolling dice is, at least it doesn't require you to pick up and put down individual models multiple times per turn. Static armies can play much faster than ones that have to move, then run, then charge, then consolidate, all separately.

Basicly the Armour Value becomes the 'save modifier.'

I think a large reason save modifiers are gone is that they slowed things down.

On the issue of moving models multiple times, you could help this by getting rid of pile in moves. Go back to the old system, everyone within 6" of an enemy fights. During your movement phase, models can move up to 6" to get in range. This'd get rid of the stupid, you pile in, I pile in, now we all pile in, and who the hell can actually fight, nonsense.

@pelicanforce.

The increase in intuitive resolution out weighs the slight loss of time, in the proposed resolution order change.
(unless you like the armour sucking out the bullets, healing the wound and self repairing?)

The fact that the new proposed rules do not have to roll for separate cover saves, or have to include umpteen poorly worded special rules , etc means the game flows better in practice.

The Armour value is a stat, it just acts like a modifier to the save roll.

Having separate modifiers that were applied separately slowed the game down.

@The Silo .
I totally agree about the pile in moves shenanigans.And I approve of your solution!

Well, for the most literal answer to the OPs question, you should look at evening out all the "spikes" in the game.

For example, a model either gets an armor save or it doesn't, making the jump from AP5 to AP4, and more noticeably the spike from AP4 to AP3, enormous factors. Some sort of degrading armor save system would help reduce this.

Models with a higher Initiative get to launch all their attacks before their opponents make a single attack, even if their initiatives differ by only 1 point, and ties need a roll-off which grants a massive bonus to the winning side, as they are then treated as having a higher initiative.

Letting models make one attack at each initiative step makes sure you need a much larger difference in initiatives to launch every attack uncontested, and striking simultaneously before removing casualties means mirrored assaults are now decided by how well each unit performs rather than an arbitrary roll off at the start.

Beyond the obvious, i'd like to see most of the rules for individual model interactions (Challenges, Look Out Sir!, etc) taken out, as they don't make sense at 40K's current scale.

As for really lofty ideas, I'd like to see the movement stat reintroduced, a return to 3rd/4th edition LOS rules, and have models be based in movement trays like fantasy, but smaller "fire team" trays of 3-5 models so they can still move around and inside complex terrain.

This way we can get rid of a lot of rules regarding special movement USRs and even more rules regarding individual unit interactions and movement (individual model LOS, which models can fight in CC, etc).

Well, house ruling the heck out of 40k here we go!!!!

Yes, targeting many of the "extra" dice rolling would be good to remove.

Assault distances - make a static charge distance and anything that adds a re-roll or an extra die assign a further static value.

Spell / Powers - We know what are the good ones, assign a points value for each, done. No amnesia on what we will cast today.

Warlord traits - See above.

Vehicle cover - add a plus to the armor to a maximum of 14.

Jink save - add a plus to the armor.

Running - 1/2 movement distance of unit.

Difficult terrain - 1/2 movement.

Armorbane - +3 to armor die roll.

I am sure you can see a trend here.

Essentially: Add a plus or minus and keep the rolling consistent.

Take a look at Necromunda and they have a few interesting rule twists to consider.

Feel free to critique.

I agree about having a movement stat, to remove loads of pointless special rules.
And with removing the 'WHFB based challenges etc.

The armour works or it does not , is the most flawed concept in 40k.

The armour has a constant effect against all hits.
And the magnitude of the hit , depends on the proportion of the energy left to damage the target after the armour has applied its constant effect.

If we say each models armour is a constant value to simplify the rules.(vehicles etc still get different values for facings.)
And we give each weapon a fixed armour penetration value too.
Then all the variables in the interaction can be assigned to a D6 roll.

These 3 values are can be used to cover all weapon and armour interaction for all units.As out lined in my previous post.(It works great for F.O.W, vehicles BTW.)

The best way to make 40k smoother playing, is to focus on game play.
Decide what 40k is supposed to be.
Write rules for that game play specifically.

 Talizvar wrote:
Well, house ruling the heck out of 40k here we go!!!!

Yes, targeting many of the "extra" dice rolling would be good to remove.

Assault distances - make a static charge distance and anything that adds a re-roll or an extra die assign a further static value.

Spell / Powers - We know what are the good ones, assign a points value for each, done. No amnesia on what we will cast today.

Warlord traits - See above.

Vehicle cover - add a plus to the armor to a maximum of 14.

Jink save - add a plus to the armor.

Running - 1/2 movement distance of unit.

Difficult terrain - 1/2 movement.

Armorbane - +3 to armor die roll.

I am sure you can see a trend here.

Essentially: Add a plus or minus and keep the rolling consistent.

Take a look at Necromunda and they have a few interesting rule twists to consider.

Feel free to critique.

BRILLIANT!

I'd say it's not (always) the extra rolling that's taking up precious time, it's the micro-managing the rules require now every time models move, and models move a lot for some reason (a model can move, run, charge, pile in at initiative and then consolidate all in one turn). And at every point, it's vitally important where each model in a unit goes because of the silly would allocation rules.

If you want to speed the game up, the single biggest change you want is to allow the defender to pull casualties from anywhere he wants. Suddenly you've made Look Out Sir obsolete and precise positioning within a unit unnecessary, and probably cut the time it takes to resolve wound allocation for every attack, too.

The second part is cutting down on superfluous movement. Add Run to your normal move in the Movement phase, increase melee range so that pile in moves at every initiative step are unnecessary.

These are the biggest offenders, seriously. Not rolling dice.

Well lets see what need fixing so far..

1) The game turn, needs to be more interactive, improve player involvement and removes the need for awful 'overwatch' type reaction rules.

2) Movement, just decide how far your models are going to move in the movement phase.Units move into assault , not models!
Use a movement value , with simple modifiers like 'half movement when passing through difficult terrain'.

3)Damage resolution, one system to cover all unit interaction.Preferably the same resolution (with different stats obviously,) for close combat and ranged attacks.

4) Focus rules on unit interaction, get rid of the skirmish rules in this battle game please!

5) Include more tactical options to allow all units to have a purpose in the game, beyond JUST inflicting /resisting physical damage.

So basically everything needs to be fixed!
Why not just start from scratch so we can build a rule set specifically for 40k.

Rather than use a WHFB mod, that failed to work properly for 40k battle games for over 15 years.
(If a team of professional game developers can NOT get it better than 'sort of OK,IF you can agree on how to fix/interpret the rules' in 15 years.
I say its too hard for players to put right on their own!)

And because of 40k rules holistic and over complicated nature, fixing one element of game play causes problems else where, so you just end up chasing anomalies around the system adding rules bloat as you go .(These anomalies are actually caused by core system design flaws, that never get addressed.)


Just my 2p worth.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If you want to speed the game up, the single biggest change you want is to allow the defender to pull casualties from anywhere he wants. Suddenly you've made Look Out Sir obsolete and precise positioning within a unit unnecessary, and probably cut the time it takes to resolve wound allocation for every attack, too.

Oh how I do agree with this, as soon as the rule "remove closest model" was written a mess in second guessing your squad moves began. Never mind sorting the differences in range of weapons and different wound pools... eck!

The second part is cutting down on superfluous movement. Add Run to your normal move in the Movement phase, increase melee range so that pile in moves at every initiative step are unnecessary.

The single longer move adds big advantage to high initiative units to kill an enemy with little in return. Dunno, it is different but I am not sure if that would save much.

Lanrak wrote:@pelicanforce.

The increase in intuitive resolution out weighs the slight loss of time, in the proposed resolution order change.
(unless you like the armour sucking out the bullets, healing the wound and self repairing?)

Your earlier mentions of how this bothers you is why I don't take any of your ideas seriously.

The only reason not to roll all the steps at once is that it requires different colored dice.

The game gives the models collections rules for moving around and shooting each other. It is not the rake's progress with a bullet. It is not the cutting narrative of invisible bullet vs armor.

lord_blackfang wrote:I'd say it's not (always) the extra rolling that's taking up precious time, it's the micro-managing the rules require now every time models move, and models move a lot for some reason (a model can move, run, charge, pile in at initiative and then consolidate all in one turn).

Isn't it weird how one of the largest, closest-ranged armies has a waaagh rule that allows it to move in even more phases per turn than it normally would?

+1

And at every point, it's vitally important where each model in a unit goes because of the silly would allocation rules.

If you want to speed the game up, the single biggest change you want is to allow the defender to pull casualties from anywhere he wants. Suddenly you've made Look Out Sir obsolete and precise positioning within a unit unnecessary, and probably cut the time it takes to resolve wound allocation for every attack, too.

...

These are the biggest offenders, seriously. Not rolling dice.

Yes. 3rd edition was fine in this regard, allowing that more models might have had precision shot-type rules (snipers, characters?). Either you pick, or I pick. Just point at a model and take it off the board. Next phase.

anyone ever tried just using the expected value for every die roll? By that I mean not every die is 3.5 but for example the expected number of 1s rolled with 6 dice is 1. I feel like it makes the game less fun but could be interesting to play like once

Rx8Speed wrote:
anyone ever tried just using the expected value for every die roll? By that I mean not every die is 3.5 but for example the expected number of 1s rolled with 6 dice is 1. I feel like it makes the game less fun but could be interesting to play like once

Use random dice generators. Much faster than real dice, and no cocked rolls.

@pelicanforce.

I do not like the way 40k has been lumbered with WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods,that are not intuitive choices for 40k's game play.

Why is wanting straightforward intuitive rules that deliver more game play with less complication a bad thing?

If the new game turn of 40k uses interleaved phases, or alternating actions, than alternating between players in the damage resolution also follows this higher level of interaction.

GW plc primarily write rules for 40k to help sell toy soldiers to children.

I would prefer if they wrote rules for the intended game play of 40k.(If anyone can agree what it is supposed to be?)

I would like a rule set where any two players can just read the rules, pick any allowable force from any force composition list, and be able to enjoy playing the game.

While GW plc insist in using a very complicated WHFB mod for 40k rules, this is never going to happen, is it?

@Rx8Speed.
Using expected values for unit performance is a good way to evaluate units when play testing.(So basic unit value evaluation can be calculated quite quickly.)

However , when it comes to game play actual result variations should be important.

But the amount of dice rolls for randomness in 40k, purely to prevent /try to make up for game balance, is getting a bit much for some players.

I think its this extra amount of dice rolling and pages of 'extra special' rules that just slow down the game play.

Lots of other rules sets use simple rules and the humble D6 to generate fast fun and tactically deep game play.

The fact 40k has over complicated counter intuitive rules , that restrict rather than enhance the game play.

Is simply due to the fact that game play is not considered to be important to the people at GW plc ,that give the developers their design brief.

Lanrak wrote:
@pelicanforce.

I do not like the way 40k has been lumbered with WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods,that are not intuitive choices for 40k's game play.

Why is wanting straightforward intuitive rules that deliver more game play with less complication a bad thing?

If the new game turn of 40k uses interleaved phases, or alternating actions, than alternating between players in the damage resolution also follows this higher level of interaction.

GW plc primarily write rules for 40k to help sell toy soldiers to children.

I would prefer if they wrote rules for the intended game play of 40k.(If anyone can agree what it is supposed to be?)

I would like a rule set where any two players can just read the rules, pick any allowable force from any force composition list, and be able to enjoy playing the game.

While GW plc insist in using a very complicated WHFB mod for 40k rules, this is never going to happen, is it?

Two players can just read the rules, pick any allowable force from any force composition list?

Well no, Lanrak. Two players have models that they own, and have collected and painted. They pick units from the models that they own, and then they look for rules for those units.

Then your mode of writing evidently turns people off. It has some pretense of objectivity, plain speech, or plain reasoning, but the effect is pretty weird.

@pelicaniforce.
Currently any two players can read the 7th ed 40k rules, then have to decide how they are going to interpret/fix them in a mutually agree way.
And this will change depending who is playing.

A player can select a force they like the look of from the relevant codex.
(Either use models they have or buy models they like that are in the list they pick from the relevant codex.)

Walk into a store for a pick up game, and be refused because they are a 'cheesy WAAC player'.Or a waste of time to play because the list 'sucks/ too fluffy to be a challenge' .JUST because of the list they chose.

Rather than be guaranteed of a fun game .(Like the other games with rules and force composition lists written focused on game play.)

Get rid of blasts and templates. Small blasts=d3 hits to infantry automatic, templates=d6, large blasts =2d6. Against vehicles roll to hit with BS, miss is a miss.

Less need to micromange location of models to protect against blasts. No need to move markers around to find how to hit the most models.

I do not think blast and templates are a problem.Plenty of other games use them to great effect.(Especially Epic.)

But the way the rules for 40k use them is a problem I agree.