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.

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

What if you just, like, use really good melee units, eat the incoming fire until you reach melee range, and wipe the enemy out in melee?

Flyers?

Just, like, ignore them. You're not gonna table your enemy anyways, are you?

Tarpitting?

You're not using a deathstar. Ram a melee unit into that tarpit that can deal with those numbers.

Rather than compare over complicated rules of 7th edition 40k, to older editions of 40k.
How many have compared 40k rule set to other rule sets?

When compared to war game rule set written focusing on a specific type of game play 40k rules are over complicated.

40k 7th ed rules are more like sales driven publications inspiring the short term sales of the latest releases.

Lanrak wrote:
Rather than compare over complicated rules of 7th edition 40k, to older editions of 40k.
How many have compared 40k rule set to other rule sets?

When compared to war game rule set written focusing on a specific type of game play 40k rules are over complicated.

40k 7th ed rules are more like sales driven publications inspiring the short term sales of the latest releases.

Well, the last tabletop miniatures game I played before WH40k was MageKnight.

The complete set of rules were included on a single sheet of paper in every starter box.

Every model's stats were, like, part of the model. Because they wrote them on the model.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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.

That's probably better than I ever could have put it.
I'll also add in - That attitude is when people make Deathstars.
Can't be done you say? Screw tactical objectives, I'm going to abuse the allies matrix to make an invincible unit that can ignore all your sorry excuses for 'Ranged Support' and boardwipe you.

My fixes for 40k include:

1. Fixing allies, SHV, Gargantuan creatures, Lords of War, and fortifications. No game under 1000 points should have ANY of these. The combined points for all of these together should never be more than 25% of any force

2. Random rolling. Sheesh, how much of it can you have in one game? Some values should just be set in stone. 6 inches for a charge range, 3 inches for running, terrain slows any movement (movement, running, charging) so that you only move half distance, Wall of Flame should just be 2 hits. In addition, battling out the psychic phase needs to be streamlined. Instead of canceling an enemy power by rolling off, just have the mastery level of your psycher put a modifier on any enemy power within 24 inches. Also, be able to pick warlord traits and psychic powers.

Wall of flame should allow you to use a normal flamer attack. The current version makes no sense. Its still the same attack from using the same weapon, why does it behave different?
And no, "because snap shots" doesn't count as a valid excuse, as it would clearly be an exception.

 Elbows wrote:
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.

I lmao at this, because this is how it feels. It's a pathetic rendition of DnD in space. I bought a GW book again for the first time in years (Traitor Legions), because I hoped things had changed. Nope same old rubbish.

I'd like the game to focus less on removing your opponents models faster than they're removing yours and instead focus on real tactics and conditions. For starters, a proper suppression system would be nice.

And I'd prefer if 40k went back to the more nuanced subtract from saves rather than wiping them out completely approach that 2nd ed and now AOS utilise. Here's a rough conversion rate I've been working on:

Strength 1-3: no reduction
Strength 4-8: -1 to save
Strength 9-10: -2 to save
AP - to AP 5: no reduction
AP 4 to AP 3: -1 to save
AP: 2 to AP 1: -2 to save

The strength and AP figures are added together. So a boltgun (strength 4 AP 5) is -1 to a save. An auto cannon (strength 7 AP 4) is -2 to a save. And a lascannon (strength 9 AP 2) is -4 to a save.

Make cover simply boost your save rather than being a completely separate thing that often gets ignored anyway and we might be in business. I'm definitely planing to go back to the proposed rules section to develop these thoughts, just as soon as I get some actual free time to do so.

Ionno GW just changes rules like slaanesh changes lingerie. Whatever will get them money they'll do it. I really think Bikes & MCs are going to get hit hard with a nerf bat next edition and the new money making units will be ruled into effect. My advice just keep playing an edition you like, if people don't wanna play it then don't stress move on. If your competitive then your just screwed.

 Viridian wrote:
Ionno GW just changes rules like slaanesh changes lingerie. Whatever will get them money they'll do it. I really think Bikes & MCs are going to get hit hard with a nerf bat next edition and the new money making units will be ruled into effect. My advice just keep playing an edition you like, if people don't wanna play it then don't stress move on. If your competitive then your just screwed.

Casual game at games store isn't helped either, You have to play what is the local preference.

The main reason 40K is "too" complicated (not quite sure I agree on that but w/e), is the amount of rules that are entirely useless, such as all rules relating to

Morale: who gives a gak, I've got ATSKNF and fearless.
Pinning Tests : but everybody plays a damn bike or vehicles or is immune for some other reason.

Why create a very interesting component of the game only to make it entirely pointless in half the games you play ?

The current edition is complicated and no, this is not conflating anything. Sure, for the most part, the basic rules of the game are fairly simple and easy to apply; what makes the game complex, compared to competing products is in the massive number of special rules, how they interact, and when and how they are applied.

If you compare previous editions with the current, you will easily see that we went from every army having a book to the current morass of army books, sub-army books, expansions, campaigns, digital only rules, box only rules, formations, etc. Some of these are stand alone, others aren't, some replace prior army books, others interact in an unclear manner with their predecessor (agents of the imperium) to the point you don't know if one or both are valid and if you can use them together or have to use them separately. Add into this battle brothers, allies, etc and you have a system wherein it becomes so involved just in order to build an army list to even play the game that the whole thing leaves casual players like me completely in the cold.

To me 40K and AOS are polar opposites in terms of complexity.

* All my opinion, other opinions are equally valid.

morgoth wrote:
The main reason 40K is "too" complicated (not quite sure I agree on that but w/e), is the amount of rules that are entirely useless, such as all rules relating to

Morale: who gives a gak, I've got ATSKNF and fearless.
Pinning Tests : but everybody plays a damn bike or vehicles or is immune for some other reason.

Why create a very interesting component of the game only to make it entirely pointless in half the games you play ?

 agnosto wrote:
The current edition is complicated and no, this is not conflating anything. Sure, for the most part, the basic rules of the game are fairly simple and easy to apply; what makes the game complex, compared to competing products is in the massive number of special rules, how they interact, and when and how they are applied.

If you compare previous editions with the current, you will easily see that we went from every army having a book to the current morass of army books, sub-army books, expansions, campaigns, digital only rules, box only rules, formations, etc. Some of these are stand alone, others aren't, some replace prior army books, others interact in an unclear manner with their predecessor (agents of the imperium) to the point you don't know if one or both are valid and if you can use them together or have to use them separately. Add into this battle brothers, allies, etc and you have a system wherein it becomes so involved just in order to build an army list to even play the game that the whole thing leaves casual players like me completely in the cold.

To me 40K and AOS are polar opposites in terms of complexity.

* All my opinion, other opinions are equally valid.

Yes, these issues are exactly what's wrong with 40k at the moment. Thank you for saying so. I've been trying to say the same thing but I can't think straight at the moment. I'm currently sick.

And at least in AOS the various rules compliment each other rather than cancelling each other out. And a free four page pamphlet and the free rules included with your models are all you need to play a game, making it really easy to get into.

Yes

I played a game of 4th edition this week for fun. Stumbling through old rules - the game was extraordinarily fast.

Yeah, I remember 4th ed not taking that long to play through. The later editions feel much more sluggish to play through.

We should be discussing what rules make it too complex.

Personally, I am against anything happening after the roll to decide who goes first. That should decide who wins, with the loser having to buy drinks afterwards.

Of course, Space Marines would still get an extra roll to steal the initiative. This would replace ATSKNF. CSMs would get Warpflame Gargoyles.

 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.

They still haven't sorted that out yet? :O I used to think that it represented the sniper waiting to get an all-or-nothing headshot but it's actualy a poison rule which never got updated.

Melta is sort-of like armourbane, but only at half range.

Armourbane isn't even a new thing, it's just a shiny re-packaging of the '+2D6' rule which things like the Eviscerator had. It's certainly less wordy to just say "armourbane" rather than "this weapon adds 2D6 to its armour rolls" but it's just yet another buzzword which covers up and confuses the old core of the rules.

Fleet applies to run and assault rolls, but not difficult terrain, and move-through-cover is roll more dice, not re-rolls.

If there's anything which I disagree with in regards to Fleet it's how it changed to being a speed rule to an assault rule. Perhaps it should instead add an extra dice to the Run roll instead of (or in addition to?) being able to assault when running.

Rending affects armour rolls differently to wounding.

Rending is a bit of a mess really; it was too powerful in 4th ed but then in 5th they made it roll on wounds which made it more balanced yet it also meant that getting a wound on a 6 wasn't anything special unless it's against something like a Waithlord.

5th-ed Rapid Fire was 2 shots when stationary, but in 7th-ed it is at half range even when moving.

The half-range thing at least makes the rapid-fire consistant with the weapon being used, as previously I wasn't sure if it was 12" because that represented close-range firing or if it was just another example of the Tau Empire being forgotten and shafted.

GW HQ, 2004:

"Shouldn't the Pulse rifles fire twice at 15" rather than 12"? They do have a 30 inch range afterall.."

"meh...I like my bolter, keep it at 12."

Yeah, the change to rapid fire was one of the few new rules that I liked. Before it wasn't consistent and was a bit awkward.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the change to rapid fire was one of the few new rules that I liked. Before it wasn't consistent and was a bit awkward.

The half-range part, yes. But the 'firing while moving', no. It makes the game feel more arcadey and dumbed-down, as if we're too stupid to decide whether to move or shoot so instead we have to be able to do both incase someone finds themselves in the terrible situation of having to make a tactical decision. You could argue that it helps to make the ranged fire feel more modern but the Napoleon/Victorian 40K was all part of the charm; my Tau paint scheme is loosely based on Roke's Drift to suit the fighting style.

When the last stand was made and the Tau Empire saaaved....

Having said that, being a shooty army in 4th ed was not always 'charming', I still have nightmares of 4th ed Sweeping Advance Chain.

Wait, you mean you can't stay still and double tap, like in earlier editions? That's a step back.
I forgot about that rule. Then again, I haven't played in a while. Got too disillusioned with the system.

Yeah, I liked ranking up and shooting a volley at point blank range when the enemy got too close. Its one of the charms of playing a gunline.
Not that gunlines really work with necrons, anyway; you are supposed to advance. Didn't stop me from trying when I started though

Consolidate into combat was a nightmare, especially when the Harlequins showed up with their ignore-all-terrain-and-good-luck-shooting-me-I-have-nightfight nonsense.
It was already bad with infiltrating genestealers with broodlord, but the harlequins would just come straight at you, you can't shoot them due to night fight, they aren't slowed and they just rend your squad to death. It was some bs. Oh, and of course being Eldar they have high initiative, so they will be sure to sweep and consolidate 6" into the next squad, and god help you that its the Eldar turn after. feth Phil Kelly. He killed 4th and 5th ed with his TFG nonsense, which is why we have this mess.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wait, you mean you can't stay still and double tap, like in earlier editions?

You can double-tap but you don't need to stay still to do it. It's in half range regardless of how fast you're moving (unless you're running, of course)

Got too disillusioned with the system.

Join the club

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, I liked ranking up and shooting a volley at point blank range when the enemy got too close. Its one of the charms of playing a gunline.
Not that gunlines really work with necrons, anyway; you are supposed to advance. Didn't stop me from trying when I started though

There could be a Rank Fire rule; only half your models fire, but if they're assaulted in the next turn they fire on BS 5 when overwatching

So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.

What it should have always been is that if you stay still you can double tap at max range, to represent your soldiers aiming and firing precise bursts. If you move you can only double tap at short range, as they don't have time to aim so they burst down whatever is close by, or fire at max range with a single shot, to represent them quickly aiming at a distance target and firing a single aimed round, as they know they wouldn't have time to compensate for the recoil from a burst. Or something like that. The rapid fire rule was always a bit wonky, really.

A fair bit of whats been added over the years is a direct result of 'streamlining' years ago.

E.g. weapons now do one wound, they used to be able to do more, for most models this doesn't matter, they only have one so are dead anyway - but it brought in 'instant death' and 'eternal warrior', just let a las cannon do 1d6 wounds and be done with it - can then use the same system for vehicle damage.

the special movement rules that are a result of the removal of the 'M' stat, the psychology rules that come down to consolidating Ld, Wp, Int & Cl into just Ld.

1st edition had a few issues as the game scaled up, but actually was pretty playable.

At this point I'd just bin it, get the LotR rulebook and a marker pen and add the grim dark stuff to it and use that

I think one major issue is trying to make each unit "type" unique in non-comparable ways, then trying to make each unit within that type unique, and often making models within those units have unique rules as well.

Take the movement phase, and cover. Infantry roll a random distance for movement, and a "less forgiving" random roll if the terrain is especially difficult. "Fast Infantry" like Bikes or Jump Packs lose any sense of self preservation, and continue to plow along at full speed but are sometimes impaled by random tree trunks, rocks, or snowbanks. In particularly difficult terrain, their odds of being impaled go to roughly 33%. But some "Fast Infantry" like horses ignore most effects of terrain slowing them down / becoming impaled, presumably because the Horse knows how to majestically jump around and over trees, boulders, and snowpiles, but lose Initiative while assaulting. While other "Fast Gribblies" ignore everything about terrain altogether. And sometimes it matters if you start/land in terrain, or if you just move over it. Or if you move through it. And why can anyone land on impassible terrain? Shouldn't impassible be, you know, a you-can't-go-here zone for everyone? No, it's cool. We can hover over the volcano because we have a flying motorcycle. Yes, it is several thousand degrees here, but we're Skimmers!

But sometimes those infantry are better at moving through terrain than other people... because figuring out how to not walk into a tree is a special skill. So they roll MORE dice to see how far they can move.

But when we have units that are a lot better at dodging wood, stone, and water, they get to RE-ROLL their suicide attempt. But sometimes, only the random dude in a unit gets to re-roll, while the others are like, "What? Where'd Dave go?" But Leaderman's like, "Screw him! Balls to the walls, Muthaahfukkaaahs!" But sometimes that only applies if it's a specific Leaderman. Or a certain codex, or certain units within that codex.

And sometimes a Vehicle gets stuck and damaged when it drives through a wall. But sometimes a vehicle doesn't get stuck. But if the Vehicle has legs, it gets slowed down like infantry, while a motorcycle can plow through at full speed. But big monsters are better at not being slowed down, rolling extra dice, while the walking bulldozer does get slowed down, because he's... not worried about getting stuck?

And then sometimes some units get to move in other phases, and sometimes not. Sometimes suicidal, sometimes not. Sometimes in reaction to being shot at. Does a blast marker move to continue to cover the targeted model, or does it stay in place? Targeting rules say you target a model's base... and a Hit's a hit... so if the model moves, does the marker move with it? And how they move is different. Sometimes random, sometimes set. And sometimes, your flying motorcycle is faster if ridden by a space elf than it is if it's ridden by a space skeleton. Because exactly two units in the game [Tomb Blades and Deffkoptas] have this "basic rule" while all other Jetbikes are different. Well, I suppose the Dark Angel character with the only remaining Non-elf/robot/ork Jetbike.

Unless you're a flying vehicle, but not a skimmer, because they move differently. Despite Wave Serpents being able to deploy like a drop pod from space, they aren't Flyers. And despite Deffkoptas being helicopters, they don't fly. They jet... what? They're a helicopter. They should be a skimmer, at least!

Um... I'm out of ideas related to how each unit type moves differently to each unit of that type, and how models within those units sometimes move differently to each other, but let's compare that to...


Movement Stat: "X". Your unit moves up to X inches in the movement phase. You may move this distance again in the shooting phase, but if you do, you may not shoot or assault this turn.

Cover Movement Reduction: Each type of cover has a movement reduction value, "Y". If a unit starts or ends it's movement in cover, subtract "Y" from their movement stat. Non-Aerial units moving through cover also subtract this value. For example, a non-Aerial unit moves over a low wall, with CMR value "2". That unit would subtract 2 from its Movement Stat. Movement value can never be reduced below 3". [??]

Aerial: A unit with the Aerial rule may move over other models, so long as they wouldn't need to end their movement on top of another model. A unit with the Aerial rule ignores the Cover Movement Reduction value, if it moves completely "over" the intervening terrain / models.

Agile: A unit with the Agile rule ignores the CMR penalty to movement / Assault initiative penalties.


All unit types use the same movement mechanics, with TWO USR to account for extra-mobile units. Fully granular. Simple. No random dice rolls, no memorizing pages of rules, still allows for variance in how quickly things move around the table, while accounting for terrain / other models.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.

I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.

But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.

Eh, I honestly don't feel the game is *that* much more complicated than it has been. I like the Psychic Phase (as opposed to powers being cast whenever based on the power themselves), removing closest models from shooting (as opposed to "10 Guardsmen are in area terrain, so the remaining 1p that are advancing in the open get 4+ cover"), and I am mostly OK with "multiple detachments" (barring stuff like the Riptide Wing, or other "tax-free" formations for units you wanted to take anyway) as bad FOC organization had crippled armies that had good units otherwise.

More than anything, my main issue with 40k from 6e onwards was making Psychic Powers a random lottery (as opposed to, I dunno, making sure there was internal balance between said powers), and removing "upgrades" in favor of random Warlord traits. This is most notable among Grey Knights and Space Wolves, with the assorted "Grand Strategy" abilities a Grandmaster had being made random traits (meaning you don't have much reason to run a Grandmaster when you could just take a Librarian), and Space Wolves losing the ability to buy Sagas rather than making them Random Warlord traits.

Hell, such Sagas could even have been integrated into 7e objectives system. 5e gave a corresponding oath for each Saga ("Must slay at least 20 foes in melee", "must drive a tank into the enemy Deployment Zone", etc) which was there for fluff alone but didn't actually penalize you for failing to uphold them!

Speaking of random victory points, Maelstrom's implementation is a disaster where you could be tasked with slaying the enemy Psyker when fighting Necrons, or blowing up Tyranid vehicles...

 SDFarsight wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.

I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.

But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.

Ah, now that rule I remember. That one was introduced in 6th, right? Eh, I'm ok with it. Its a change I would have made.
Keep in mind that I would also use to hit modifiers, so it may be a different case.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So, it hasn't changed then? Because in earlier editions, if you moved you had to double tap, but if you stay still you can choose between double tapping or shooting once at your max range.

I just looked at an old reference sheet and it looks like you're right; but I could have sworn that it was move and fire once at 12" or don't move and fire twice at 12" or once at full range.

But anyway, it has at least changed by the fact that you can fire at full range and move.

Ah, now that rule I remember. That one was introduced in 6th, right? Eh, I'm ok with it. Its a change I would have made.
Keep in mind that I would also use to hit modifiers, so it may be a different case.

Yes, 6th edition when all the stupid started to happen. You could argue that it started in 5th edition with TLOS, but that was merely the seeds of heresy being sown. It wasn't until 6th edition that someone in GW was swayed by a dark apostle.

Talking about RULES complexity, yes... 40k is too complicated.
In terms of STRATEGIC Complexity, 40k is just about perfect (for me at least).

Since 5th edition (the earliest I've played the game) the rules complexity of 40k has increased a lot while competing games have reduced their rules complexity. Basic 40k has added Flyers, Psychic Phase and rolling for physic powers, Super-heavies, Fortifications, and Formations since when I started.
The only game that has more rules complexity is Flames of War... started with 2nd editon there, 3rd was an attempt to clean things up a bit, but just added more complexity as well. Now 4th edition is supposed to be a much simplified version. We'll see. I traded all of my FOW stuff away a long time ago, and I'm not about to buy back in.
On the other side, X-Wing was very refreshing with its lack of rules complexity... Since then though, there have been 10 more waves of product that have only increased the complexity of game as well. I've got a feeling that X-Wing will need a second edition soon.

While I love the idea of formations (take x units for bonus), they are where 7th got complicated. And unlimited detachments, and recently the increasing number of Psychic powers.
Back in 6th, everyone was only allows 1 Force Organization Chart, or 2 at 2000+ pts. You could also have 1 Allied chart per FOC
In 7th, that became the CAD and you could have as many as you want.

Then GW did something they hadn't done before. They rapid-fired releases, each with more rules than every before. It soon became impossible to keep track of every new rule for every army.

-