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.
Ice_can wrote: Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.
If it's a USR, then we already know what the USR is supposed to say, and can play it according to the correct rules, even if the helpful reminder text is inexplicably wrong.
If it's not a USR, then we use the rule as written because the design intent is not clear, and wait for an FAQ that might make it work the same as the other rules or might never come.
Also: If it's a USR, presumably there'd be a USR library of standardized wording alongside the standardized datasheet formatting and standardized weapon stat tables. If GW can reprint common Imperial weapons in multiple codices without designers just re-typing it from memory and getting it wrong, they have the bare minimum of competence to re-use USRs.
Ice_can wrote: The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.
Standardization is part of technical writing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/11 21:30:03
blaktoof wrote: I didn't make that direct claim, there are members of the "USRs were the best thing ever!" camp that from what they type want to make all the rules the same, there are members of that group that want some rules the same across all factions then some units have additional rules on their datasheet ontop of that, and there are group of both of those that want those printed on the datasheet vs. printed in the rulebook- maybe even both!
The consensus across multiple of these threads, as I have posted before, is that rules that are functionally identical or extremely close should be unified under one keyword for clarity and consistency. As matter of fact (there are scientific studies on this), this reduces the learning curve and reduces the need to reference rules during games. It also reduces the need to read the entire prose text searching for easily missed differences between otherwise identical rules, reduces confusion when rules questions come up ("What counts as aura?") and facilitates rules-writing (
Deep Strike or Ignore Damage rules are a perfect example of this.
It's also a fact that writing all rules in one place makes games easier to learn and more enjoyable to play, while having to reference other places (gaming manuals, a glossary, other books, comprehensive rules) annoys players and reduces their enjoyment of the game. Therefore other games have had great success with printing so-called reminder texts with their keywords, providing a quick explanation on them where you need them, and having a bullet-proof, more complex rule available for look-up.
So what the "USR-crowd" wants isn't contradictory at all, but a best practice that has been tested and proven by the industry that is designing complex games like TCGs, RPGs, complex board games or wargames.
See in yours+others mind the "buffs" should be mechanically the same. That's the issue. In the actual real game as it is now in 8th many buffs are identical, but have different names. Some are similar but different, and have different names. Then some are just different buffs.
Don't forget we also have rules which have the same name, represent the same thing in the lore but still are different for no apparent reason.
Asking for universal naming, and asking for rules to be the same aren't always the same thing. In 7th they often were, there were countless assault units for example (and 40k had a lot of factions in 7th as well...) that basically had a statline, equipment options, and furious charge. Some people may think that whenever a dedicated assault unit charges it should have the exact same rules bonus as every other assault unit in the game, some people would like there to be differences. Maybe this unit over here gets +1 to hit instead of +1 Strength. That however doesn't work in the USR all units have the same rules world (which is boring as all hell btw...)
Sorry, but you got that wrong. +1 to hit and +1 strength are so vastly different things, that there is no reason to unify them under one USR.
USR are there to cover all stuff that many units can do. Bespoke rule are for making units interesting. That's why you need both for a good game.
Dante not being able to re-roll dice in niche scenarios is not interesting. Necron Lords providing powerful buffs to single units instead small ones to all around them is.
Which is a naming argument, because right now in 8th a lot of rules are exactly the same but have different names/flavor text across factions.
The issue are not the rules that are, but the ones that are not. These lead to confusion and frustration among players, something that is objectively bad for a game.
See my previous example of the morkanaut and the LRBT before (I can repost it if you like), which left the AM player utterly frustrated about how his tank commander took 7 mortal wounds for shooting a plane, while morkanaut rolling the same result would only have taken one. There is no good reason for the rules to be this way.
None of that would have been changed btUSR's they way GW's team write rules.
All your really highlighting is the same old GW problems
1 They lack any effective Technical writing training
2 They lack any effective Proof reading process
3 That they lack comunication and a unified vision for the game that is clearly comunicated and maintained during the edition.
It's not USR's vrs ISR's it's GW's 40k Rules team need to "Git Good"
Like AoS, Titanicus, necromunda, Warcry even Appocolypse shows they can do better, the issue is somewhere between the 40k rules team and the Management.
Ice_can wrote: Well as I'm a GW writer what I'll actually do is rewrite the USR from memory but misword it subtly enough that it looks the same at a glance the closest we will ever get to testing it then print it in one codex different from previous instances, there by leaving every exsisting codex and BRB incorrect as nrw rules replace old rules and making this 1 codex now required to play any army which uses that USR.
If it's a USR, then we already know what the USR is supposed to say, and can play it according to the correct rules, even if the helpful reminder text is inexplicably wrong.
If it's not a USR, then we use the rule as written because the design intent is not clear, and wait for an FAQ that might make it work the same as the other rules or might never come.
Also: If it's a USR, presumably there'd be a USR library of standardized wording alongside the standardized datasheet formatting and standardized weapon stat tables. If GW can reprint common Imperial weapons in multiple codices without designers just re-typing it from memory and getting it wrong, they have the bare minimum of competence to re-use USRs.
Ice_can wrote: The people arguing for USR's are the ones misisng the issue.
It's GW need to learn to technical writing and authering.
Standardization is part of technical writing.
I'm not being flippent with this example this is what GW40k has done before.
Except that's going against the rules presedent that the latest published version of a rule supersedes any previous version, so no your wouldn't be playing with the origonal version as it's no longer valid.
Well actually you should be waiting for an Errata not and FAQ, but That a GW isum. FAQ's are something that really only came out of the main studio post 8th edition.
You have to have seen the instances through out GW's history of them failing at this and heck we still have plenty of units that have the same weapons with different stats.
Not to mention they way GW is going about 8th edition now with blanket changes to certain things Double shooting IG and Marine tanks etc this isn't always best for the game either.
Standardization however does not automatically equal USR's though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/11 21:50:07
Brutus_Apex wrote: If GW ever switches back to USRs again, all the anti-USR people in this thread will go on about how it's the best way to write rules and the old bespoke way was messy and bloated, only because GW said it was the best thing ever.
And then they'll point to GW sales figures as an example of why it's good, even though popularity has never been a determining factor on if a product is good or bad.
Just look at VHS vs. Beta Max in the 80's.
Its pretty evident that they blindly praise what GW is doing since everytime they get presented examples of datasheets using USRs while still keeping the fluffy and descriptive text they dont respond.
I'm sorry if have not responded to your ideas. I don't think you need my validation and I wish you luck with your game design. I think, though, that the current in-game datasheets do have the elements of USRs in their wording. The same holds true for many Stratagems and Warlord Traits/Relics.
What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked. That I recognize this does not mean that I blindly praise GW - I walked away from 40K in 7th. I find myself no longer enjoying the game. I made my peace. I kept my models and didn't rage on the interwebs at those who liked where 40K had ended up at the time. When I saw the new edition at the FLGS and how easy it would be get get back in I took the plunge. I will leave again if playing is no longer fun.
Cheers
What on Earth is stopping GW's designers, or any designers anywhere, from printing different words on a data sheet than bespoke rules text? This is an argument people are trying to make? "But-but-but the computers and printers are unable to utilize that space differently!"
What is "accessible" about not knowing any of your opponent's rules when you play a game, needing to stop playing to ask for clarification?
What is "accessible" about rules being written in a conversational, ambiguous, and inconsistent style that renders players unable to remember, aka learn their rules and to play without their nose in their codex?
For that matter, what makes it impossible for GW to use stat cards for units?
People so vehemently opposed to a more structured rules system really need to grab a copy of the rulebook for MEDGe, or Malifaux or something. They have no idea of what they speak.
I think you mentioned up-thread that you haven't played 8th Edition? I do play, and honestly, rules disputes are very rare. The rules load is redistributed from the MRB so you are only dealing with the rules you need for your army. I played in a 30 player tournament at the start of 8th after only two real games and very well - no big rules issues. I still have to look up the odd Wounds characteristic or confirm the nature of my vehicle's explosion but that's it. I have my Codex with me if there is a question or concern, but the focus on on the tabletop. I do offer my stratagem cards to my opponent if he is new to my army, but they are pretty simple. I offer a quick run-down of my key rules/stratagems to my opponent at the start of the game.
This is all anecdotal, but the commercial success of 8th Edition indicates that the method is working. As for preferred gaming systems, I hope you get some enjoyment out of them. Its your time. I enjoy some element of conversational rules-writing. The MRB is not a divorce settlement, and technical manuals are very dry. To each his own I guess.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
I have only had a few rule disputes after years of play in 8th edition, and all had been addressed via FAQ.
One involved a Tay player who was using the pre FAQ shield drone wound transference, and that was the only one that actually caused an issue in a game. This is a while back now.
I've spotted other rules thar could definitely cause issues, but in nearly all cases they were FAQd prior to a game where I encountered them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/11 23:25:43
Some of the subtle differences listed by people who want unification would somewhat be a shame to lose.
re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges, things like this are a way to break away from the statistics of rolling a d6 with/without re-roll and give more variation within rules.
Paired with the stat being re-rolled for it's similar to saying roll a d6 need a 3+ roll a d8 need a 3+ roll a d10 need a 3+ but staying within the d6 system.
Saying things you actually believe isn't playing devil's advocate. You've made it clear how you feel about USRs.
blaktoof wrote: re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges, things like this are a way to break away from the statistics of rolling a d6 with/without re-roll and give more variation within rules.
What is a fluffy, game-significant example where the difference between those rules is used to deliberate effect?
What does it mean that Dante and a random Chapter Master provide the same benefit to normal shooting, but if you're at a -1 penalty, suddenly the regular Chapter Master is better?
If the distinction doesn't actually make for a tangible benefit to the game system, then it's just chrome. Nobody disputes that there are minor mechanical differences between these inconsistent rules; the argument is that nothing of value would be lost by streamlining them.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/11 23:50:09
re-roll failed vs re-roll all vs re-roll any give different statistical ranges,....
I would totally agree that these are distinct mechanics in their own right... in which case they should all be represented by distinct, separate (uniquely-named) rules.
Edit - although the practical difference between 'reroll failed' and 'reroll any' are miniscule, so those two are probably best consolidated, really.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/11 23:54:56
blaktoof wrote: So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
No, I'm pretty sure most all of us would prefer "Reroll any" because it's much more intuitive.
Alternatively, reroll failed, but also make rerolls happen AFTER modifiers. (Would also require changing things like a Captain's aura to reroll natural 1s, instead of reroll 1s, but hey.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
blaktoof wrote: So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
No, I'm pretty sure most all of us would prefer "Reroll any" because it's much more intuitive.
Alternatively, reroll failed, but also make rerolls happen AFTER modifiers. (Would also require changing things like a Captain's aura to reroll natural 1s, instead of reroll 1s, but hey.)
Yeah, I lean towards 'reroll failed' because it avoids people gaming the system when some interaction of rules makes it seem advantageous to fail a roll for some reason.
Having an internal master list of rules text that writers copy and paste from is hardly a complex matter.
Nor is training your staff to look at what they're writing and determine if they're using a USR and then go and copy and paste from the master list rather than write it themselves.
The arguments against this seem to get more bizarre by the second, it's either demonstrably false strawmen about USRs or its that professional writers are employed in an unprofessional way that uses no basic training methods or work strategies.
Even GW in 80s when it was a garage company could still use these basic of basic work methods.
It's not grocery scanning...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 00:31:34
blaktoof wrote: So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
If modifiers were applied before rerolls, then yes. Otherwise, re-roll all. The interaction between re-roll fails and modifiers is quite unintuitive.
After that streamlining, if it were decided that it was a problem that Dante and Random Chapter Master provide the same buff, then that would be a prime opportunity to give one of them a more significant and different ability. Instead of a very subtly different flavor of bonus to shooting, maybe Dante should be more inspiring to melee combat, or only buff short-ranged shooting, or something else to fit the character of the Blood Angels. Then he'd be distinct from the generic profile, not just have a slightly different buff because... reasons.
I don't have any problem with bespoke, unique special rules when they're actually bespoke, unique, and used because no USR exists that provides the desired effect. Nobody's said the game should be pared down to ten USRs and all the rest of the special rules in the game scrapped; but there are clearly a bunch of mechanics that are either identical or virtually identical and could stand to be streamlined. Minimizing cognitive load and facilitating recognition of common rules are both good game design.
blaktoof wrote: So you are saying you would rather have reroll failed to hit rolls for both.
If modifiers were applied before rerolls, then yes. Otherwise, re-roll all. The interaction between re-roll fails and modifiers is quite unintuitive.
After that streamlining, if it were decided that it was a problem that Dante and Random Chapter Master provide the same buff, then that would be a prime opportunity to give one of them a more significant and different ability. Instead of a very subtly different flavor of bonus to shooting, maybe Dante should be more inspiring to melee combat, or only buff short-ranged shooting, or something else to fit the character of the Blood Angels. Then he'd be distinct from the generic profile, not just have a slightly different buff because... reasons.
I don't have any problem with bespoke, unique special rules when they're actually bespoke, unique, and used because no USR exists that provides the desired effect. Nobody's said the game should be pared down to ten USRs and all the rest of the special rules in the game scrapped; but there are clearly a bunch of mechanics that are either identical or virtually identical and could stand to be streamlined. Minimizing cognitive load and facilitating recognition of common rules are both good game design.
Exactly. And a living rulebook as it develops and new armies come out could even see new USRs appear out of what were originally BRs. This is actually what happened in 3rd-5th for things like feel no pain and fleet. Something started out as a single rule for a single unit or army, over time was seen as useful in other armies until you saw multiple versions of them floating around so they decided to consolidate them into a single rule.
USRs have never precluded bespoke rules and didn't even during the previous editions when they were used.
They are and have always been a standardisation of text to facilitate ease of use. And has been said a dozen times or more in this thread, the standardisation of text says nothing about any other aspect of the rules - whether they nest, whether they preclude BRs etc. And has been said before, the current BRs nest anyway by using Keywords.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 00:35:56
I feel like there is room for a wide range of similar mechanic's iside a USR system. The difference between reroll 1's and reroll failed is minor for say, interceptors, but mutch bigger for, say, lootas.
I like having the half dozen different "better at charging" mechanics, because i think it gives room to have "ok at charging" and "pretty good at charging" and "oh god it got jimmy" dynamics by giving adding on buffs. I also think that those different mechanics need to be standardized using USRs.
You could have something like Rage (extra attacks on the charge), Preferred Enemy (reroll 1s), Furious Charge (reroll charges) all be ways to make a unit better at charging. Get one of them on a unit, its ok at charging. Get all three, now it is at the "oh god, not the face!" level.
You can even have things like Mildly Annoyed (1 extra attack om the charge) or Kinda Irritable Charge (reroll one die) for things like Tau who are good at charging by Tau standards.
You are better off having USRs instead of bespoke rules because when you add a new mechanic, like say, a strat that the entire imperium gets that gives roll 3 dice on the charge, your FAQ only has to address one or two USRs instead of every single version of that concept in every single imperial book.
An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.
Ishagu wrote: For that reason it's worse, not better.
An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.
So, let's say Deep Striking 9" away is too powerful on Kommandos-they can make that charge way too reliably and do too much damage. (I know, that's not the case-but roll with me here.)
That means that instead of having Deep Strike (9") you adjust it to Deep Strike (10") or 11" or whatever number is needed.
Still a USR. But easy to make a change to a single unit without nerfing whole swathes of units.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Or just price them appropriately for how powerful they are in combination with that ability. A unit with a high charge distance gets more mileage out of deep strike than an artillery piece, so, the charging unit should pay more for that ability. That's how it currently works anyways, since virtually all deep striking units have the same wording and 9" restriction.
The premise that GWcurrently uses bespoke special rules as a means of giving weaker abilities to units that would otherwise be too strong with the 'common' form is suspect to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 01:45:08
I have only had a few rule disputes after years of play in 8th edition, and all had been addressed via FAQ.
One involved a Tay player who was using the pre FAQ shield drone wound transference, and that was the only one that actually caused an issue in a game. This is a while back now.
I've spotted other rules thar could definitely cause issues, but in nearly all cases they were FAQd prior to a game where I encountered them.
Then your group isn't trying hard enough. My playgroup looks for exploits to break as soon as the rules drop.
Ishagu wrote: For that reason it's worse, not better.
An ability might be too powerful on one unit, too weak on another. You want to adjust the ability on the one that's too strong without impacting the rest.
You have so many options here to fix this problem it's almost like you aren't trying.
You could: adjust the unit's points; change their stats; change their equipment; change keywords; or use a bespoke rule in this instance instead of the USR. Yet again, I can't believe this needs to be restated: having USRs doesn't preclude using bespoke rules where required.
But this all seems fairly moot since I can't think of any examples of the kind of thing you're describing and despite repeated requests none of the "USRs are bad" proponents have provided an actual example of this "subtly different but for a good reason" type of rule.
What many posters are not addressing is the accessibility issue. 8th Edition took design risks to emphasize accessibility and that included removing USRs from the MRB and putting the rules in the datasheets/Codexes. It seems to have worked.
I'm not convinced it has. It's a fairly well understood principle of game design that once games get beyond a certain level of complexity USRs are an effective way of organising your rules. That's why virtually every game other than 40k uses them. They have advantages in terms of transferable knowledge, ease of updating and clarity as well as facilitating easier and quicker communication between players. You menti0oned GW's designer talking about their design goals but I think your post lacked critical analysis of whether they succeeded or not. I can state any kind of goal I want to, following whatever internal set of policies, but a statement is not proof of success. I've seen far too many experienced gamers struggle to pick up a new 40k army and far too much flipping through a new Codex to believe GW succeeded in creating a more streamlined game in practice.
On the surface it is streamlined. The rulebook is very small and at first it appears everything you need is easily to hand on your unit's datasheet. Except it isn't. You have army-wide USRs in the form of faction and sub-faction abilities. The new Sisters Codex even introduces the peak-GW concept of a semi-USR by having things like Zealot be a USR that only applies to a single army, probably because they're realised their datasheets are starting to get bloated with all this bespoke rules text that wouldn't need to be there with USRs. Then there's the stacks and stacks of stratagems you need to know on top of that. You could massively reduce the cognitive load by using USRs. Then you can immediately see that a unit has a bunch of known rules and maybe some unique ones too. Transferable knowledge is a huge benefit pretty much anywhere you can use it. Deliberately designing your system not to facilitate that is stupid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 08:26:55
Ishagu wrote: The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.
I disagree. The complexity in the game might not be too taxing but it also completely fails to create meaningful player choices. So it is detrimental to the experience as it offers nothing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 10:11:15
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ishagu wrote: The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.
I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.
Ishagu wrote: The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.
I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.
I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist as a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 10:22:07
Ishagu wrote: The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.
I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.
I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.
Gonna need to explain how on that one.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ishagu wrote: The game isn't beyond a level of complexity that is detrimental to the experience.
I disagree. I think the way the rules are currently presented is detrimental to the experience due to the lack of transferable knowledge between armies and the possibility of gotchas or missing rules because of overload on the datasheet itself. That last point is something I've seen all too often, BTW.
I would say that's more of an issue you'll run into with people going to events and havig multiple armiies, IE people who are already invested and hence more likely to complain but continue playing the game anyway.
However USR's while making life easier for people to switch armies and have more competitive games, increase the learning curve and hence barrier to entry for genuinely new players with 1 maybe 2 armies who are just trying to learn the basics, GW in usual 40k rules writing team style dropped the ball on this masisvely by being as consist and a lighter a huricane but that's on them being bad at their jobs not USR's vrs BSR's or the combination of the two.
Gonna need to explain how on that one.
It's to do with human behaviour and some psychology I never bothered to learn in detail, but esentially if you provide a set of rules and tell someone these are universal rules, they tend to expect everyone to know and understand those rules.
So if your little first time player and your army doesn't have flyers so why would you read and memorise all the flyer USR's if your codex doesn't contain them. You then play billy's darkangles with darktallons and tallon masters and a whole host of other units, Billy will expect you to knwo the difference between fly and flyer and won't spell it out, leading to lots of feel bads and the earlier in your investment into the game you start falling across these got ya moments the less likely you are to be invested enough to keep playing the game when you can go do something else.
Where as with BSR's billy is more likely to expect to have to explain them in some depth from the start and will expect questions.
Eg most people will say they know tbe highway code but if you ask a non motorcyclist driver if filtering is legal most of them won't know.
Ishagu wrote: Lol you guys are funny. Maybe it's too complex for you? Play a different game.
In no way is 40k too difficult to play.
You didn't say too difficult to play. You said complexity which is detrimental to the experience. Something can be overly complex which makes it less enjoyable while still being possible to do.
Maybe the english language is too complex for you? Try a different language.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ishagu wrote: Lol you guys are funny. Maybe it's too complex for you? Play a different game.
In no way is 40k too difficult to play.
You are the one with the group that can't figure out the sketchy rule interactions until AFTER the FAQ. I don't think your group tries that hard, and probably gets a lot wrong and doesn't realize it.
The issue is that it's way too much work and confusion for far too little payoff. Look! The marine gunline wins again! Or <insert whatever army GW has busted this faq cycle>
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 12:25:24
