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.

Hi all.
As several threads in the rules development forum seem to ask to 'make the game follow expectations.'

Most other fictional game settings pick a real world counter part to base the game on.This makes the rule set more intuitive , as the results follow players expectations.

40k seems to be totaly unstable, as its rules are based on vage cinematic centric ever changing background.
The bonus with this is it makes ANYTHING the devs write in the rules valid, no matter how abstract. The down side is the game play is bogged down with unecissary pages of poorly concieved and implemented rules.

In the quest to make the 40k rules easier to explain , the game devs appear to have just ended up with a over-complicated mess of abstractions that even they do not fully comprehend.

(Most of the other rule sets I use , have much more game play (and game ballance,) with far fewer rules.)

Current 40k game play is so simple , why on earth does it take so many words to explain the simple interactions in such a counter intuitive way?

Do 40k players feel that the more rules there are the better the game must be?
(Even if the majority of the rules are simply a side effect of poor game development!)

Would you prefer a more straight forward approach to representing the 40k game?
EG the basic rules cover everything, and the codexes just list army choices.(With background etc.)

Or do you prefer the more abstract nature of the current rules, simply having lots of extra pages worth of rules to make new releases appear more interesting?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Well, the rules simplified a bit in the 5th ed, since LOS was replaced by TLOS.
First, I thought this will make the game less playable, but now I feel its quite comfortable.

I wouldn't say the game is too abstract at all. There is however a very awkward balance between abstract and concrete, and between realism and ease-of-play. It's like they can't (or more likely can't be bothered to) decide if they want a semi-serious game, or if they just want a beer & pretzels dice-fest.

Really, I love the models, but GW can't seem to put out a quality system of rules for 40k.

Too many rules are a bad thing in my opinion - it's no fun stopping in the middle of a game because you and your opponent are in a big argument about some obscure advanced rule.

wall i feel that Alessio Cavatore ( was on crake) did not play test the rules enough. But i have
recently read the rules for fantasy and to my suspired to rules were sound and are fun to play. So I
have come to the conclusion that he was trying separate 40k form fantasy but failed very, very
badly.

because he had taking the one thing that made all other edition of the rules useful was LOGIC. I think
that Any Chamber, Phil Kelly and Gav Thorpe( the writhers of 3ed and 4ed i.e. the holy trini of 40k)
should beat Cavatore head in with the 3th edition, necromuna, bfg rule books.

I have played both types of games. Both RPG’s and Table Top.

To Simple Rules: Risk [c] and the like can be fun, but get boring after a wile.
To Realistic: Aftermath [c] upto 27 rolls resolve one gunshot.

I personally think there is enough rules, just not enough clarifications.

I am mostly happy with the rules

I feel like most of the rule confusions and debates, come from attempting to use outdated codexes with the current 5th edition rules. I like 5th edition personally, but problems arise when things like target priority or old LOS rules affect certain units or wargear in older codexes and we're not really sure how to implement them. If they updated the codexes or FAQs more often then it would help clear up most problems.

So many rules that are up in debate could be fixed in one of two way:

A) Add an extra sentence clarifying the rule

B) Come out with a legitimate FAQ/Update system that clarifies the rule.


---

I personally think they should add some more rules to the game. The game is far too simple now for competitive play. I realize that most people do not care for tournaments, but it would be nice to maybe have a "tournament rules" expansion where the game is a little more complicated (like a better cover system...currently marines get no benefit to being in cover against regular fire), making the game be based around skill rather than the list you bring.

Ditto night lords.

no, although they could still use a bit more tightening. How hard is it, really?

TLoS is kind of silly. Also, anyone who thinks the rules follow TLoS need to really read the rules. They are TLoS with exceptions, and the exceptions can make all the difference.

It is ridiculous to think simpler rules are better if they are more ambiguous and open to player opinion.

Cover saves in general need to be taken in a different light. Make them an additional roll with a lower chance to pass and you will make my day. Invulns and Armor saves as the same test do make sense, but cover saves are a different beast altogether.

Even the rules for TLoS spark heated debates in competitive play if you pit a person who measures from the models head against someone who measures from anywhere on the body.

Can you tell I play Tau?

I've played from the beginning (on and off) and 5th Edition seems more simplified. I personally don't mind. I played a little bit 4th and 5th.

I'm a Tau player now and even though 5th messed us up, for simplicities sake I don't mind. I don't want the rules too simplified because I WANT some complexity.

What's so hard about discrepancies? Just do a roll-off until the rules get clarified.

"1,2,3: I'm right. 4,5,6: You're wrong."

Hi all.
My point was 40k is a very simple game , only made difficult by poor ( badly explained abstract, )rules writing.

Other game systems cover in 2 pages and ONE method concisley, what 40k takes 12+pages and FOUR methods to cover ineptly.

GW PLC seem to want to eshew all responcibility for poor rules writing , and ask player to make up for thier apathy by 'rolling for it.'

As all gamers live in the real world, thier expectations are based on real world experainces.Therfore if a rule set is based on real world interactions the rules are easier to write and understand.
As John Stallard (All round ex GW top bloke,)said '..underneath the veneer of the fantastical setting there should be an engaging wargame...'

EA=modern land warfare
BFG= naval warfare.
Blood Bowl=american football.
WHFB=100 years war.(Ancient to Napoleonic period anyway.)

40k =rule of cool +pimping the latest releases?

The CBT 'intro rules' cover a game, (with complexity on a par with 40k,) in just 15 pages of rules....So why does 40k have to use so many exceptions to the core rules to cover its simple game play?

Art is its own validiation, the disire to create is all that is required.
Function is validated by efficiency.

Many at GW towers think game development is an art form (no validation required,)not a science,(measurable levels of efficiency.)

The most detailed simulation I play regularly Firefly, has 10 times the game complexity of 40k, but only HALF the amount of written rules.
And in the last 20 years of playing this game we had to roll off once.(Low flying aircraft caught in an air burst artillery barrage.The rules for each element were VERY clear, it was just this unexpected interaction that was not covered.)

Annalogy if 40k =football and WHFB=golf.
IF we took the rules for golf and adapted them to fit football , this is what 40k is.
Writing the rules specificaly for football is what I want 40k rules to be.

TTFN
Lanrak.

*flashbacks to 2nd ed rules* :p

Personnally I think the rules are ok atm but as NL pointed out, an optional "advanced" rule set would be nice, I still dont like the standardised movement of most units and I feel morale/psychich powers arent what they used to be (having said that I can see why they changed them and have a love/hate relationship in hindsight).

The rules of different armies are what makes them unique. Without Acts of Faith, SoB would just be Guardsmen in power armour.

Yeah, they could chop a few things out, but 40k is still very much playable.

You keep saying the rules are too abstracted. Could you give some examples? I can certainly see them being poorly defined (they often are) and poorly organized (yes, please, let me remember the 2-3 places to look for how to resolve a combat,) but I've never really felt the urge to use the word abstract to describe them.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. If you've spent too long explaining how something works, then you've crossed the line from explaining how it works to explaining away why it doesn't work. I've never played a game in 5th edition against anyone who actually uses the TLOS rules the way they are presented, and we only use the wound allocation rules when a small unit has a leader joined to it. There are lots of other stupid rules that we've come to a simple agreement about without any long arguments. Of course, I've never played 5th ed. in a tournament, so my perspective may be different.

Hi all.
Just to be clear , it is possible to have special abilities in a game without having to write exceptions /contradict the basic rules in every case.
(Infinity is full of special abilities that do not break the framework of the basic rules.)
The current 40k game play is GOOD.
It just the awful instructions on how to play the game I have real argument against!

An example of 40ks over complicated abstraction.
40k rules for movement, BBB pgs 11to14,(Basic) 51to 55(Unit specific)57,58,68 to 73,(vehilce movement.)75,76(USRs)

Over Abstraction! (Concequences)
Everything moves the same 6" !(And then take another 10+ pages of rules to expain why, NOT everything moves the same.)

Another system .
Movement.
All units have a movement value , which is the distance they may move up to when taking a movement action.
How the units move,legs,(L) wheels,(W) tracks,(T) hover, (H) etc,effects how the units interact with terrain.
Special movement like Jump Jets (J)and amphibiuos(A) effect how units move through/over different types of terrain.
Refer to terrain table for details.

Terain type. L /W /T /H
roads. +1/+2/+2/-
open ground -/-/-/-
scrub/rubble -1/-2/-/-
Lt woods. -1/-2/-1/-2
hvywoods- jungle -2/I/I/I
buildings -1/I/I/I
Swamp I/I/I/-
Water features. I/I/I-
- = no effect on movement.+/- 1 or 2 =modify M value by this amount.I impassible.

Amphibiuos ignores movement restrictions for swamp and water features.
Jump jets can clear up to 8" of flat terrain , or up to 4 height levels. (Deduct 2" for each hieght level, from the lenght of 'jump'.)

1-2 pages of straight forward rules!!!!

40ks weapon-armour interactions.
pgs,22 to 25,56,60,61.
3 seperate systems,(APvs as, Inv vs Sp, AV vs str) over 6 pages of rules.

Another system.
Weapons and armour saves.
All units have an Armour-Resistance (AR)value from 1 to 15.
All weapons have a Damage(D) value of 5 to 20.
Subtract the (AR) value from the (D) to get the save roll required.
If the armour value is equal or greater than to the weapons D value, the target is invunerable to the attack.
If the weapon s D value is 7 or greater than the AR value the target doenst get a save.

Abstraction.(Consequenses.)
Armour stops the hit or it doesnt...AP sysytem,that doesnt cover ALL the game interactions.(Invunerable saves which ignore the AP system.Apart from special rules which ignore the invunerable saves.Unless it a vehicle which uses a completly different system .)


Does this help explain my point?
Compared to the other straight forward rule sets available ,40k rules are poor in concept AND execution!
Even if the 40k rules were written out again by a proffesional technical writer,to make them well defined, it would not fix the abstractions cause by poor choice of game mechanics and resolution methods.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Well, not really. But if you compare them to the LotR rules, then yes by far.

Hi again.
Tim the Biovore, when you compare the 40k rules to ANY other game system,(not just LoTR,) the rules look overly abstract.
The instructions on how to play a game should be well defined and as intuitive as possible.
Eg maximum amount of game play, with the minimum amount of rules reading.

The 40k rule set appears to be diametricaly opposed to this basic requirment.I often wonder if they just drop rules in at random to space out the nice pictures and stories , focusing on asthetic layout over actual function.

Most other game systems I am aware of have far better game play to rules ratios.
Can any one think of a rule set that is worse than 40k for counterintuitive-abstract rules writing?

Beer and pretzel game like 'Pass the Pigs ' all the way up to detailed historical simulations like 'Newbury rules for Napoleonics', all abstract to maximise game play.

40k rules seem to abstract rules in a totaly counter productive way.

TTFN
Lanrak.

You're making a lot of good points.

And I do feel that the ruleset has become a bit too abstract, and watered down.

But, GW is afraid that no one can do even the most basic math anymore, so I think we're stuck...

Lanrak: Even if GW used a simplified system - this still wouldn't fix the huge mess of special rules that 40k is composed of...

The game devs seem hellbent on creating new rules when combinations of existing USRs would provide a similar function. On top of that, most new special rules (and many normal rules) not only don't make use of core mechanics or USRs, but are exceptions to the main ruleset.

Add this to not thoroughly playtesting how these exceptions interact with the core rules results in a confusing mess

GW excacerbates this situation by issuing "play it however you want", "guideline" style FAQs 6-12 months later, which don't definitievely answer anything.

Hi again.
Alpharius.
I agree GW would rather write another 300 words of rules , than rely on the player to be able to add or subtract 1 or 2 from a dice roll!
On Pg 2 of the rule book they talk about modifying dice rolls by adding or subtracting 1 or 2,etc. YET FAIL to use these methods effectivley to reduce the amount of written rules.

Keesus.
I am sure the GW game devs are capable of writing a much better rule set for 40k.(Specialist games prove this IMO.)
But some complete of a corperate manager wants to use the 40k rules to pimp the latest minature releases , despite the end result driving having such a negative effect longterm.
I am sure that if GAMEPLAY was given top priority , this would lead to *better rules, which would draw in more gamers and retain them for longer.
Much better for long term growth of GW IMO.

By *better rules I mean cover ALL the game play with the basic rules , using the most appropriate game mechanics and minimal resolution methods.(About 20-30 pages.)

And the good news is you are not stuck with GW poor rules.You can use other rule sets with GW minatures you know!
(No Limits ,Chain reaction 3, Stargrunt II , etc.are all FREE downloads!)


Thanks for the feedback.

TTFN
Lanrak.