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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The worst part about 9th edition's fake complexity is how much time it wastes just making players roll more dice for the sake of rolling yet more dice.

The amount of "take this test and, if successful, roll a D6, and on an X+ you cause DX Mortal Wounds".

Thanks for making me roll two dice so that I can roll another dice to see if I get to roll another dice. Was there no other way to do that?

You mean like "on a successful test, the units does another test, and if it fails it takes d6 S4 AP0 hits, allocated randomly"?

Because that's how all editions prior to 8th/9th did it, which required you dozens of dice, usually to no or little effect.

And yeah, I would also see all those rules allegedly modifying such things.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Do we really find the rules of 40K 9th too hard to understand?I am just not seeing it out in the wild. If someone finds 9th too dense to penetrate then heaven help them with editions before 8th.

You keep saying this like its the issue when its not nor has it ever been. No one finds 40k to HARD, its too simple if anything, but it IS too bloated.

To dredge up my terrible comparison from earlier its like reading a dictionary. Its not difficult to understand, its just boring and there's a lot of it. Just because you can arrange the words in a dictionary in a way that makes it deep doesn't make the dictionary itself deep and just because theres a lot of words doesn't make it complex.

Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.

That's like a person playing 60 cards casual kitchen table magic and complaining about the game having too many cards to remember them all.

Most complaints on this thread can be put into three categories:
1) I don't like stratagems or 8th/9th in general and I will take every opportunity to complain about them. Also, Nth edition/30k/3rd party ruleset/index era is the best edition ever and has absolutely no problems if you play with the right people, the right armies, rewrite half the ruleset and no one takes any problematic things.
2) There are too many rules sources changing too often to keep track of. This is a valid complaint, especially if you are busy in life with more important things. But that's not complexity.
3) I want to know all rules at all times, but there is too much of them. Well, that is something completely unnecessary to play the game, but just something you personally want. There is absolutely no need to know all rules at all times, especially not if there is nothing to lose.
For every codex there are only a hand full of stratagems, relics and rules you actually need to know when playing against them. There are plenty of ways out there to gather this information, either you do the research yourself, or you find one of the many sources out there which have all the information pre-compiled. Most stratagems your opponent has in their codex will have absolutely no impact on any decision you take during your game.
Or you just ask your opponent, like mine did on Saturday ("Is there any way you can kill this guy next turn standing on that objective?").
Or you learn the hard way from just walking right into these things. I had almost a dozen terminators lit ablaze by auspex scan because I forgot about it. Won't happen anymore.

40k just has a terrible way of presenting its rules by spreading them to the BRB, the codices, mission packs, book updates, PDF updates, campaign books and whatnot. The limitation of printed rules also don't help the whole issue one bit.
The most complex part of 40k is building a list, and that is mostly done through list building software which just tells you what is possible and when you feth up. Playing the game once the list is build is on the level of a free mobile game.

I think my english is worse, then I thought it was. Or this is something where words don't mean what they mean. Because games litterally are about winning and losing, when they have winner and a loser.

Plus how would you know that the other person isn't cheating you, if you don't know the rules or how they work.

It is like in your example. Some asks, is there a way for you to kill unit X off this objective and they can just say no, later saying they couldn't do it on your turn or that some specific proc, like lets say assault doctrine for marines didn't kick in yet, or they can just fake ignorance claiming they forgot or didn't knew themselfs what their own rules could do, at the moment of the question being asked. Because of course in their own turn, they suddenly did remember that they very much can do something.

I think for the purpose of discussion it may not matter how complex 40k is, or where it is.
But that it is too complex for the way the game is now.

If it’s presented badly, and gains complexity there. Then it is complex needlessly.
But I think there are other issues on top of that, GW has sucked most of the depth the game had out.
Bloated up the rules, and the nature of the rules themselves often make them tedious from there complexity even if it’s minor.

It’s just a bad rule set from top to bottom now. How it gets there maybe Not matter on weather it hits the level of complexity for some people.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yet, there is this odd contradiction of people wanting to have a lax beer and pretzels game while still wanting to have full knowledge of every stratagem and rule your opponent could possibly be using to win.

That's not a contradiction. You can have complex games that are laid back and casual. Theres also a difference between "no gotchas" and perfect knowledge.

We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"

Karol wrote:
I think my english is worse, then I thought it was. Or this is something where words don't mean what they mean. Because games litterally are about winning and losing, when they have winner and a loser.

Plus how would you know that the other person isn't cheating you, if you don't know the rules or how they work.

It is like in your example. Some asks, is there a way for you to kill unit X off this objective and they can just say no, later saying they couldn't do it on your turn or that some specific proc, like lets say assault doctrine for marines didn't kick in yet, or they can just fake ignorance claiming they forgot or didn't knew themselfs what their own rules could do, at the moment of the question being asked. Because of course in their own turn, they suddenly did remember that they very much can do something.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of it is to have fun (for all parties involved). Don't confuse each other and save yourself the counter argument that winning is necessary to have fun.

If you are afraid of the other person cheating (not just getting rules wrong by accident), you are playing with the wrong person to begin with. Everything that felt strange to you during the game can be looked up afterwards on Wahapedia, Battlescribe or Reddit.

If your opponent does this donkey cave thing of lying to you about their abilities during the game, then again, you are playing with the wrong person. Just don't play them another time or tell them that they won and pack your stuff. Play another game with somebody else.

Edit:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"

Not a big deal at all. Every MOBA requires you to learn what all of their 100+ champions can do and when they have their power spike. Even games as simple as Counter-Strike require you to learn the spray pattern of the guns.
Yes, it is not necessary, but you can't expect to win against somebody who does know their stuff or that you won't make mistakes during the game because of this.

What wombo combos are concerning you?

I think the divide is that Auspex Scan is a Gotcha. Its a trap card that can win a game if someone doesn't know or forgets about it. If you only play 40k once every 6 months (or longer) I can see why losing your one game to such is upsetting. If you play every weekend however you'll just know for next time.

By contrast "yeah, my beatstick character has this relic, this warlord trait and I might pop this stratagem to make him even more beatstickier" isn't in any sense a trap. Characters should be able to hit hard.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

"Just do a bunch of extra-curricular reading, memorize every possible wombo-combo for all 14 (?) factions and the game is totally fine bro, its not a big deal"

Yes, it's not a big deal, not at all. Things that really need to be remembered to avoid gotchas that determine the result of a game are extremely limited. Anything else it's not gamebreaking.

Reading a review, even a detailed one, is faster than reading an older edition codex and it's also free.

 Blackie wrote:
We're in the era of internet since decades. To avoid "gotchas" just read codexes reviews, like Goonhammer articles. It's just one every codex released so it's not a huge burden, and they covered all the best combos pretty reliably.

That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

If you take a game like WM/H or X-Wing I don't need to do any outside reading beyond the core rules to understand my opponent's abilities and rules when I get to the table. Everything I need is either a core rule or explained on the cards for the units at the table. The last X-Wing tournament I attended 3 of my 4 games were against lists I had never faced before and all of those 3 lists had upgrades I'd not played against before. It took about 30 seconds to understand those upgrades because all the rules text is right in front of me and it all uses the same core concepts rather than re-inventing the wheel every time a new expansion is released.

To take a recent GW example, look at the new Thousand Sons and their Cabalistic Rituals. This is essentially stratagems but focussed on a single phase and using a different currency rather than CPs. It's yet another system for players to encounter and deal with instead of reusing something already in the game. Why not give them something like Miracle Dice, or even just make all that stuff stratagems using the already existing core set of rules? You could even give TS bonus CPs just to use in the Psychic phase for that purpose if you wanted. It's this layering of rule upon rule, system upon system, that makes the game difficult to keep up with and leads to gotcha moments while also having players flicking backwards and forwards through rulebooks constantly and contributing to the feeling you're not so much playing a tactical wargame of fire and manoeuvre as you are cycling through your power-ups to win.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Not a big deal at all. Every MOBA requires you to learn what all of their 100+ champions can do and when they have their power spike. Even games as simple as Counter-Strike require you to learn the spray pattern of the guns.
Yes, it is not necessary, but you can't expect to win against somebody who does know their stuff or that you won't make mistakes during the game because of this.

the simple difference between:

easy to learn and hard to master VS hard (time consuming) to learn but easy to master

some like the first, others the later
GW is focused on the "time consuming to learn" rules, Mantic of FFG focus on the easy to learn rules

 Sim-Life wrote:
I don't play competitive online games specifically because I don't want to interact with the type of people who learn the abilities of 100+ characters and gun sprays. Nor do I want to play 40k with the type of people who learn every ability and combo of every army. I shouldn't have to do that in order to not get a gakky gotcha in a game. I should be able to learn my armies rule to a decent degree and be able to have a good game with a stranger without having to worry about him deleting entire squads in a turn and wasting my time because of his faction ability interacting with an aura thats buffed from a warlord trait and benefits from a stratagem.

The funny thing is I'm saying this because it was MY use of these combos that made me dislike the game. I could see the emotional shift in my opponents mood when I deleted his units using these combos and it made me feel like crap and I wasn't having fun because my opponent wasn't having fun.

It comes down to different tastes, then. I said it in a recent thread that I for example enjoy the vast openness of D&D 3.5 with it's hundreds of rule books compared to D&D 5 where you (attention: hyperbole) have basically everybody doing the same thing within a quite confined design space.

It speaks for you that you felt bad about the moment. Next time you could give your opponent a heads up about it, now that you know about the effect on people.

 kodos wrote:
the simple difference between:

easy to learn and hard to master VS hard (time consuming) to learn but easy to master

some like the first, others the later
GW is focused on the "time consuming to learn" rules, Mantic of FFG focus on the easy to learn rules

Certainly mastering 40k seems like being good in a multiple choice tests... Rense and repeat with no nuance or emotion... Just find a broken combo and follow the flow chart... Then follow the meta as it evolves.

Its only hard to master it if you are naive and take it as a "game" rather than like burocratic paperwork

Slipspace wrote:


That's just an excuse for the stupid way GW organises its rules. Needing to constantly keep up with new rules releases via second-hand articles is bad design.

There's no need to keep up with new rules releases, reading reviews is just a shortcut to gain knowledge. In my opinion playing games is the way to learn rules, including combos from other armies. I don't read every codexes reviews and I definitely don't even take a quick look to codexes from armies I don't play and yet I don't remember experiencing that many gotcha moments so far. Things I ignored, that I would have handled differently if I had the knowledge, avoiding mistakes? Definitely. A game that was ruined because of that? I never had that feeling honestly.

Some people just consider themselves some sort of military strategists and can't accept being caught by surprise or make mistakes as they believe only noobs do that, and shame on you if the opponent is more experienced. It's an attitude that I don't think is appropriate in this context, which is playing a game in a friendly environment (even at tournaments), but it's just my opinion of course.

losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more

Part of the problem is these gotchas aren't even consistent.
In one game I can run my character with a chainsword. He hits like a wet noodle, not a big concern.
Next game he's got Teeth of Terra, some Warlord trait, and I use a strat, or whatever. Suddenly he's wiping squads solo.
Same model, same datasheet, same points.

These sorts of things are very important to know, because if you don't know then they can easily bite you in the arse and spoil the whole game.
It's always lame losing your favourite unit because you positioned them somewhere you knew they were safe... except for that random rule you didn't know existed.
"Now you know for next time" is super lame, I don't think I ever play the same army twice within a six-month window, there is no next time.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Part of the problem is these gotchas aren't even consistent.
In one game I can run my character with a chainsword. He hits like a wet noodle, not a big concern.
Next game he's got Teeth of Terra, some Warlord trait, and I use a strat, or whatever. Suddenly he's wiping squads solo.
Same model, same datasheet, same points.

These sorts of things are very important to know, because if you don't know then they can easily bite you in the arse and spoil the whole game.
It's always lame losing your favourite unit because you positioned them somewhere you knew they were safe... except for that random rule you didn't know existed.
"Now you know for next time" is super lame, I don't think I ever play the same army twice within a six-month window, there is no next time.

Sorry, but if you don't go over each others army before the game and get hit by surprise from regular wargear options, that is on you. "This guy wrecks gak in melee and got 12" fly movement" is enough as an explanation. It doesn't matter what the details are like that you get 3 extra attacks for the Teeth.
Not something I would agree is a "Gotcha!" thing in the first case, by the way.

I don't get your second point. You change your army all the time, but your opponent still plays the same faction, no? So you know their stuff for the next time.

 kodos wrote:
losing the game because the opponent played better is different to losing the game because you did not know what the opponents units were able to do

because the later one could have been avoided by knowledge

of course you also learn those things by playing the game, but some people prefer to know the game before they play it and win because they play better and not because they know more

I get it but reading stuff from other codexes an mastering it takes time, even in older editions. I'd rather play a few games without any knowledge and learn from those games, if time is basically the same. Which is actually what I do.

And people don't lose because they didn't know a super powerful combo; if they have that impression it's because the game was close, but previous mistakes, opponent's ability and dice rolling also played a part, the biggest one. I mean you don't really lose a game for a gotcha moment, you lose some points maybe or the gotcha moment contributes to the final loss. But it's not like there are super powerful combos that if a player is caught off guard the game is immediately ruined.

Teeth of Terra guy is a perfect example of that, he can wipe a (weak) squad solo, but that doesn't ruin a game and the opponent immediately learns how to counter it. It's not like not knowing what the relic does allows the model to wipe an entire army while being unstoppable . Besides, if a model has a relic sword that should be a hint about the character being a melee specialist.

I think if i just played 40k it wouldn't be so bad, but occasional forays into other games don't do the game experience any favours. Worst was last week play Epic A first then trying to do 40k, not only was i getting the rules all wrong once I was playing correctly I couldn't help but feel a little let down at what was important in the game and what made things swing one way or the other.

I don't mean this in a bad way, more I think to enjoy 40k you have to be really immersed and invested in it now.

A chainsword actually indicates they a cheap character there for the buffs.

A 40k character can have a lot of moving parts, there's not really time to explain in detail what each individual unit does.
Some surprise abilities are a bit annoying but not gamechanging.
Others, more so.
Where do you draw the line? How strongly do you impress upon someone the importance of any given ability?
There's also strategems which have very little to do with what's on the table, which ones of those do you need to divulge?

Space Marines were probably a terrible example because everyone is fairly familiar with them.
A Dark Eldar player briefly skimming through what relics they have means nothing to me because I don't know what any of them do.

This has always been a problem with 40k, but it's only gotten worse, a lot worse, over time.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A chainsword actually indicates they a cheap character there for the buffs.

A 40k character can have a lot of moving parts, there's not really time to explain in detail what each individual unit does.
Some surprise abilities are a bit annoying but not gamechanging.
Others, more so.
Where do you draw the line? How strongly do you impress upon someone the importance of any given ability?
There's also strategems which have very little to do with what's on the table, which ones of those do you need to divulge?

Space Marines were probably a terrible example because everyone is fairly familiar with them.
A Dark Eldar player briefly skimming through what relics they have means nothing to me because I don't know what any of them do.

This has always been a problem with 40k, but it's only gotten worse, a lot worse, over time.

Exactly, that's why I say a short summary is enough. "That unit is long range anti-armor, that is close combat against chaff, that one is just there to swoop in and do actions, ... ".
You don't need to know the details on every single wargear item, Warlord, faction and subfaction trait and abilities.

I draw the line where I assume that you don't know better or you might not see the obvious error. Things that I would play differently, if I were in their place right now and knew about the strat. "If you shock your Terminators there, I can use a strat to shoot them once with my Eradicators. Are you sure you want to do it?".

Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy

or

Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria

Off the top of your head, without consulting Google or a book, what do these Keepers do?

Also, they play incredibly differently in my mono-Slaanesh lists and fulfill different functions... and keep in mind, this is just an 8th edition book plus Psychic Awakening.

They tried to make easy and understandable rules in previous edition ... and then again they did rolls after rolls to make more pointless roll, vague rules and so on. Some flaws like tracking hit points for the model. Keep everything in your head? Impossible. I draw and cross out rounds on a paper, but this is an improvisation almost homeruling.

I don't even know what the people are arguing about anymore.
9th core rules? After one game of 8th I knew the base rules better than after 5 years of playing 6th/7th Edition. The most complex part of the rules are "frequent rules interactions" or how it's called, which they added at the end and of which some would benefit from proper USRs, but okay.

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...
And don't get me started with Formation rules in 7th, at least with stratagems these are limited to few Boni and not like: yeah, this part of my army got these 5 special rules for free because I took the units I wanted to take anyway. And these other three units have this combo.
I'll give you that the stratagem system often makes every unit potent to do things you might not expect. Even a base CSM squad might end up attacking twice with+1 to wound while you expected them to be nothing more than a nuisance. But that's the game and they're superhuman CC Killers blessed by Khorne, what did you expect? and you can always ask your opponent about stuff like that like you always had to. If you're not in Karols group your opponents won't be sociopaths that lie to you.
Those Wulfen in 7th killed your whole army on their own once, but after that you knew you had to point every single weapon at them turn 1.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't even know what the people are arguing about anymore.

Well of course you don't because the people trying to claim that the game is fine are trying to frame the opinions of multiple different people as a singular entity to make the people complaining about 40k's scattershot rules seem irrational and incoherent.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Gotchas? These were always there, because GW simply likes their special rules. What, your base Squad has a guy with powerfist, a Sgt. and a Wulfen guy in there(5th Edition)? And they're all cheaper than my CSM? Okay...

False analogy is false. WYSIWYG was a thing back then (and should still be, even moreso now IMO. fight me IRL) so you could see just by observing the minis what they were capable of. Invisible tacked on MTG-esq strats are most categorically not the same thing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the following:

Keeper of Secrets with Realm-Racer, Lightning Flayer, Quicksilver Swiftness, Bewitching Aura, Sinistrous Hand, Witstealer Sword, Jewel of Excess. Psychic Powers: Symphony of Pain, Hysterical Frenzy

Realm-racer - moves faster
Lighning Flayer - fights better
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Bewitching Aura - you fight worse
Sinistrous Hand - gains wounds based on melee damage
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Jewel of Excess - casts/denies better
Symphony of Pain - psychic debuff: you fight worse
Hysterical Frenzy - psychic buff: unit fights again

=> That guy over there is a fast melee monster. I can debuff your stuff and buff my stuff. The most powerful things are fight first and to fight again in my psychic phase.

Keeper of Secrets with Blessing of the Dark Prince, Quicksilver Reflexes, Quicksilver Swiftness, Celerity of Slaanesh, Shining Aegis, Witstealer Sword, Forbidden Gem. Psychic Powers: Delightful Agonies, Phantasmagoria

Blessing of the Dark Prince - more tanky against shooting
Quicksilver Reflexes - more tanky
Quicksilver Swiftness - fights first
Celerity of Slaanesh - moves faster
Shining Aegis - more tanky
Witstealer Sword - fights better
Forbidden Gem - Gotcha item that needs explanation
Delightful Agonies - more tanky buff for another unit
Phantasmagoria - debuff your moral

=> That guy is overall still a fast melee monster, but less than the guy before. He is way more tanky. The two things you should know is that I get -1 to wound from shooting and got a mean relic that works like this.