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.

When using 40k models to introduce someone to wargaming, I use this set instead of 40k.

https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/

Its worked so well and is such an elegant system that were it not for the 5 tournament games I play a year, I'd try to get my group to ditch GW rules altogether and use these instead for out casual games. Thought I'd put it here for any not already exposed to 1page40k that would benefit from a removal of the microtransaction/rules/book bloat and an approachable system.

I'm fascinated that the "core rules" document for this one-page Warhammer project is in fact two pages.

Personally I think the desire to cut down on the core rules is a big part of the problem; Sigmar has a four pages of 'core rules' and 40k has eight pages of 'core rules', but they then both have a vast and impenetrable library of FAQs, exceptions, additions, tweaks, things that are sometimes in the 'core rules' and sometimes not, and huge piles of special-case rules in their army books; I feel like both would be better, simpler games if they had a 12-15-page 'core rulebook' that actually covered all the things they need it to cover instead of making a very complicated game and then offloading all the bloat onto the army books so they can say "Hey! Four-page core rules here!"

That's just generally poor rules writing/adopting of a format.

Rules complexity shouldn't have any impact on how fun a game should/could be. It's a matter of choosing a style and writing an efficient and elegant set of rules in whatever "level" of complexity you choose.

 Elbows wrote:
That's just generally poor rules writing/adopting of a format.

Rules complexity shouldn't have any impact on how fun a game should/could be. It's a matter of choosing a style and writing an efficient and elegant set of rules in whatever "level" of complexity you choose.

My assertion is that the fun of the game is proportional to the relationship between how complex the rules are and how complex the gameplay is. A good game has sophisticated, interesting, or 'complex' gameplay without having complex rules; making the rules shorter doesn't help if you're also making the gameplay boring. Tic-tac-toe is a really dull game that has really short rules, the shortness of the rules alone doesn't make it interesting. Go is a really interesting game that has really short rules, the shortness of the rules is present but not the thing that makes it interesting.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm fascinated that the "core rules" document for this one-page Warhammer project is in fact two pages.

Personally I think the desire to cut down on the core rules is a big part of the problem; Sigmar has a four pages of 'core rules' and 40k has eight pages of 'core rules', but they then both have a vast and impenetrable library of FAQs, exceptions, additions, tweaks, things that are sometimes in the 'core rules' and sometimes not, and huge piles of special-case rules in their army books; I feel like both would be better, simpler games if they had a 12-15-page 'core rulebook' that actually covered all the things they need it to cover instead of making a very complicated game and then offloading all the bloat onto the army books so they can say "Hey! Four-page core rules here!"

Well, all snark aside, another large tradition of of why the core game system is called One Page Rules is that the codex for each force from either game is (usually) written on a single page. Back when it started, all the rules were in fact all written on one page for each army game, as well as each skirmish sub-game. But then they were formatted to look better and be read easier. If they were written back the original way they would still fit on one page.

The game system is still a great accomplishment of being able to fit comparable versions of all the types of 40k and AoS unit types in such a compact, free, and regularly updated and playtested format, including all the Universal Special Rules and uniquely different weapon stats. As simple as the rules are, "Not-Space Marines" feel like Space Marines, compared to "Not-Tau" feeling like Tau.

Still a pretty cool thing that an entire Space Marine army from Scouts to Terminators to Land Raiders can be fielded using less than 5 sheets of paper.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The game system is still a great accomplishment of being able to fit comparable versions of all the types of 40k and AoS unit types in such a compact, free, and regularly updated and playtested format, including all the Universal Special Rules and uniquely different weapon stats. As simple as the rules are, "Not-Space Marines" feel like Space Marines, compared to "Not-Tau" feeling like Tau.

Still a pretty cool thing that an entire Space Marine army from Scouts to Terminators to Land Raiders can be fielded using less than 5 sheets of paper.

If GW dropped nearly all options, they could fit them too. Guess how many protests it would cause? Though, they did so in Apocalypse, if you want simplicity, there you go.

Also, wat? Primaris can only take auto-bolters (all starter squads say hi), can't take bolt rifles or stalkers, but can take a meltagun? Wot? Can't be simplicity, because officers have access to variant rifles, and hellblasters can take all three plasma variants. They can also take apothecary for some reason, but can't take melee weapons even though tactical squad can. Reivers don't have heavy pistols, primaris walkers have weapons that are part of the model (and cannot be removed) as optional update, but one weapon that is optional is mandatory. Eliminators can't take lascannons, etc, etc, if something so easy to easy to write in compact, straightforward way as primaris rules was butchered in such a way I see a dozen problems at a glance I don't really have any faith in these rules...

I guess I can't really speak for Primaris as I don't have a force of them, though for a time during 1.0 edition when they were new I "think" they had all the appropriate wargear. I know even in 40K, a lot of primaris wargear differences strike me as minutia that adds quite a bit of bloat, or is not really needed. Really, there are only so many types of Bolt Gun that are needed.

But I know my Imperial Guard, Space Marines, and Eldar can be fielded with wargear comparable to what you would commonly find in those armies over the many years. There are a few notable inventions that don't have an analogue, like Shred Rifles, that I guess(?) are an invention based around supposed holes in the wargear capabilities for some armies, but I never understood why it was needed so I ignore using some of that stuff in favor of the traditional 40k wargear.

"Fun" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

A "Good" game is also in the eye of the beholder.

Generic generalizations, like "a good game should be this complex or that streamlined" kinda fall down.

If I like complexity, and I enjoy ultra-complex combinations and negations spread out across dozens of story based campaign books, and I do, a game that includes those things will be fun FOR ME.

I know that not everyone likes to play the game the way I do, and I don't expect them to. I try hard not to write about how the game "should" be played- though sometimes I guess a post might get my ire up and I might type faster than I think- instead I like to point how the game CAN be played.

In that vein, thanks OP for showing me yet another option. I think it's too steamlined to meet my needs, but I think it could solve a lot of problems for other folks.

I think what a lot of people seem to miss when discussing the 4-page/8-page core rules for AoS/40K is that the whole point off offloading the "bloat" to army books is to lower the initial barrier to entry. It's now perfectly possible to play a straightforward game of either game simply using those core rules and the basic rules that come with the figures when you buy them.

Not every player – and particularly not younger, or new, players – necessarily wants, or needs, to jump immediately into the full, extensive, matched-play rules. And by delineating things into core rules and additional rules, it makes it easier for people to cherry pick the stuff they *do* want to use, rather than expecting everyone to slog through hundreds of pages of rules before they can even play their first game.

I think it's often useful to remember that not everyone plays games the way the vocal internet minority plays them and/or demands everyone else should too.

I recently played my first game since early 6th Ed and I decided to start from scratch with a beginners session rather than waste someone's time babysitting me who just wants a pickup game. I was playing with another guy who played 1 game 7 years ago, a guy who had 5 games under his belt total and a 2-man team of never-played-before.


The rules of this intro game were simple - move, psychic, shoot, charge, fight, morale. No doctrines, only use the smite psychic power, no deny the witch, no cover rules, no warlord/traits, no strategems, no objective holding, no special rules that negate wounds or bring back to life.

It was fun to just get back to basics. I had brought a fully written list with Chapter Tactics and warlord traits and the like, but it was so complex in the moment I couldn't get my head around all the changes. Boiling it down to profiles, D6, D3 and inches made it so much more accessible. Following sessions will probably expand and include stuff like psychic powers or CP usage or detachments. But for beginners and youths, that method is going to be perfect.

 Deadshot wrote:
I recently played my first game since early 6th Ed and I decided to start from scratch with a beginners session rather than waste someone's time babysitting me who just wants a pickup game. I was playing with another guy who played 1 game 7 years ago, a guy who had 5 games under his belt total and a 2-man team of never-played-before.


The rules of this intro game were simple - move, psychic, shoot, charge, fight, morale. No doctrines, only use the smite psychic power, no deny the witch, no cover rules, no warlord/traits, no strategems, no objective holding, no special rules that negate wounds or bring back to life.

It was fun to just get back to basics. I had brought a fully written list with Chapter Tactics and warlord traits and the like, but it was so complex in the moment I couldn't get my head around all the changes. Boiling it down to profiles, D6, D3 and inches made it so much more accessible. Following sessions will probably expand and include stuff like psychic powers or CP usage or detachments. But for beginners and youths, that method is going to be perfect.

See, this is a great example of what I'm driving at – the way things are arranged now, you don't need a comprehensive knowledge of the rules so that you know what you have to strip out to streamline it for beginners; you simple start with the Core Rules then, if you want to, you can add to that down the line with Detachments, Chapter Tactics etc etc as you see fit.

I would just play Apocalypse or Kill Team.

If you have a large army and want people to have fun playing a large army game, apoc is awesome. If you have only a few figures, kill team is awesome. Both are easily approachable and good game systems.

I love the OPR rules system, especially for fantasy skirmishing. The other thing that is not mentioned is that if you support them on Patreon for 5 bucks a month, you get access to fully illustrated rulebooks AND the points calculator used to create every existing army, and also access to the secret playtesting forums so get a hand in creating new content.

So even with a one-month pledge of 5 bucks (probably what I am going to do sometime) a player has the means to create a force that is exactly how they think that force should work. It's what I will be doing if I start a Primaris force, even as a small skirmish force, as I don't like how their army list is built compared to how they are represented in 40k. So I'll just build them as I see fit.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I love the OPR rules system, especially for fantasy skirmishing. The other thing that is not mentioned is that if you support them on Patreon for 5 bucks a month, you get access to fully illustrated rulebooks AND the points calculator used to create every existing army, and also access to the secret playtesting forums so get a hand in creating new content.

So even with a one-month pledge of 5 bucks (probably what I am going to do sometime) a player has the means to create a force that is exactly how they think that force should work. It's what I will be doing if I start a Primaris force, even as a small skirmish force, as I don't like how their army list is built compared to how they are represented in 40k. So I'll just build them as I see fit.

This is my plan too, that way I'd be able to actually field eldar corsairs with rules. Opr itself looks like a decent ruleset, and I love the idea of a game that focuses on the core mechanics instead of on layers of unnecessary complexity. It has alternating activations, no-one is immune to morale (and it actually does something, I thought that was illegal?). It also has some quality of life options like wings for archons or actual transport space for dark eldar characters in transports.

I'm also looking forward to finally being able to field an armored krumpany. I can just whip up some rules using the calculator, instead of my strategy of waiting for gw to bring it back (and I should face it, they're taking orks in another direction).

I think opr fills the gap between kill team and apocalypse for those of us who are disappointed in gw's 8th ed rule set. Good to see it get some attention!

 Irbis wrote:
Also, wat? Primaris can only take auto-bolters (all starter squads say hi), can't take bolt rifles or stalkers, but can take a meltagun? Wot? Can't be simplicity, because officers have access to variant rifles, and hellblasters can take all three plasma variants. They can also take apothecary for some reason, but can't take melee weapons even though tactical squad can. Reivers don't have heavy pistols, primaris walkers have weapons that are part of the model (and cannot be removed) as optional update, but one weapon that is optional is mandatory. Eliminators can't take lascannons, etc, etc, if something so easy to easy to write in compact, straightforward way as primaris rules was butchered in such a way I see a dozen problems at a glance I don't really have any faith in these rules...

Thank you for your feedback, we're going to be fixing all of the things you mentioned in our next patch.

I have to be honest, I just find the formatting of the OPR army books to be very ugly. Not a fan of just having everything on the same line.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with just giving each model a Wounds characteristic. Why make such a basic concept into a special rule? It's a similar thing with Very Fast, Fast, Slow. Why not just have a Movement characteristic? Not everything needs to be a special rule.

If anything, this book seems to be making near enough the exact same mistakes GW are making.

For example, each unit is given just 2 stats (basically Atk and Def), presumably for the sake of streamlining. However, streamlining ad infinitum is by no means a good thing. In this case, it means that they immediately have to create a bunch of special rules to represent even the most basic concepts (Wounds, movement etc.), which would be far better as basic statistics.

Also, we haven't even gotten away from GW's poor rules writing. The Sniper rule, for example, outright doesn't work. Regeneration refers to a 'wound roll', in spite of the fact that no such thing is defined within the rules.

I don't want to be overly harsh, as I appreciate that this is a small project rather than the work of a huge company. It just seems that there isn't much point making alternative rules only to end up with basically the same problems as the ruleset you were intending to improve on.

Each to their own but to me these rules just seem like a sidegrade of the 40k ones, rather than representing any actual improvement or refinement of the concept.

Sorry.

As long as there is other stuff to do then rolling saves and removing models, the game is okeyish. The problems start when one of the players has nothing to do or feels like there is nothing to do. Then it doesn't matter if there are 10 books and a bucket of house rules are used, or just basic learn to play stuff.

Would you still use your normal army codex with this?

that is very tricky question, because it all depends on the codex and army someone has. A marine player could have, I think, a lot of fun with such a rule set. But GK got really guted as far as rules are. A lot of our stuff is special stuff, like psychic powers, stratagems and even those were not that fun to use till PA4 came.

Plus there is some wierd stuff like normal marines getting their chaplain rules in their basic codex, while GK stuff is in the PA4 book. So it is hard to compare.

But, with the limited expiriance I have with w40k, I don't think it is a wise thing for a new player to start with GK. them necrons or horde armies like IG/SoB when your not sleeping of sacks of cash, are not good armies to start.

But for normal good codex, the rules seem okey. I know some people like to play w40k with 1500-1750pts armies using the apocalypse rules and like that streamling too. So fewer rules can work and be fun.

One page rules is a god-send. I can teach people games and use models and actually finish a game in 4 hours... and rules for free!

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest, I just find the formatting of the OPR army books to be very ugly. Not a fan of just having everything on the same line.

Also, I don't see what's wrong with just giving each model a Wounds characteristic. Why make such a basic concept into a special rule? It's a similar thing with Very Fast, Fast, Slow. Why not just have a Movement characteristic? Not everything needs to be a special rule.

If anything, this book seems to be making near enough the exact same mistakes GW are making.

For example, each unit is given just 2 stats (basically Atk and Def), presumably for the sake of streamlining. However, streamlining ad infinitum is by no means a good thing. In this case, it means that they immediately have to create a bunch of special rules to represent even the most basic concepts (Wounds, movement etc.), which would be far better as basic statistics.

Also, we haven't even gotten away from GW's poor rules writing. The Sniper rule, for example, outright doesn't work. Regeneration refers to a 'wound roll', in spite of the fact that no such thing is defined within the rules.

I don't want to be overly harsh, as I appreciate that this is a small project rather than the work of a huge company. It just seems that there isn't much point making alternative rules only to end up with basically the same problems as the ruleset you were intending to improve on.

Each to their own but to me these rules just seem like a sidegrade of the 40k ones, rather than representing any actual improvement or refinement of the concept.

Sorry.

Regeneration is missing some punctuation, there's no "wound roll" The rule as functions should read: "When taking a wound, roll one die. On a 5+ it is ignored". It's effectively a second save roll after the first Defense roll is failed, just at 5+ rather than the Defense stat of the target.

Not sure how you are thinking Sniper doesn't work at all as a skill. A model using Sniper shoots at 2+ regardless of it's quality. The target doesn't get cover bonuses, and the Sniper picks which member of the unit they are removing with a wound, rather than the defender/owner of the unit (as would be normal with regular attacks).

The various speed skills simply replace the need for a stat to be printed out constantly, as all units move the same rate as a base move. As the two skills work, to take account whether a unit does or doesn't have Slow or Fast everything would actually have to have TWO movement stats printed all the time as (X/X), as it depends on whether they are just Advancing or Rush/Charging.

You could probably fit 40k's rules on one page if you used a small enough font size.

One thing that seems cool about one page rules is that morale actually has an impact in that system. It is similar to old school pinning, but in general units seem to be less prone to immunity from morale, making it actually impactfull.

You don't need a whole different ruleset to introduce people to the game. 40k already has a simplified way to play baked into the rules - it's just often ignored by experienced players, or misunderstood (or not seen) by new players.

It's called Open Play. Yes, yes. I can hear you scoffing already, but bear with me.

I've been calling the following concept "Corehammer" in my head for a little while now. The idea is that if you are a new player, or an experienced player looking to teach a new player, you can simply play a few games of Corehammer to get across the most basic core concepts of the game. It's not unlike buying a new board game and simply sticking to the core set, rather than going out and buying all of the expansions and supplements straight away. Makes sense, right?

All the players need are the models they want to use, their datasheets, and the Battle Primer from the GW website. Most (all?) unit boxes now come with their basic datasheet, detailing all of their rules and Power Ratings, and are just missing "common" rules like ATSKNF. For the purposes of Corehammer, ignore any rules that aren't explicitly laid out on a datasheet. ("Unfair!" you say. Yes, but the purpose of Corehammer isn't necessarily to be balanced, but to teach players how it works.)

An alternative to this is to get new players to buy the Start Collecting box and Codex of the faction they like the most. Since Corehammer uses the Battle Primer, there is no such thing as "Battle-forged", so ignore any rules that require armies to be such. When building lists, players simply take whatever they want from their chosen faction, but try to keep their Power Levels roughly equal.

The basic rules of the game are pretty simple so most players will understand how all the core rules work within a game or two. At this point, you can add in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, make the lists Battle-forged, and add in the rulebook Warlord Traits and Stratagems - they're effectively playing Indexhammer from the start of the edition. Realistically, it'll only take another game to understand how these work and how they impact your armies, so then you can start adding Codex-specific Warlord Traits and Stratagems, which might take another game or two to work out. By then, if the players are still hooked, then adding expansions and supplements aren't too much of a stretch.

This doesn't even have to be limited to new players, either. It would be perfect for a "40k in 40mins" style game: players are limited to 40PL, only use the rules in the Battle Primer, and only use unit rules actually spelt out on their datasheets (plus psychic powers). For missions, use the Open War mission or generate one from the Open War deck. Simple Warhams throw-down.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Spoiler:

You don't need a whole different ruleset to introduce people to the game. 40k already has a simplified way to play baked into the rules - it's just often ignored by experienced players, or misunderstood (or not seen) by new players.

It's called Open Play. Yes, yes. I can hear you scoffing already, but bear with me.

I've been calling the following concept "Corehammer" in my head for a little while now. The idea is that if you are a new player, or an experienced player looking to teach a new player, you can simply play a few games of Corehammer to get across the most basic core concepts of the game. It's not unlike buying a new board game and simply sticking to the core set, rather than going out and buying all of the expansions and supplements straight away. Makes sense, right?

All the players need are the models they want to use, their datasheets, and the Battle Primer from the GW website. Most (all?) unit boxes now come with their basic datasheet, detailing all of their rules and Power Ratings, and are just missing "common" rules like ATSKNF. For the purposes of Corehammer, ignore any rules that aren't explicitly laid out on a datasheet. ("Unfair!" you say. Yes, but the purpose of Corehammer isn't necessarily to be balanced, but to teach players how it works.)

An alternative to this is to get new players to buy the Start Collecting box and Codex of the faction they like the most. Since Corehammer uses the Battle Primer, there is no such thing as "Battle-forged", so ignore any rules that require armies to be such. When building lists, players simply take whatever they want from their chosen faction, but try to keep their Power Levels roughly equal.

The basic rules of the game are pretty simple so most players will understand how all the core rules work within a game or two. At this point, you can add in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, make the lists Battle-forged, and add in the rulebook Warlord Traits and Stratagems - they're effectively playing Indexhammer from the start of the edition. Realistically, it'll only take another game to understand how these work and how they impact your armies, so then you can start adding Codex-specific Warlord Traits and Stratagems, which might take another game or two to work out. By then, if the players are still hooked, then adding expansions and supplements aren't too much of a stretch.

This is how I teach people 8th, with very minor additions.
Unless they already own models, I build them an army from borrowed models with simple rules, but make sure there is a psyker in there if their faction has one, so they don't lose out on that aspect.
The mission is always two objectives in the middle of the board that score VP at the end of the battleround, so they get the concept of objectives. I also provide them with 3CP, which I tell them are just for re-rolls, I use no CP myself.

Depending on how fast they learn, I keep adding rules until we arrive at regular matched play.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Regeneration is missing some punctuation, there's no "wound roll" The rule as functions should read: "When taking a wound, roll one die. On a 5+ it is ignored". It's effectively a second save roll after the first Defense roll is failed, just at 5+ rather than the Defense stat of the target.

I agree that it should read that. My issue is that it doesn't.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Not sure how you are thinking Sniper doesn't work at all as a skill. A model using Sniper shoots at 2+ regardless of it's quality. The target doesn't get cover bonuses, and the Sniper picks which member of the unit they are removing with a wound, rather than the defender/owner of the unit (as would be normal with regular attacks).

Except that you've written here what the rule should say, not what it actually says.

Shooting: "Models in range and line of sight may fire all weapons. Units with multiple weapon types may fire each type at a different target. Shooting models take one quality test per attack and each success is a hit. For each hit defending models roll one die trying to score their Defense value or higher and each fail causes one wound. For every wound the defender must remove one model."

"Sniper: Shoots at Quality 2+, ignores cover and may pick which model is hit."

You'll notice that it doesn't say that the Sniper gets to pick which model is removed (which would make sense), but rather which model in a unit is hit (which is something the shooting rules don't and cannot account for).

To be clear, I know what the rule is supposed to do. However, as with Regeneration, I just hate it when rules are written so poorly that they don't actually function as-written.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

The various speed skills simply replace the need for a stat to be printed out constantly, as all units move the same rate as a base move. As the two skills work, to take account whether a unit does or doesn't have Slow or Fast everything would actually have to have TWO movement stats printed all the time as (X/X), as it depends on whether they are just Advancing or Rush/Charging.

The thing is, though, wounds are common enough that they really should be a base stat.

And I fear your point about movement is completely incorrect. You'd still only need one stat because Advance and Charge simply double the model's Movement.

Well, the simple fact is that any ruleset can be picked apart to death, which is especially egregious considering the cost of GW rulesets and their usual immediate need for eratta. The bonus to OnePageRules over something big like 40k is that real change can be made by being active on their forums, both to wording of rules and pointing out errors in army lists (which OnePageAnon usually updates straight away). I wholeheartedly agree that several rules should be written better/tightened up, but so far I have not seen a rule that breaks the game because of it being impossible to interpret. The OnePageRules are not meant for intense competitive play, but just for having fun pushing models around with a ruleset that didn't cost anything to goof around with.

Lots of people are going to scoff and automatically hate it because it's not by GW, but I also know lot of people are having quite a bit of fun with all the various games withing Onepagerules, despite that.

Along with Star Breach, the skirmish versions of Grimdark Future and Age of Fantasy are one of the two indie skirmish games I am working on getting some of the local players to try because both are very easy to play with the already existing GW models that they have.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm fascinated that the "core rules" document for this one-page Warhammer project is in fact two pages.

Personally I think the desire to cut down on the core rules is a big part of the problem; Sigmar has a four pages of 'core rules' and 40k has eight pages of 'core rules', but they then both have a vast and impenetrable library of FAQs, exceptions, additions, tweaks, things that are sometimes in the 'core rules' and sometimes not, and huge piles of special-case rules in their army books; I feel like both would be better, simpler games if they had a 12-15-page 'core rulebook' that actually covered all the things they need it to cover instead of making a very complicated game and then offloading all the bloat onto the army books so they can say "Hey! Four-page core rules here!"

agreed. the fact is, that slimming the rules down really doesn't achomplish that much, if you're not willing to sit and learn rules, you're proably not the type who enjoys table top war gaming.