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.

I like and I think it's long overdue.

A good set of rules is a lot like computer code. You don't want multiple copies of the same code in different places in your codebase. If that's how you've written things, then any time something needs to change you need to remember all the places you put that code and go change each of them. Instead if they're all pointing at a piece of code, you just change that one bit and it's all good.

It's like the change in 6th Ed for power weapons. In 5th (and earlier) each codex would have a description of what it thought a power weapon was, and said something like "this is a melee weapon that ignores armor". The change made all power swords (for example) AP3, but any army that had a special version of a power sword (Howling Banshees for example had 'Mirror Swords' and 'Power Blades') that wasn't called a 'Power Sword' got to keep their special 'Ignores Armor' rules.

I used to play Magic a long time ago, and the early sets did sort of the same thing. There were many cards that would have a given effect, but each card spelled it out, sometimes slightly differently. Wizards switched to keywords for the same effects, and then one update to the Keyword in the main rules and all the cards would be automagically updated.

Steamlining like this is a good thing.

Magic did a nice job moving to Keywords with (reminder text). The other key thing about Magic is that they didn't bloat the rules with unlimited Keywords and layers of Keywords. They flattened things out, and kept distinctive versions, rather than having lots of related, but slightly different, versions.

GW has too many effects, and needs to remove at least half of them.

 undertow wrote:
It's like the change in 6th Ed for power weapons. In 5th (and earlier) each codex would have a description of what it thought a power weapon was, and said something like "this is a melee weapon that ignores armor". The change made all power swords (for example) AP3, but any army that had a special version of a power sword (Howling Banshees for example had 'Mirror Swords' and 'Power Blades') that wasn't called a 'Power Sword' got to keep their special 'Ignores Armor' rules.

This isn't true. 5th edition had standard power weapons (ignore all armor) and power fists (ignore all armor and double strength), and various codices had weapons that were power weapons/fists with additional special rules. 6th edition has the same kind of "power weapon with special rules" weapons, except now instead of a single type of power weapon there are several different types with different stats and whether a model is built with a sword or an axe matters rules-wise. That's an increase in complexity, not a decrease.

I like complexity.

I like complex game play.
I do not like or want over complicated rules.
This is not mutually exclusive.

GW manage to make stupid decisions when they try to simplify the rules.

They over simplify the core rules.Then have to add lots of layers of poorly worded additional rules .

GW 'stupify' the rules .They never simplify them.

As above. i like a complex game play with lots of thought involved in each action.

But a simple rule set so the game goes faster with less arguing.

Probably the worst example of badly done simplification is the removal of the movement stat. The removal of a number on the profiles has led to how many alternate (sometimes roll requiring) rules?

And remember, simplicity may be better in engineering, but it isn't always so in things designed to be entertaining. I mean, imagine if jelly belly took its massive flavor catalogue and simplified it down to just black jelly beans, or if Fiat closed down Ferrari, Dodge, and Maserati and decided to only sell Chrysler Sebrings.

If you want to talk about simplicity of the mechanics, they aren't actually THAT bad. They only look bad because of the staggering variety of the game. When you get down to the rules you use most often, they're pretty boiled down. Armor save except when beaten by Ap, all infantry moves the same, unless it's beasts, jump packs, cavalry, or bikes, which move twice that.

Most units only have one or two special rules. The fact that there are so many of them is because there are so many units.

Then, there's a distinction to be made between simplifying and removal.

Jelly Belly wouldn't be simplifying their range by cutting all but one flavour, they'd be removing a bunch. Simplifying it would be to take any flavours that were quite similar (all the one's based on strawberry for instance) and condensing them down into one or two. That might lose something subtle, likely barely noticeable in some instances, from the 6 or 8 strawberry based flavours they may have made previously, but we'd still have strawberry, in fewer, but more distinctly different ways.

Ailaros wrote:And remember, simplicity may be better in engineering, but it isn't always so in things designed to be entertaining. I mean, imagine if jelly belly took its massive flavor catalogue and simplified it down to just black jelly beans, or if Fiat closed down Ferrari, Dodge, and Maserati and decided to only sell Chrysler Sebrings.

If you want to talk about simplicity of the mechanics, they aren't actually THAT bad. They only look bad because of the staggering variety of the game. When you get down to the rules you use most often, they're pretty boiled down. Armor save except when beaten by Ap, all infantry moves the same, unless it's beasts, jump packs, cavalry, or bikes, which move twice that.

Most units only have one or two special rules. The fact that there are so many of them is because there are so many units.

Over the years, Jelly Belly has probably gone through at least 100 flavors and currently maintains 50+ "core" flavors. Practically, they could cut that to 20 (or less), and the average consumer wouldn't really care. 20 (or 31) flavors is still a lot of flavors and far more than one gakky flavor (licorice).

Fiat just shut down Lancia. Nothing would be lost by closing Dodge or Chrysler. Ferrari makes too many kinds of cars, and would do fine to cut down just a 308-esque car and an Enzo-car. Or even to only sell the 308-class car. Maserati would also do fine to cut the coupe and only sell the sedan. Chrysler stopped making the Sebring years ago. Also, Tesla only makes 1 car. Same with Pagani - they're doing OK with a single product. FCA could do just fine selling fewer cars, or simply disappear entirely - their cars have gak quality and zero innovation. feth them.

As I've said before, saying something "isn't that bad" automatically proves that, yes, they are that bad. Probably worse. The variety doesn't need that many rules. Beasts don't need to be distinct from Cavalry. Jump Packs and Jet Packs don't need to be different. Bikes and Vehicles don't need to move differently. All bad for learning and playing.

Units should use common special rules, and the game just doesn't need that many of them. Did we really need AP on CCWs? No, though it's far from the worst offender. Did we need to distinguish flavors of Power Weapon? No. Did we need Fearless and Stubborn and No Fear? No (all of them should be Fearless). Hammer of Wrath and Rage and Counterattack? No (all of them should just be +1 Attack). When every unit has a slightly different set of special rules, referenced somewhere besides the unit itself, that's unnecessary complexity.

Tell that to anyone who drives a car or eats a jelly bean you don't like. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean it should be cut, and no one should enjoy it.

There are plenty of games between the single black jellybean (games like war, tic-tac-toe, rock-paper-scissors, etc.) and 40k. Why make 40k as limited as those other games? Just because you're not enjoying all the features doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. They just shouldn't exist for you. Feel free to not include things in your army that you don't like.

Um, WTF?

Are you really so dense that you don't understand the difference between cutting out the fat and cutting to 1? The notion that trimming away the excesses of 40k makes it into tic-tac-toe is completely ludicrous.

And do you not understand that this is a thread about what 40k should be (i.e. dramatically simplified), versus playing the game as it exists today (i.e. what's currently in an army)?


I'm sorry, but replying to you is an exercise in frustration. You're terrible at comprehension and terrible at argument. Completely unreasonable. I don't think I intend to discuss this with you any more.

I haven't read the past few codices... what exactly has been simplified and streamlined in them?

 Ailaros wrote:
Why make 40k as limited as those other games?

Because having lots of complexity with very little depth is bad game design? I mean, this is like asking why a restaurant should bother serving food that's better than a pile of mold with shards of broken glass in it. The only people who don't understand this principle are the white knights and the masochists who think that bragging about how much they enjoy bad rules gives them credibility with the "casual at all costs" crowd.

Feel free to not include things in your army that you don't like.

You do realize that this is a game with at least two players, right? And that those other players can include things in their army that I don't like? Plus there's the problem of having to remove way too much to get rid of the objectionable rules. "Just don't use power weapons at all" is not a reasonable response to criticism of GW's choice to add subtle variations on the power weapon rules depending on which kind of melee weapon a model is holding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The notion that trimming away the excesses of 40k makes it into tic-tac-toe is completely ludicrous.

Exactly! Let's consider the Fear USR as a perfect example. Half the armies in the game ignore it entirely with ATSKNF or fearless, most of the remaining units that would care about it have LD 10/leadership buffs/etc to ignore it most of the time, and the few units that are vulnerable to it have no hope of winning combat against the average unit with fear (and often want to lose combat so they can get back to shooting). And then in the rare event that it does something the penalty is almost irrelevant thanks to the WS table having a cap at a 3+ to hit. So we have a USR that you have to learn and roll dice for even though its effect on the game is almost nonexistent. GW could safely remove it and simplify the game without losing any meaningful depth.

I really dislike it. The problems I have with it are:

1) Some of their "simplifying" also kills the flavour of the rules - and even the army. e.g. why do DE even bother raiding planets and taking prisoners to torture, when they can apparently cause just as much pain by doing sod-all. The Archons might as well put their feet up, enjoy whatever passes for TV in Commorragh, and take pleasure in the unending stream of pain that flows into them from God-knows-where.

2) Changing everyone to USRs might be better if those USRs weren't clearly designed with marines in mind. To the point where some of the attempts at replacing unique rules with USRs gets utterly ridiculous. Why do any DE weapons have Concussive? It is perhaps both the least flavourful and least useful rule you could possibly give them. Similarly, whilst HoW hits might be easier, it really goes against the purpose (not to mention the location) of Bladevanes and Cluster Caltrops.

3) As I look at my DE book, there doesn't seem to be much net-simplification. Oh, sure, a lot of stuff was removed. On the other hand, that seems to have then been replaced with a ton of useless piffle. Why, for example, was it deemed necessary to make the Torment Grenade Launcher into some kind of ridiculous weapon? Why did they even bother printing the Soulfright rule when they made it utterly worthless? Same goes for crap like the Archangel of Pain or the Crucible of Malediction. Long, convoluted rules that amount to nothing.

4) Surely if they really wanted to streamline the rules, they wouldn't spit an army's rules across multiple books?

5) I think the simplification is occurring largely in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. What really needs streamlining are the obnoxious core rules. Why do we still have pointless crap like Soulfire and Fear? Or this stupid challenge mechanic? If we're going to streamline the game, how about we remove this crap? Then new books wouldn't have to remove interesting rules and replace them with obligatory Fear or some effect that only takes place in a challenge.

Similarly, as was already alluded to in this thread, how about we streamline the game by changing the stupid wound-allocation rules? How about we put the Apocalypse units (super-heavies, fliers etc.) back in Apocalypse - that way we don't have to have page upon page of special rules and exceptions for these units.

How about we change combat so that it stops taking place in some alternate dimension, where all normal rules and logic are suspended?


TL DR: I think GW are focussing on streamlining the wrong rules.

IF , and this is a really BIG IF.
The game play of 40k was given to competent game developers, and they were to write a rule set specifically for it,
And NOT have to make it backwards compatible with WHFB 3rd edition.(ignoring the 2 decades of quick fixes that just broke the game and added confusion.)

The depth of game play could increase , and the complexity of the rules could be reduced quite dramatically.

I would imagine the new rules covering everything using elegant and intuitive resolution methods in less than 50 pages.
All the army list could be released with the new rules , and in total take up less than 150 pages for all the rules and all the army lists.

(Fluff could be sold separately in background books.)

Using stats directly to cover all the interaction, would be a good start!

So rules written specifically for the game play of 40k could simplify the rules, AND add more complexity to the game play.(More tactical choices in game.)

Lanrak wrote:
IF , and this is a really BIG IF.
The game play of 40k was given to competent game developers, and they were to write a rule set specifically for it,
And NOT have to make it backwards compatible with WHFB 3rd edition.(ignoring the 2 decades of quick fixes that just broke the game and added confusion.)

The depth of game play could increase , and the complexity of the rules could be reduced quite dramatically.

I would imagine the new rules covering everything using elegant and intuitive resolution methods in less than 50 pages.
All the army list could be released with the new rules , and in total take up less than 150 pages for all the rules and all the army lists.

(Fluff could be sold separately in background books.)

Using stats directly to cover all the interaction, would be a good start!

So rules written specifically for the game play of 40k could simplify the rules, AND add more complexity to the game play.(More tactical choices in game.)

That would be awesome, I just wonder if the design team actually has it in them to pull that off? They don't really seem to know what they're doing half the time.

 Kojiro wrote:
Probably the worst example of badly done simplification is the removal of the movement stat. The removal of a number on the profiles has led to how many alternate (sometimes roll requiring) rules?

+1000

Not to mention it's ended up leading to ridiculous game situations, like regular guardsmen having the same movement capability of a space marine, and being able to potentially outrun them if the random dice result says so. Meanwhile in the fluff, space marines are said to be so superhumanly fast while inside their power armor they look blurry to the normal human eye.

Yet ingame, in the same turn, a space marine may run 6'+1' on open terrain, while the guardsman beside him may run 6'+6'.

Removing the movement stat has easily been, as I see it, one of the worst decisions even made by GW in regards to rules development.

Simplicity or complexity are irrelevant. Whether or not they are good is the matter. And GW rules are not good. That's the issue. Other games have various degrees of depth and complexity, but it comes down to whether they work. We know GW doesn't without needing a great deal of discussion, house rules, or random "this and that."

That's the issue.

 Korinov wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Probably the worst example of badly done simplification is the removal of the movement stat. The removal of a number on the profiles has led to how many alternate (sometimes roll requiring) rules?

+1000

Not to mention it's ended up leading to ridiculous game situations, like regular guardsmen having the same movement capability of a space marine, and being able to potentially outrun them if the random dice result says so. Meanwhile in the fluff, space marines are said to be so superhumanly fast while inside their power armor they look blurry to the normal human eye.

Yet ingame, in the same turn, a space marine may run 6'+1' on open terrain, while the guardsman beside him may run 6'+6'.

Removing the movement stat has easily been, as I see it, one of the worst decisions even made by GW in regards to rules development.

With regard to movement, running is another oddity in the GW rules.

A unit that does nothing in its turn but run can move 6+d6".
A unit that shoots and then stops to fight can move 6+2d6" If it wins combat, it can then consolidate a further d6".

I think it brings flavor to a otherwise bland army. I'll use my crimson fists as an example. Pedro Kantor gives preferred enemy to all SM against orks. This rule is known as Oath of Rynn. If you know the fluff, this makes sense and makes you really feel you are playing with the crimson fists, not "just another space marine'.

Also, it carves the play style of the army into how it should be played. Eldar are super agile, which is represented by the rule that allows them to run and shoot. Being streamlined like the necrons loses that feel altogether. Before, necrons were those lurking robots who just kept standing back up. Now they are robots who have a better FNP.

 Korinov wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Probably the worst example of badly done simplification is the removal of the movement stat. The removal of a number on the profiles has led to how many alternate (sometimes roll requiring) rules?

+1000

Not to mention it's ended up leading to ridiculous game situations, like regular guardsmen having the same movement capability of a space marine, and being able to potentially outrun them if the random dice result says so. Meanwhile in the fluff, space marines are said to be so superhumanly fast while inside their power armor they look blurry to the normal human eye.

I agree that removing the movement stat was a stupid move, but in 2e both marines and guardsmen the same value for movement. 4".

MarsNZ wrote:

I agree that removing the movement stat was a stupid move, but in 2e both marines and guardsmen the same value for movement. 4".

True but in fairness 2nd Ed marines were nowhere near as fluff wanked as current marines.