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.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
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.

BA have three books and a WD article.

Because there are way to many rules about everything. There is not a single game within my local gaming club that we've played without opening the Rule Books a couple of times. I personal;y almost always forgot a special rule that could turn the game in my favor. My last time I forgot that my Warlord has eternal warrior and just let him die from Instant Death wounds. It is not because I don't know what the rule is, it is because I forget it among all other stuff I have to remember.

Again, I like depth, it should just be more approachable to get your hands on the actual rules to play the game.

For instance, why not sell a searchable e-book with every single codex? That would be amazing. Suddenly my iPad has everything.

Oh you have this special rule? Let me just type it into the search bar, and bam. I get the rule, and a list of all units where it's applicable, and i can drill into them.

There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.

Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.

Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.

The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.

 insaniak wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.

Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.

It's in an attempt to granulate the game, though.

I personally want to play large games...but the rules (complicated ot not) prevent that being played In reasonable times. Now many would say play lower point games, but I would rather see armies clash with each other instead of small squads.
Now many put aos down, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but most often it's for petty hatred for change. I've played the system a few times already, and the system has complexity and ease of rules as well (although not as complex as 40k), but I've been able to play large games of aos in shorter time in comparison to 40k. The game alows me to play large "army" games in short time. I like that. It apeal to me (unfortunately I'm more interested in 40k then aos as far as aesthetics goes). So I hope gw turns 40k into something like aos (probably not exactly like it, but closer), and I will readily play it.
I'm crossing my fingers.

I don't think 40K is too complicated, but rather think it's just a mess as far as what they've ended up with.

I fully support a game being very complex, rich, detailed, lots of rules. On the flip side I love some games which are stunningly simple, but rewarding. What I don't like...is a simple game which is compounded into a complex game by simply heaping loads and loads of additional rules and exceptions onto a simple game framework.

Disclaimer: The below is an obvious exaggeration (barely)

When I watch a 40K battle report this is what I see, as a non-40K player.

Player A: Okay, my squad fires its heavy bolters at your character. (rolls dice) Okay, I got four hits, but I get to re-roll ones...(rolls again) and I have six total hits. These are inferno buttpound shells so they ignore cover and count as Strength six instead of five.
Player B: Okay, roll to wound. I have Mask of the Jelly Troll which boosts my toughness, and Cloak of the Everbiscuit which lets me count as being in cover even if I'm "not".
Player A: (rolls to wound) I score three hits, but I get re-roll any failures because I have Wretch of the Apostasy Sanctum for my Lord of War, which lets me do so. (rolls dice) I score four hits.
Player B: Four hits, gotcha. My detachment rules let me pass half of any successful hits to my character to a nearby friendly unit...so these shots go to my scouts over here.
Player A: Okay, roll your saves.
Player B: I roll my saves (rolls dice) and I fail. However I get to re-roll those and I make (rolls dice) two of them. I suffer two wounds, which would kill me but I get re-rollable invulnerable saves.
Player A: My squad there is lead by a Chaplain and he has the Fisticuffs of Angry Armour which reduces your invulnerable save by one, and if you roll a one you suffer instant death.
Player B: My character also has the Boots of Bee Nectar which means I can roll to ignore instant death on a two or better... (rolls dice) I make one save, so I suffer only one wound.
Player A: My detachment rules allow me to score full kill points if I wound a unit...

It's silly but I swear that is what it looks like in damn near every battle report I watch. Every basic component rule is undone by a half dozen special rules (which in turn are undone by other special rules, or allowed by further special rules). There is nothing attractive about that as a consumer who is in GW's target audience. Nothing...at all.

I've said it in other threads that GW started with a simplified and very streamlined game when they went from 2nd to 3rd...and they've taken that small box or bag and have stuffed it to the point of ripping it in half. They've pushed themselves into a corner with very simple basic rules, which now seem to require a comical amount of special rules to make units different (which admittedly I find they're trying TOO hard to make ever single unit super duper different) or special, or more powerful.

Not complicated, overly bloated despite hard attempts to simplify and streamline for 4 editions now.

Martel732 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are so many rules because a D6 is insufficient granularity on its own. The stats even go to 10, but that can't be used properly because of D6.

Well no, there are so many rules because GW keep adding rules, and in some cases have wound up adding rules that do nothing more than refer to other rules.

It's in an attempt to granulate the game, though.

Or it's directionless bloat and the sign of bad designers. Depends on how you look at it.

 n0t_u wrote:
...despite hard attempts to simplify and streamline for 4 editions now.

I don't think they've actually been trying to do that as an overall goal since the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition. Some specific elements of the game have been streamlined at various times since, but there is no evidence that the studio has been actually trying to simplify or streamline the game overall. Quite the opposite, if anything.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Poison is built into Sniper, but it is not really poison
...
Give sniper rifles Poison(4+), instead of making them wound on 4+, or something.

Interestingly, this was an attempt to fix page flicking, too many special rules embedded in each other would lead to Special Rule a grants special rule b and c.


Special rule b affects weapons like this and give weapons with special rule d special rule e and weapons with special rule f special rule g.

It was just easier to consolidate things, into one entry and it also allowed tweaks to things like sniper without having to change everything with poison/rending/whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

I don't think time to play a game is indicative of how good or bad the game is. Sometimes you want an evenings entertainment. Cricket can go on for days, but even that must have around a billion fans!

Personally I like the suspense provided by the hit/wound/save system (but it begins to get a bit silly once you start adding in rerolls, fnp, iwnd, blahblahblah). If warlord traits/powers take too long to roll in linked game settings (tournaments, campaigns, etc) then just make a rule that characters are stuck with what they roll (across games) until they die... would be entertaining seeing people trying to suicide their psykers that did not roll favourable powers! Alternatively, write lists that minimise these random elements (use characters with preset traits, don't overload on psykers, etc).

Because of how thick its rulebook is, personally.

Anything with that many pages of rules is probably way too complicated.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.

The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.

Army specific FoCs have been a thing since the FOC was a thing, it's just every single one (with the exceptions of Saim Hann and Astral Claws IIRC) used an identical one to the rulebook.

 insaniak wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
...despite hard attempts to simplify and streamline for 4 editions now.

I don't think they've actually been trying to do that as an overall goal since the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition. Some specific elements of the game have been streamlined at various times since, but there is no evidence that the studio has been actually trying to simplify or streamline the game overall. Quite the opposite, if anything.

Maybe it's mostly been focused at the list building part of the game. Least that's my view on it.

Ruin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the tedium has nothing to do with dice, but everything to do with GW's fetish for special rules, random tables and superfluous army formations.

The original FoC was fine. The game did not need formations that gave free stuff or allies.
That said, I do appreciate army specific FoCs. That was the only change I liked in 6th ed.

Army specific FoCs have been a thing since the FOC was a thing, it's just every single one (with the exceptions of Saim Hann and Astral Claws IIRC) used an identical one to the rulebook.

If they're all identical, how are they army-specific?

I've never found the game overly complicated, my biggest issue is that I was taught by a guy who is very 6th edition and sometimes what I know is completely wrong in 7th, mostly in armies that use tactics completely different playstyle to the Wolves and Nids - I glaze over the rule as I read it and don't notice that it's ordered differently.
As for balance there's two skewed axis, rules enable way more flexibility to shooting things as opposed to hitting them.
Then there's the army codex issue. The haves and have nots.
I run Space Wolves, as far as melee codexes go it's definitely a 'haves' codex but it's still a melee codex and the biggest, baddest melee unit relies on mobility and can be easily blocked.

I also run 'Nids, another melee codex and definitely a "have not" codex.

The difference between the Wolves and the 'Nids is huge, the difference between the 'Nids and a 'haves' shooting codex is beyond belief.

There's just too many things that are similar yet not the same.
Melta, armourbane, ordnance, lance, tank hunter all basically give some bonus against vehicles - yet it's a bit different every time.
Same with furios charge, move through cover, rage, fleet. Rage doesn't work against defense grenades but furious charge does, however it doesn't work in a disordered charge. And cover reduces your Initiative and your charge range, assault grenades only help with the Initiative.
And don't get me started with transport rules and what I'm allowed to do with verhicles depending on how far I moved them... Those are things that I have to look up every single game.

The main problem is despite all these things the game itself is not very deep or tactical. Basically 40K is like watching a firework.
If I want a tactical game I play Lotr or STAW - both of them have a very easy ruleset btw.

As someone who has been off and on for the last 10 years, 40k is complicated because of all the unit types and their interactions - further compounded by codex rules replacing the BRB rules.

When I first started at the beginning of 4th edition you had to remember infantry, vehicles, walkers, etc. There was no psychic phase, basic FOC, and there was only one codex per army.

Then over the years we got flyers, flying monstrous creatures, superheavies, detachments, supplements, warlords/challenges, etc.

These additions to the game were really interesting in some ways, but the problem is that 40k cannot support them all. The game cannot support complex rules for squad/character interaction and also support vehicle formations/superheavies. It often feels like kill team and apocalypse merged together and those are two conflicting mentalities.

If GW wants to bring back balance and rule simplification they need to impose restrictions. Unbound rules were just a desperate attempt to move product by allowing players to buy that "one" kit they always wanted but didn't want to invest in an entire army to use it.

It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.

So... it has been just fine with this scale for a long time. What the problem is right now, imo, is army building.

Just to be clear the game play of 40k is very simple.

The reason the rules are over complicated are..

Lack of interaction in the game turn mechanic.
This leads to additional reaction rules like over watch.

Multiple resolution methods.(SEVEN)Most good games manage with TWO.

Over simplification and restrictive use of a D6.
This means the core rules can not cover the diversity of the 40k universe.(Core rules ONLY cover standard infantry in the open.)
So everything else has to have extra rules or special rules.

Every other war game I have played has Core rules and a FEW Special rules.

40k has core rules.
Universal Special rules.(Oxymoron.)
Codex Special rules.
Special snowflake special rules.

The last time I counted 40k has 86 special rules!Most war games have up to two dozen special rules.(Some manage with less than a dozen special rules.)

Well, more often than not one has to look into the rule book during the game.
This is because one player asks whether a rule applied is correct or not, and they need the rule book to resolve.
This can slow down the game severly.

I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots

Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.

40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.

If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots

Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.

40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.

If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.

Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.

It's also worth noting that until they were made part of the core rules, they saw very little use outside of agreed scenarios, because most players felt they didn't fit the game...


The existence of super heavies isn't the problem. Shoehorning then into a game where opposing armies often have to be specifically constructed to stand a chance against them is the problem.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I don't think 7th edition is overly complicated
For all people complaining that shooting is too strong etc seem to forget that look at all the stories most of the battles are won by shooting.
Personally I love 7th ed and quite frankly for all the complaints people have about it I'd sooner play 7th ed than 5th ed which was the game of parking lots

Nice logic - here's some counter logic.
In all honesty an Empire with the IoMs moral compass wouldn't even bother sending troops to the surface, it would be a couple of ships and the latest virus to eliminate whatever the problem happens to be, innocent casualties be damned...it would be a story of death so clean and simple Slaanesh wouldn't have an issue with it, it'd simply die of boredom.

40k is a game where people step out of flying fighter craft to attack tanks by using warhammers because they're more powerful than the fighter's guns.

If your logic had any place here we'd be playing stop the virus shuttle in a format more akin to X-Wing, or actually using the "Death from the Skies" supplement.

Yes but if you build a entire army with no kind of ranged support you should lose sorry but that's how it is

No one is complaining that they have to take ranged options. They are complaining that some ranged weapons are either too strong for what is supposed to be a company based game, or that some options are too cheap and common for what they do.
Where's the tactics in blowing up a squad a turn, when they have no way of countering it? There's nothing tactical in taking a super heavy, pointing at an enemy unit and saying "remove that unit". Yes, I am aware that there is rolling, but that's just a formality; something will die most of the time.
You might as well play chess with only queens.

Also, a point on 5th ed parking lots - if you are going to build an army without any form of anti tank, you're should lose. I'm sorry but that's how it is.*

*I don't actually agree. 5th ed vehicles were a tad too tough, especially if you didn't have good dedicated anti tank in your army. However, your condescending and dismissive post required some attention.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is worth noting that Superheavies have been around since 2nd Edition when the Baneblade was in citadel journal.

It's also worth noting that until they were made part of the core rules, they saw very little use outside of agreed scenarios, because most players felt they didn't fit the game...


The existence of super heavies isn't the problem. Shoehorning then into a game where opposing armies often have to be specifically constructed to stand a chance against them is the problem.

Yeh, SHV should have stayed in apoc or epic. They do not belong in a game of 40k's scale.

I'll explain some of my problems with 40k in it's current state:

- It's got too much random rolling. It's especially grating when it comes to Warlord Traits and Physic Powers. Not only does it slow down the pre-game setup but it also prohibits you from making suitable strategies for your army. Like somebody mentioned before, it sucks when you try to build a certain character only to have the wrong power screw it all up.

- There's too many special rules. A lot of them overlap. Zealot for example is just a combo of hatred and fearless. Sniper is basically a combination of Poisoned and Rending. Armourbane and Melta are very similar too.

- Too many rules are canceled out by other rules. Fearless is too abundant, rendering pinning and fear useless most of the time. Cover is too easily ignored. The rules need better interaction. Just as a suggestion; fearless type rules should bump your leadership up whilst fear type rules should bring it down, just so that both get a shoe in. If that makes sense.

- Too many resolution systems. Vehicles shouldn't be different to everything else, especially when it's apparently OK for Tau battlesuits to share the same stat lines as a Carnifex but Dreadnaughts require a completely separate system.

- The rules are just scattered everywhere. The BRB, codexes, supplements etc. It's too much, and it's not a good way to introduce new players to the game. At least AoS has a very low entry level. Just acquire the free rules and a box of many miniatures you want and you're good to go.

There's got to be a way to fix these issues.

I have left 40K and GW for good.

After trying other games (Infinity, bolt action, several historical rulesets such as rapid fire etc...) I must say that the basic ruleset of 40K is incredibly poor. The bloated miriad of rules in codices, warzones etc, makes it utterly unplayable (for me)...

In general, here are the flaws of the core rulebook:

- the IGOUGO model is incredibly outdated and makes for long and boring games.
- the silly functioning of cover (why you cannot stack cover with armor?!?!) which makes the positioning of models not meaningful
- the silly functioning of weapons (with no bonuses or maluses for distance) which makes, again, the positioning of models not meaningful
- the "morale" system which is ported from WHFB and ill-suited to represent sci-fi warfare.

In general the game is extremely lacking in offering to the players meaningful choices. The game is reduced to simply taking the most powerful units and, at most, devise synergies among them. If you do not believe me, take a look at the "tactics" section of this forum. The answer to a problem is almost never : if you face X DO Y. it is always: If you face X TAKE Y.

In the end, this game starts and end at list-building. The actual play is just dice rolling.

Then you have other flaws such as:
- the silly system of allies which opens the door to stupid cheesefest.
- the undeniable and horrible imbalance between codices.
- the huge amount of random rolling (Warlord traits, psychic powers etc.)
- the proliferation of uberweapons and giant toys...
- the ludicrous cost of a playable army.

In the end, WH40K is currently a very poor game. This ruleset was ok 20 years ago, when there were no alternatives to GW products but nowadays I believe that, without a complete overhaul, GW will keep losing customers to the competition.