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've been reading all the discussions on various sites about how 7th edition is "unbalanced" and "rules bloat" is an issue. People also like to throw around the term streamlined a lot when it comes to what needs to happen with 8th. However, I haven't seen anyone really dig into detail about what needs to be streamlined and cut. So I'd like to start a discussion and really see what the major problems with this edition people have. I don't want to get into how they can fix these issues, I'm merely trying to identify the big ones. I'll have a go and I hope people will discuss and add!

Pre-game:
Generating random warlord traits (just love I can't choose my general' s abilities )
Generating random psychic powers and fishing for specific ones (same reaction as above)

During Game:
The IGOUGO turn system (lots of wait times where you are doing nothing but armor saves)
Reserves (really don't have a problem with how this works actually)
Movement...I don't care for how finding rules for how different units move is scattered all over the place in the BRB.

Psychic Phase...it doesn't really seem to be an issue when it's only a couple of Psykers casting powers but when you have like 20 or more warp dice is when it really slows things down. Daemon summoning I think seems a bit broken since you aren't really paying any points for them. Also, the psychic powers in the BRB range from "weak as feth" to "OMG this power is super broken!" Balancing of these powers needs to occur.

Shooting phase...wound allocation getting a bit wonky and different save values in the unit can slow the phase down, but other than that it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Assault phase...not being able to assault out of reserves really neutered some armies while other armies have gotten formations/rules for a few units to ignore this. Having a random charge range on 2d6 isn't helping either. There is also the issue of the WS chart being rather pointless of having a high WS and being maxed out at only hitting on threes or not getting hit on 5's at best.

The Allies Chart:
Please, for the love of gawd, get rid of Battle brothers. This is the breeding grounds of ridiculous Death Stars that we all see in tournament 40k. I think I have a mini stroke every time I see stuff like TWC with Librarius Conclave on bikes and Ravenwing/Sammael


Anyway...please feel free to add and discuss folks!

It needs a major overhaul.
Have a look at AoS. Small rule set and added game complexity by the war scrolls.
I could imagine that 40k gets the same treatment. This would be a move in the right direction.
Today, a maelstrom game that needs five or so hours makes the whole game ridiculous.

 wuestenfux wrote:
It needs a major overhaul.
Have a look at AoS. Small rule set and added game complexity by the war scrolls.
I could imagine that 40k gets the same treatment. This would be a move in the right direction.
Today, a maelstrom game that needs five or so hours makes the whole game ridiculous.

I haven't really read through all the rules for AoS (lol, I know it's only 4 pages), but I've gotten a general idea from seeing other people talk about the game. I can agree that some of the rules from AoS could definitely be ported over to 40k, but I don't think I'd like to see it totally get changed into AoS in Space. However, AoS does have a lot of good ideas like war scrolls and rules being available for free, with buying army books as an option for added rules and fluff. This would mean though, that Gdubs would have to invalidate all the 7th ed codexes and have all the new "data slates" available immediately online with rules on day one of release of the new edition.

A switch to AoSification would need a lot of planning ahead.
I doubt that GW will make this switch.
They want to sell their overpriced codices and supplemental books also in the future.

After spending a large amount of time with AoS since the GHB was released I can say that I do miss 40K a lot. Mainly because I enjoy building lists and adding upgrades, formations and special rules to them.

This is something I feel is lacking in AoS, sure there are battalions and sometimes I have to choose weapons for my units, but I never have to pay extra for them or any such considerations. It's too straight forward sometimes.

The main issue with 40K for me was the difficulty in finding special rules, they are so spread out over BRB, codexes and supplements that it became time consuming just to find a specific rule.

I would also like more digital implementation from GW, having a searchable index in a mobile app to find specific rules would be magic. Army builders and such directly from GW is something I would have no problem paying for.

In general I like the rules and I mainly think it's the amount of time a game takes that needs to be trimmed down.

Cayhn wrote:
After spending a large amount of time with AoS since the GHB was released I can say that I do miss 40K a lot. Mainly because I enjoy building lists and adding upgrades, formations and special rules to them.

This is something I feel is lacking in AoS, sure there are battalions and sometimes I have to choose weapons for my units, but I never have to pay extra for them or any such considerations. It's too straight forward sometimes.

The main issue with 40K for me was the difficulty in finding special rules, they are so spread out over BRB, codexes and supplements that it became time consuming just to find a specific rule.

I would also like more digital implementation from GW, having a searchable index in a mobile app to find specific rules would be magic. Army builders and such directly from GW is something I would have no problem paying for.

In general I like the rules and I mainly think it's the amount of time a game takes that needs to be trimmed down.

I have the BRB on my iPad which I view through the iBooks app. The enhanced version has search options like you were talking about. Although I know that not everyone has an iPad or iPhone. I also didn't have much of a problem searching for the USR's in the main book, but I really don't like having to flip all over the place to find special movement rules and shooting restrictions for all units and vehicles.

The question is why do I think it is too complicated. This could be answered a number of ways, but I am going to focus on what lead us to this point.

GW releases new versions of the game approximately every 4 years. A new release is a big undertaking, involving core rules, several Codexes, and a boxed game. New Codexes come out in the period between major upgrades.

This creates a situation where rules are issued on an iterative basis. A lot of things happen as this process takes place:

- Models get released, and GW often releases favorable rules for new models to increase sales.

- New kinds of models get released, creating a need for new rules to cover their use.

- Staff changes, meaning someone with a different take on the rules is potentially writing the new ones.

- The vision changes, which often involves an emphasis on new kinds of play at different points values.

- The publications for promoting the game change, which has an impact on how players see themselves getting enjoyment from it.

Under these conditions, the rules are like quicksand, where the ground never really stays where it was the last time you looked. The characteristic they lack is consistency. While power imbalances can and should exist between various armies, they should not be so pronounced. But think about the number of rules someone needs to know in order to play the game. There's the BRB rules, the Codex-specific rules, the FAQ rules, the supplement rules, formation / detactment rules, Forgeworld rules, house rules, and the tacit dont-be-that-guy rules. To get through a game, you need to know about 30 rules from the BRB plus a little bit from each of the other areas.

It's a result of the rules lifecycle. For the game to remain consistent, GW would need to be executing perfectly on a creative vision, data-driven playtesting, knowledge transfer as staff changes, resisting the urge to compromise the rules in favor of successful marketing, and the like. How many things need to go right for this all to happen? It's too complex to think about, much less manage over a 4 year span.

The reality is GW does it's best to manage the rules, but it's not really satisfying. When they realize how horrible they have made things for the community of gamers who buy their product, they react in the best way they know how, which means finding a way to address the situation through revenue-generating activity. Which leads to more rules. Given enough time, the rules turn into a Tower of Babel no one can really understand in it's entirety.

Time to blow it up. All this talk about 8th edition is nice, but I am more interested in seeing an independent ruleset that operates outside of the marketing cycle and can be updated more frequently than every four years. The way I see it, why trust GW not to do the same again?

I think Gdubs has poured a lot of time and money into the new campaign supplements that came out this year, along with the new armies and other army specific supplements. I think it would seriously ruin all the good will they have generated this year if they completely invalidated all the codices and started their cycle of boom and bust codex releases all over again.

Not that I couldn't see them do that anyway, but I'm hoping that this new direction the company has taken will stay the course.

Special rules in 40k 7th ed overlap too much, and are too similar in a lot of cases.
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison.
Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.
Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.
Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.
Building are damaged like vehicles, but not in all cases.

Etc.

All of this on top of small tweaks between versions.
5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.
ICs in 5th ed had Skilled Rider, but not in 7th. I didn't realise they lost that until a year after I first played 7th.

40k needs a top-down rewrite. Keep the terms, but consolidate them.
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Special rules in 40k 7th ed overlap too much, and are too similar in a lot of cases.
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison.
Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.
Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.
Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.
Building are damaged like vehicles, but not in all cases.

Etc.

All of this on top of small tweaks between versions.
5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.
ICs in 5th ed had Skilled Rider, but not in 7th. I didn't realise they lost that until a year after I first played 7th.

40k needs a top-down rewrite. Keep the terms, but consolidate them.
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.

Agreed, some of the special rules could definitely be consolidated together. Like Zealot basically just being a combo of Fearless and Hatred (just remove zealot rule and give the other two rules instead).

Its always fun if the question is ehm.... this neutral and positive it sure will bring the best out of the internet lol.
7th isn't complicated at all. the game is quite simple to be honest. It has a fethed up balance system, there are some rules that could be fixed, but complicated nope not at all.
Calculating rock breakage behavior in irregular shaped rock structures is complicated, playing 7th edition 40k is simple every half witted 12 yer old can do it really.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Its always fun if the question is ehm.... this neutral and positive it sure will bring the best out of the internet lol.
7th isn't complicated at all. the game is quite simple to be honest. It has a fethed up balance system, there are some rules that could be fixed, but complicated nope not at all.
Calculating rock breakage behavior in irregular shaped rock structures is complicated, playing 7th edition 40k is simple every half witted 12 yer old can do it really.

I love your big brain.

 bomtek80 wrote:


Pre-game:
Generating random warlord traits (just love I can't choose my general' s abilities )
Generating random psychic powers and fishing for specific ones (same reaction as above)

During Game:
The IGOUGO turn system (lots of wait times where you are doing nothing but armor saves)
Reserves (really don't have a problem with how this works actually)
Movement...I don't care for how finding rules for how different units move is scattered all over the place in the BRB.

Psychic Phase...it doesn't really seem to be an issue when it's only a couple of Psykers casting powers but when you have like 20 or more warp dice is when it really slows things down. Daemon summoning I think seems a bit broken since you aren't really paying any points for them. Also, the psychic powers in the BRB range from "weak as feth" to "OMG this power is super broken!" Balancing of these powers needs to occur.

Shooting phase...wound allocation getting a bit wonky and different save values in the unit can slow the phase down, but other than that it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Assault phase...not being able to assault out of reserves really neutered some armies while other armies have gotten formations/rules for a few units to ignore this. Having a random charge range on 2d6 isn't helping either. There is also the issue of the WS chart being rather pointless of having a high WS and being maxed out at only hitting on threes or not getting hit on 5's at best.

The Allies Chart:
Please, for the love of gawd, get rid of Battle brothers. This is the breeding grounds of ridiculous Death Stars that we all see in tournament 40k. I think I have a mini stroke every time I see stuff like TWC with Librarius Conclave on bikes and Ravenwing/Sammael

And what of this do you find too complicated ? You sure seem to have some issues with some rules as do we all, but I can't figure out the parts that are just to complex for your understanding or so complicated that figuring out how it works bogs up the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:


I love your big brain.

You are free to think of me as an idiot and all but this doesn't change the fact that OP's question and issues seem to something else completely as is 7th edition too complicated.
These nuances do matter and prevent threads like these to devolve into a offtoppic all is bad slugfest.

The question is this game too complicated ?
can never be answered by yes the balance of this game sucks or yes GW handles supplements completely wrong.

It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.

This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:


I love your big brain.

You are free to think of me as an idiot and all but this doesn't change the fact that OP's question and issues seem to something else completely as is 7th edition too complicated.
These nuances do matter and prevent threads like these to devolve into a offtoppic all is bad slugfest.

The question is this game too complicated ?
can never be answered by yes the balance of this game sucks or yes GW handles supplements completely wrong.

On the contrary, that was a compliment. They sometimes happen on the Internet.

 bomtek80 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.

This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.

I like how AOS handles things, to be honest. Core rules are very simple and any special rules a unit has are right there on the warscroll. Minimizes page-flipping and searching multiple books for rules and their interactions.

The rules themselves are not complex, but the process of seeing what units use which rules and what they do and how they interact is sometimes a handful.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well, had bad news today and my head is fuzzy.

It's complicated in the sense that you can't go from never having played the game to learning the rules in a single afternoon, but you should be getting the hang of it after a dozen games or so. If you've been playing the same edition regularly for years, you shouldn't be having a problem with understanding the game.

Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, I actually find Special Rules one of the more streamlined parts of the game. All the special rules are listed alphabetically in a very easy-to-find section at the back of the rulebook, and because of the nature of special rules, you'll likely be using the same ones every game (i.e. you'll play Orks and all your army will have Furious Charge) and so you'll learn what they do pretty quickly.

The issues arise because there are just so many rules and potential situations in a game. This isn't a criticism - I'd much rather have a complex, in-depth ruleset than something like AoS. However, it does give rise to a rather large FAQ. Again, this isn't a huge problem if you carry a copy of the FAQ with you and make sure to highlight/memorise parts that are particularly relevant, but it's much harder to find your way around the FAQ than it is the rulebook. GW need to tighten up and streamline the rules, and be a bit more on the ball when the community comes across a problem. I don't own any electronic publications from GW, so apologies if they are already doing this, but they should, where appropriate and not too messy, be adding in clarifications to digital publications to make sure people are referring to the weighty FAQ as little as possible.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 bomtek80 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
It could use some streamlining, sure, but I don't really find it too complicated per se.

This was kind of one of my points. You said it could use some streamlining. So what particular areas need to be streamlined? I was simply trying to get into specifics of what people found wrong with the game and needed changing. I don't find a lot of rules out of the brb complicated per say, but I do find complications in some rules interactions and sometimes rules outright contradicting one another.

I like how AOS handles things, to be honest. Core rules are very simple and any special rules a unit has are right there on the warscroll. Minimizes page-flipping and searching multiple books for rules and their interactions.

The rules themselves are not complex, but the process of seeing what units use which rules and what they do and how they interact is sometimes a handful.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well, had bad news today and my head is fuzzy.

No problem man, thanks for the reply and sorry about the bad news. I hope your head gets to feeling better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Shadow wrote:
It's complicated in the sense that you can't go from never having played the game to learning the rules in a single afternoon, but you should be getting the hang of it after a dozen games or so. If you've been playing the same edition regularly for years, you shouldn't be having a problem with understanding the game.

Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, I actually find Special Rules one of the more streamlined parts of the game. All the special rules are listed alphabetically in a very easy-to-find section at the back of the rulebook, and because of the nature of special rules, you'll likely be using the same ones every game (i.e. you'll play Orks and all your army will have Furious Charge) and so you'll learn what they do pretty quickly.

The issues arise because there are just so many rules and potential situations in a game. This isn't a criticism - I'd much rather have a complex, in-depth ruleset than something like AoS. However, it does give rise to a rather large FAQ. Again, this isn't a huge problem if you carry a copy of the FAQ with you and make sure to highlight/memorise parts that are particularly relevant, but it's much harder to find your way around the FAQ than it is the rulebook. GW need to tighten up and streamline the rules, and be a bit more on the ball when the community comes across a problem. I don't own any electronic publications from GW, so apologies if they are already doing this, but they should, where appropriate and not too messy, be adding in clarifications to digital publications to make sure people are referring to the weighty FAQ as little as possible.

Then combine the FAQ's from the main rule book along with all the other FAQ's from the codexes and then it's like 20+ pages of rules definitions and exemptions and then it's just a hot mess

I agree with this one the FAQ system is messy. Although we asked for it so we got it and aren't really the ones to complain

GW do, in theory, apply FAQ and errata changes to the iBook versions.
The ePub versions though, they don't list the version number or date, or update the Black Library site when an update happens.

It takes 3-4 hours to play a 2k game that's pretty indicative of a bad rule set, you have random rolls for too many things it slows things a lot.

Combats a perfect example rolls to hit, rerolls then wounds followed by saves and then fnp rolls, it's sluggish and you have to do it with every squad attacking.

Add on top mysterious terrain and other crap like that it's an inelegant mess that's no fun to play.

There's no flow anymore to the game it's just rolling dice.

There are some rules I would like to see changed so they make more sense, but I don't think the game is too complex, in fact, none of the people I game with, think this. Yes it can take hours to play a single game, but that's just a side effect of having so many mini's to deal with. I would say, the game is still less complex then 2nd edition was, there's more options now, but still less complex then each unit having it's own movement value, each vehicle having it's own damage chart, Armor save penalties, and countless other modifiers.

All in all, the game is fairly simple to play, yes some people will find the game to difficult to play, but then again, some people find checkers to complex. Is the game more complex then other games? Yes. But then again, that's been the primary draw for many players through the years. Are there balance issues? Yes again, but that's not really a problem with the core rules, as the core rules effect each unit equally. The problem with balance really comes from how GW decides point values. I have no clue how it's done, but I would imagine it's a 'vibe of the thing' process, when in reality the best way to handle it would to be to have an established point based formula like the old VDR rules they once had. Combine that with the unbalanced way they update armies, and you're going to have balance issues no matter what the rules are.

Changing to core mechanics of a game has been the death nail for several games in the past. No matter what system you use, people will love it, and others will hate it, that's just life.But I've seen several successful game systems change their core mechanics to simplify the game, to try and appeal to a new crowd, only to suffer from the decision and eventually die off. Changing the rules in order to streamline 40k will not solve the real problems with the game, all it will do is drive players away. Yes you can still play with the old rules, but let's be honest, it get's harder and harder to do that. Most people play at their FLGS, which inevitably adapts to the new rules system. Yes you may occasionally have a 'retro night' but rare is it that you will find regular matches on an outdated rule system.

Yes and no. It lacks mathematical granularity, and yet has many arcane rules that don't enhance game play.

This thread conflates complicated with time consuming.

Everyone always uses chess as the canonical argument, so I will, too: chess is not very complicated to learn but to play a game can be very time consuming.

So, is the game too complicated? The sheer amount of rules and codices make this game complicated. It's rather frustrating that I can't easily read my opponents rulesets before a game. And, as a new player, it's not that I will challenge people on their claims, I just like to read things as written since i'm learning. It gets complicated keeping track of all the different stuff.

Is the game too long? That's a byproduct of your point sizes. Limit your games to 1,000 to 1,250, with less terrain and a smaller game board.

The game is unnecessarily complicated and yet lacks complexity.

There are many redundant special rules that can be removed. How many special rules do you need to effectively represent the same thing.

Why do you need to have movement spread over 3 different phases.

Poorly thought out psychic phase. It's all or nothing, it's complete garbage.

It heaps on tonnes of extra rules without actually adding any levels of tactical play.

I really do not want to see an AOS style change. That game system should be a "how not to" in rules writing. Basic rules sets do nothing to create a full and tactical game. It completely lacks any nuance outside of basic strategies and synergies.

This game needs to let go of the I GO U GO turned based system. The insane amount of firepower that some armies produce now in a single turn is proof that this type of game turn sequence is outdated for 40k.

40K needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. That doesn't mean it needs to be lobotomized like AOS.

hobojebus wrote:
It takes 3-4 hours to play a 2k game that's pretty indicative of a bad rule set, you have random rolls for too many things it slows things a lot.

The time it takes to play a game isn't indicative of anything. There are plenty of good, simple games that take hours to play.


If there are elements of the rules that you feel take longer than they should, then that's one thing... But the game taking a long time to play, in itself, just indicates that the game takes a long time to play.

 Marmatag wrote:
This thread conflates complicated with time consuming.

Everyone always uses chess as the canonical argument, so I will, too: chess is not very complicated to learn but to play a game can be very time consuming.

So, is the game too complicated? The sheer amount of rules and codices make this game complicated. It's rather frustrating that I can't easily read my opponents rulesets before a game. And, as a new player, it's not that I will challenge people on their claims, I just like to read things as written since i'm learning. It gets complicated keeping track of all the different stuff.

Is the game too long? That's a byproduct of your point sizes. Limit your games to 1,000 to 1,250, with less terrain and a smaller game board.

The first time I started 7th edition was right after it had come out. I hadn't played 40k since 3rd edition I believe, and so I thought all the rules were a little overwhelming at first. After a few thorough sit down and read the book sessions I started picking up the basics and a lot of the special rules very easily. Now I'm very comfortable with the rules set and don't find it that complicated, taken in the context of the basic rules. Where I really see complication occurring is in Army List building. The sheer amount of codices and the Imperium of Man all being battle bro's presents a mind boggling array of combinations that I doubt the game developers ever foresaw. It's like they were creating new codices in a vacuum with little regard as to how new rule-X or special snowflake unit-Y would interact with the rest of the game. Also, letting the marketing team seemingly run the show by making sure each new cool unit was OP so it would sell more seemed to be an issue.

My friends and I have routinely run small games from 500 points to 1000 and managed to complete them in perhaps a little over an hour and a half at worst. So I agree with you there as well. Playing 1850 or 2000 points is simply going to take more time.

That all being said, I still hate the random warlord traits and random psychic powers. When I put together my general with his wargear and other bits, I'd like to create that guy for a specific purpose (army buffing, CC monster, whatever), so when I roll up a Warlord trait that completely does not suit the theme of my Warlord then I feel slightly cheated on paying points for a general when I'm not entirely sure what his special trait is going to be.

This is also the same problem with random psychic powers. I can't design a Librarian very well when his abilities are randomly determined and changed before every game. I may have paid good points to make sure he is a Biomancy buff monster that tries to buff himself to be a CC killer, but instead end up with useless Biomancy pew pew powers. It's hard to create a Psyker and want to pay points for him when it's a crap shoot of what exactly he can do in game.

To me, that would be like paying full points for a Tactical Squad and saying, ok...your special weapon trooper's weapon is randomly rolled, along with your heavy weapon choice. How can you design a unit like that when their weapons/wargear are randomized all the time?

Ugh...sorry for being long winded!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
There are many redundant special rules that can be removed. How many special rules do you need to effectively represent the same thing.

I agree with you here. Furious Charge is basically the same abstraction as Hammer of Wrath, for example.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Why do you need to have movement spread over 3 different phases.

This actually makes sense to me, because you move in the other two phases instead of some other action, and having to remember to not take those actions two phases later doesn't make sense. Additionally, being able to move after one has shot is way better than being able to move a lot further beforehand.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This game needs to let go of the I GO U GO turned based system. The insane amount of firepower that some armies produce now in a single turn is proof that this type of game turn sequence is outdated for 40k.

I see this claim a lot but every alternative always has its own terrible flaws.

Can't even work out how to choose an army nowadays, what with a dozen books for each army, formations, data sheets and all that. Makes it a bit difficult to even start looking at getting back in, and cant really be bothered putting the work into it to get back in, when other games make it so much easier.