6th ed , reshuffle or re boot?

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
With 6th ed on the horison.
I was wondering what the BoLS 40k players thought about what 6th ed should be...

1)A complete re-write from the ground up , core rules that cover EVERYTHING in half the current pages in the 40k rule book.
And all new army lists for all races included in the rule book.(No fluff just rules and army lists.)

All the minature releases are accompanied with the background book , everything BUT rules included.(Background narrative, artwork, modeling/conversion and painting guides.)

2) A reshuffle of the current rules , a few new resolution methods that just add more complication, and little in the way of gameplay...(like GW have done since 1998.:eek:)
And codex releases as now .with some armies waiting up to a decade for an update of rules and minatures.

[DrLove42]

Or C) Builds on what is already there but makes enough changes to make it quite different and improve all the problems but not being so cynical as seeing those choices as a "short term marketing" ploy

[Morgan Darkstar]

Or C) Builds on what is already there but makes enough changes to make it quite different and improve all the problems but not being so cynical as seeing those choices as a "short term marketing" ploy

I am going with C)

[SotonShades]

C) for me please.

I dont really think option 1 would work. Although I've heard of other game systems with a similar core book, they tend to have 4 or 5 factions, as opposed to the 10 40k has (counting MEQ as the same... 14 if not). I do like the idea of having all the base stats in the rulebook for reference, but not that actual army lists with points etc.

And to be fair, GW have only done reshuffles since '98 because that is all the game has really needed as the player base (and size of the players' collections) has increased over the years. Fair enough, there are long wait times for some Codeicies to be update (DE being the prime example) but the only Codex currently in desparate need of an update is Necrons, maybe Sisters (though we know theirs is on the way).

[slxiii]

C. Though I do love biased/passive aggressive polls.

[Xas]

I'll take everything as long as it isnt A) so I voted b...

[eldargal]

Indications point to C, actually. Atleast try to have unbiased polls in future.

[scadugenga]

"C" would be nice.

I'm not going to expect anything more than "2," however.

[fuzzbuket]

whilst a would be intresting it wouldnt work, 40k is soo large it would either be

1) it was done quick with a core book and basic ruels, making 1/2 of everything useless
2) really big with a new codex for eveything, new core book, new everything, and requireing lots of editions and FAQ's to balance it


C) is my answer

[Wolf Brother Hellstrom]

D) doesnt matter cause everybody will still complain about it

sorry im a little cynical today

[UltramarineFan]

C) is what I'm going for too

[Deadlift]

Well as choice A seems to be geared towards fanboys and choice B just seems to be there to infuriate the GW hate brigade, I think the poll is rather pointless.

However C looks good.

I personally quite like 5th and would be happy to see a few minor changes. So maybe not a 6th but more a 5.5th edition :)

Would be cool to see armies use a codex geared towards the same edition.

[Wathapend2urfase]

Although I've heard of other game systems with a similar core book, they tend to have 4 or 5 factions, as opposed to the 10 40k has (counting MEQ as the same... 14 if not).

Actually there are 16 (Dark Angles, Black Templars). And there are 15 Fantasy armies. totaling 31 Armies. And I know there is LOTR/WOTR but I will get to that later. If GW instead released 8 codices every 30 months and 7-8 Army Books every 30 months then in between those release dates they could release all the necessary models for each army every month and still have 14-15 months left over.

These 14-15 months could be used for supplement books and WOTR/LOTR. (or Specialist games.) Then half the books would get an update every 2 1/2 years. And a rule book can come out every 5 years with one of codices/Army Books releases, and have FAQs inside the rule book for the armies that won't get an update for the next 2 1/2 years. I think that would really help streamline the rules since 8 codices/Army Books have to be play-tested together for 2-2 1/2 years; they would probably be pretty balanced in relation to one another.

[HsojVvad]

I voted A. This is not Battletech where you keep playing with the same rules and more is added on. I am sick and tired of playing 3.5 (since 4th edtion is really more 3.25 and 6th would be 3.75).

Since GW seems to like to change some game bounding ideas, make it a complete change then? At least Battletech gets it right in most cases, where GW just gives us differnet headachs. Switching from one headach to another headache.

GW trying to change the game just to sell minis while still playing the same game is getting a bit tiresome now. At least make the game seem new and refreshing. 5th sort of seemed to it, but still had the same 3rd and 4th edtion feel to it.

I want something really new and refreshing, not paying almost $100 (or $75 dedepnding where you live and what edtion you buy) just for something the same but a bit different .

[JxKxR]

I like 5th edition so I would like to see a 5.5 like Deadlift said. Although the rumors for 6th edition sound like a ton of fun so I'll probable be happy with whatever they end up doing.

[wittdooley]

I voted A. This is not Battletech where you keep playing with the same rules and more is added on. I am sick and tired of playing 3.5 (since 4th edtion is really more 3.25 and 6th would be 3.75).

Since GW seems to like to change some game bounding ideas, make it a complete change then? At least Battletech gets it right in most cases, where GW just gives us differnet headachs. Switching from one headach to another headache.

GW trying to change the game just to sell minis while still playing the same game is getting a bit tiresome now. At least make the game seem new and refreshing. 5th sort of seemed to it, but still had the same 3rd and 4th edtion feel to it.

I want something really new and refreshing, not paying almost $100 (or $75 dedepnding where you live and what edtion you buy) just for something the same but a bit different .

What does this even mean? If you change it too much, it no longer is 40k.

Do you at least have any constructive ideas?

[Black Dragon]

While I like a little idol speculation, I grow weary of these "6th Edition" post. NO ONE has ANY proof that this is coming out. "But Black Dragon, they must be working on it" I sure somwhere someone is working on a hovercar, but until I actually see it I'm not going to argue if GM is going to make a better one than Ford.
I think these are just plys by some of these web sites to put tantlizing info on there websites and blogs to keep people reading them. Don't drink the Kool-Aid people. But hey if someone, ANYONE can show me some actual proof of "6th Edition" I will swallow my words and jump on your bandwagon.

I'm waiting.


Only in Death does Duty end.

[w7west]

Voted for the marketing one

[JxKxR]

If you change it too much, it no longer is 40k.

Games Workshop decides what is 40k.

[HsojVvad]

What does this even mean? If you change it too much, it no longer is 40k.

Do you at least have any constructive ideas?

It was 40 when it was Rogue Trader. It was 40K when it was 2nd edtion. It was 40K when it was 3rd edtion. Each and every one was totally different from the other. It was still 40K.

So if GW made drastic changes for 6th edition, it still would be 40K, so not sure what you mean if it changes too much it's not 40K.

I have had lots of constructive ideas, but got shot down every time on this forum here that I don't list them no more. Alot of people can't take the idea of some of the ideas I suggested so instead of getting flamed for it, I don't bother listing them anymore.

[wittdooley]

So if GW made drastic changes for 6th edition, it still would be 40K, so not sure what you mean if it changes too much it's not 40K.


I guess I disagree on this point. One of the only drastic changes I could see being made that would result in the system still being "40K" would be diversion from the typical IGOUGO. Doing so would obviously open up lots of strategic possibilities.

If they changed the game from a large battle game to more of a skirmish game, it would not be 40k. That's a drastic change. If they went a more "warmachine" route and had fixed units, with unit cards, abilities, that would be a drastic change that would make it quite "un-40k."

I personally think your comparision to BattleTech is really disheartening. I don't want anything near that amout of paperwork involved in 40k. It works with BattleTech because of the number of models; it would be a nightmare with a larger format game.

You seem to want a complete rules overhaul, and I don't know the system even needs that. I don't know if people consider TLOS to have been a major rule change. I don't. The problem with all of the rules changes will be addressing the inherent rules loophole search that goes on with the game, and the subsequent FAQing. My group isn't that hardcore with the rules, so those types of things have never been an issue.

[Deadlift]

I still think that if GW were to offer free downloadable quick start rules it wouldn't do them any financial harm. Just a basic beginners rule set with some cut out templates. Nothing too complicated but just the basics. I know other war gaming companys do the same and I think it's a great way to get people into their games.

That's what I like to see change, a free set of rules and players will hopefully learn to love the game and want to expand their games. They would then buy either the starter set with the mini rule book or the full sized hardback one.

I would also like to see army starter sets that include a basic HQ and two troop choices, included would be a
mini codex with a brief bit of fluff and enough rules to play these basic choices. Say for £40 would be a good price.

My 2 cents. I think this would make the hobby more accessible to everyone on a lower budget and would introduce many more players which must be good for everyone.

They could introduce this at the same time they release 6ed :)

[Wildeybeast]

I'm surprised that no one has suggested option e) there isn't a huge amount wrong with the current edition, get all the bloody codexes (EDIT: and I mean proper codexes, not half baked, 2 part magazine ones) and minature ranges UTD before you start mucking around with the main rules.

[Gir]

I vote d. It is easily going to be the most correct answer.

[wkz]

D) doesnt matter cause everybody will still complain about it

sorry im a little cynical today
This. Because of two reasons: (1) it is true. GW could release 6th as a 5th with better worded rules and all rules ambiguity fixed, on a $2 tomb weighing in at a hundred pages... ... and people will still complain.

And (2) because I hate the crap out of biased polls. Why don't you post the poll "Am I awesome?" with the options "(a) Yes, (b) Eat crap and die you GW fanboy" next time?



ps:

Or C) Builds on what is already there but makes enough changes to make it quite different and improve all the problems but not being so cynical as seeing those choices as a "short term marketing" ploy
This.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
Do you not agree with my objective assesment of the current 40k rules and codexes?
Fair enough.
What other rules sets and game systems are you comparing 40k to?

Can you point out the references where Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestley , Tom Kirby say that the 40k game play issues, game mechnaics and game support is top priority ?

Tom kirby '....GW is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children...'

Jervis Johnson'...the games are just the icing on the cake....'

'....only about 1/3 of our customers play the games...' (I wonder why...;))

'....of course we dont play test every concevable option, but the level of imballance wont be worse than 60/40..'(WTF:eek:)

Rick priestley '...(40k game mechanics )...are rather old fashioned and clunky...'
'...(40k) is specificaly written to appeal to teenagers , who absorb data, but have a limited grasp of the over arching tactical conciderations...''

And concidering the Codex release shedule is set by coperate finance ,NOT the studio staff...

If you were offended by the term 'short term marketing ploy'.
I apologise for causing offence.

But as ther is NO evidence to counter this assumption , shouldnt you be more offended by GW plcs disreguard for the importance of its own games?

I realy like the 40k universe game setting .
I would like the rules to be written specificaly for the 40k game.
NOT STILL use the WHFB game mechanics that just dont work that well with modern unit types.
(Skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and amoured vehicles.)

Most modern rule sets have far more complexity in the game play, and far less complication in the rules.

40k rules are not difficult to understand, but there is about 60 pages too many of them!IMO.

More suitable game mechanics would allow for more game play covered by less pages of rules.

What is wrong with that?

[Melissia]

Frankly unless they release a new Ork, Guard, or Sisters codex within a year of 6th edition I probably won't notice anyway....

[Lord Azaghul]

i am going with c)

qft

[HsojVvad]

Frankly unless they release a new Ork, Guard, or Sisters codex within a year of 6th edition I probably won't notice anyway....

Why do you need a new Guard codex? You do not like the 5th edtion IG codex?

[Lexington]

I'd rather see a "reboot" of the game, with major changes to the basic game mechanics, and all-new Codexes (or even a different release system!) which could be used to build a game system that's more stable and expandable in the long-term, rather than one with a narrowly-defined "meta" that changes with the winds of Codex releases.

So...I dunno. Option W? Let's go with W. It's a fun letter.

[wittdooley]

I'd rather see a "reboot" of the game, with major changes to the basic game mechanics, and all-new Codexes (or even a different release system!) which could be used to build a game system that's more stable and expandable in the long-term, rather than one with a narrowly-defined "meta" that changes with the winds of Codex releases.

So...I dunno. Option W? Let's go with W. It's a fun letter.

In order for this to happen, GW would need to do what Privateer did. Retest and redesign everything AT ONE TIME. It's not going to happen because that would be an insanely monumental task. Privateer had a big enough job with 4 armies. Triple that, then add it customization options, and you're just scratching the surface of the undertaking GW would need to endeavour upon.

We complain enough about not all the models in a codex being made available for a single codex release. Now imagine if they added two new units to each codex. Privateer has enough trouble releasing 4 models a month. Triple that, and again, your'e looking a huge freakin job.

Privateer was able to rebuild their game because of three reasons: it's relatively small, units are static, and the game is still young.

40k is none of these things, and thus would make that undertaking pretty damn implausible.

[Wildeybeast]

Hi all.
Do you not agree with my objective assesment of the current 40k rules and codexes?
Fair enough.
What other rules sets and game systems are you comparing 40k to?

Can you point out the references where Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestley , Tom Kirby say that the 40k game play issues, game mechnaics and game support is top priority ?

Tom kirby '....GW is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children...'

Jervis Johnson'...the games are just the icing on the cake....'

'....only about 1/3 of our customers play the games...' (I wonder why...;))

'....of course we dont play test every concevable option, but the level of imballance wont be worse than 60/40..'(WTF:eek:)

Rick priestley '...(40k game mechanics )...are rather old fashioned and clunky...'
'...(40k) is specificaly written to appeal to teenagers , who absorb data, but have a limited grasp of the over arching tactical conciderations...''

And concidering the Codex release shedule is set by coperate finance ,NOT the studio staff...

If you were offended by the term 'short term marketing ploy'.
I apologise for causing offence.

But as ther is NO evidence to counter this assumption , shouldnt you be more offended by GW plcs disreguard for the importance of its own games?

I realy like the 40k universe game setting .
I would like the rules to be written specificaly for the 40k game.
NOT STILL use the WHFB game mechanics that just dont work that well with modern unit types.
(Skirmishing infantry armed with ranged weapons and amoured vehicles.)

Most modern rule sets have far more complexity in the game play, and far less complication in the rules.

40k rules are not difficult to understand, but there is about 60 pages too many of them!IMO.

More suitable game mechanics would allow for more game play covered by less pages of rules.

What is wrong with that?

Out of curiousity, where did you get all these quotes from? I'd like to read them in their original context before passing judgement on them. Also, do I understand correctly that you are saying you want more complexity in the rules, but less pages in which to explain them?

[Lexington]

In order for this to happen, GW would need to do what Privateer did. Retest and redesign everything AT ONE TIME. It's not going to happen because that would be an insanely monumental task. Privateer had a big enough job with 4 armies. Triple that, then add it customization options, and you're just scratching the surface of the undertaking GW would need to endeavour upon.
Well, you're vastly underrating the crazy job Privateer undertook here - they redid eight "normal" factions (Hordes, yo), two semi-factions that can play independently or combine in all sorts of different ways with the above mentioned "normals," and added a whole new faction for the hell of it. In the span of a year. It was pretty damn impressive.

Really, with 8th Edition Fantasy, GW's done all but what I'm asking for, and 6th Edition's rumored to be heading down a similar path. I just wish GW could grow the sort of cojones they had as recently as 1998, and go whole-hog with this sort of thing, rather than let their past continue to hurt their product's overall value.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
Currenlty 40k rules are over complicated , there is a LOT of rules compared to the complexity of the game play.

Other games use more apropirate game mechanics so get more complexity in the game play with less complication in the rules.

40k devs write the rules in an exclusive way.
(Eg rules for specific types of models, rather than include ALL unit types.)
So they need to write MORE rules to cover the elements excluded by the re-writing of the new rules.

Originaly...(and used by most other games...)
Everything has a Movment value .The model may move up to this value in inches during the movment phase.
(Models may move up to twice this amount , but may not shoot in the shooting phase.)
Difficult terrain halves movement values,(rounding up.)
Verry difficult terrain quarters movment values ,( rounding up.)

This has been 'simplified' with re-writing to;-
Everything moves 6".(Apart from the things that dont!)
Models moving through difficult terrain move the highest D6 valuel of 2 D6 rolled in inches.(Or pick highest from 3D6)
Dangerous terrain kills the model on the roll of 1.(Or it doesnt sometimes!)

And now needs the following EXTRA rules to cover the exluded features.
USRs.
Fleet.
Move through cover.
Skilled rider.
Slow and purposefull
Turbo boosters.

Vehilce rules.
Walker.
Tank.
Skimmer.
Fast.
Combat speed /Crusing speed

So what was 2 pages of clear concise rules, has been 'simplified' to 14 pages of rules across several sections of the rule book .:eek:

My point is if the rule set (including codex special rules) , were less complicated,the devs could support the game in a far more efficient way.

Complication =amount of systems /elements.

Complexity = amount of options/ functions.

[wittdooley]

Well, you're vastly underrating the crazy job Privateer undertook here - they redid eight "normal" factions (Hordes, yo), two semi-factions that can play independently or combine in all sorts of different ways with the above mentioned "normals," and added a whole new faction for the hell of it. In the span of a year. It was pretty damn impressive.


No, don't misunderstand. I completely understand how large an undertaking Privateer had. I don't envy them at all. Which furthers how big GWs undertaking would have to be. You're right about the 10 factions, but even then that's still 4 less than GW. The biggest thing that would be a problem for GW would be the amount of playtesting and tweaking you'd have to undergo due to the variable point costs and upgrades. I can't imagine how big that can o' worms would be.

[Mauglum.]

Hi folks.
I may be misunderstanding your argument against a complete re-write of the rules?

Currently there is approximatley 7 times more pages of rules than absolutley necissary.
And for the devs to wade through and play test everything for release takes far longer than it should due to the holistic and abstract mess of a rule set they have to work with.

Where as a NEW well defined and concise rule set of about 40 pages that covers everything , in a straight forward intuitive and proportional way , would make this task so much easier.

And as reguards to PV allocation, which is the easier system to calculate?

1)The AP system where the change in AS has an exponential increase in the level of protection .
Eg 6+ AS to 5+ AS = appx 17% increase.
3+AS to2+ AS = appx 84% increse,
Not to mention the wild variation on effectiveness based on the AP value of the weapons you are facing.
And the completly seperate vehicle section of the rules...
And the impact of USRs on these values , and also the Codex special rules that have not been written yet..:eek:


2)New system.
Armour value (1 to 15) is deducted from the weapon damage (5 to 22)to give the save roll required.
ALL results and values are scalable and proportional.
A unit can increase its armour value by 1.
And it gets ALL of its saves vs ALL weapons improved by ...1.

ALL units and ALL weapons covered by the same simple game mechanic.

If you were a game developer who is ALWAYS getting it in the neck about game balance.
What system would you want to use?

[DrLove42]

Wow. Your maths is terrible

A 6+ to a 5+ is indeed a 16.66666% increase in survivability.

A 3+ to a 2+ is also a 16.66666% increase in survivabilty.

By your maths a 3+ save (which is a 66% chance of living) increased to a 2+ would make terminators have 150% chance of ignoring a wound.

In current 40K all weapons are covered by a simple game mechanic. You roll 1 dice against what it says in the book. You don't roll it if the gun has a lower AP than what it says in the book. No maths, no powers changing armour saves

Its obvious from your posts that you are heavily against anything GW can do, do or are willing to do and want them to just copy PP.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Dr Love 42.
If all weapons had the same AP value , then that would be correct.
But how many weapons have AP1 ?
How many weapons have AP 2?
How many weapons have AP 3?
How many weapons Have AP 4?
How many weapons Have AP 5?
How many weapons have AP 6?

So the overall survivablity increases exponentialy due to the distribultion of the weapons AP values.
Which is what I was refering to , not the increased % chance of making the save, but this AND the reduced chance of the AP value negating the save also.

You wrote ..
'In current 40K all weapons are covered by a simple game mechanic. You roll 1 dice against what it says in the book. You don't roll it if the gun has a lower AP than what it says in the book. No maths, no powers changing armour saves.'

What about vehicles , invunerable saves, Feel No Pain, etc.

Or do you just play 40k with standard infantry?

I dont hate everthing GW.
(Just the corperate managers!Who have totaly ruined a great game setting with short sighted marketing directives.)

I like everything about 40k apart from its rule set.
I think it should have a rule set written specificaly for it own game play.
Not use WHFB game mechanics and a load of bodges.

PP make great rule sets for thier game settings.So do all the other game companies.

But you want GW to continue to produce poorly defined abstract and holistic rules, that slow down rules updates/codexes releases ,and make ballancing the game a complete nightmare...

WHY?

[Melissia]

Why do you need a new Guard codex? You do not like the 5th edtion IG codex?

I don't need it, but those are the three armies I play, and frankly I doubt the new edition will change my army lists drastically unless it does so like second to third did.

[Gir]

Hi Dr Love 42.
If all weapons had the same AP value , then that would be correct.
But how many weapons have AP1 ?
How many weapons have AP 2?
How many weapons have AP 3?
How many weapons Have AP 4?
How many weapons Have AP 5?
How many weapons have AP 6?

So the overall survivablity increases exponentialy due to the distribultion of the weapons AP values.
Which is what I was refering to , not the increased % chance of making the save, but this AND the reduced chance of the AP value negating the save also.


So I take it you have the full list of weapon aps distributed by quantity that can appear in an army? Because if seems like your asking Dr Love to do that in order to prove his point, but you don't have to to prove yours.

[DrLove42]

So I take it you have the full list of weapon aps distributed by quantity that can appear in an army? Because if seems like your asking Dr Love to do that in order to prove his point, but you don't have to to prove yours.

I agree...but I'm going to humour him

This is based on the DE codex (an army designed to murder high armoured troops with ease so have a higher than average rate of low AP weapons)
The DE across all of their weapons have;

4 AP-
0 AP6
9 AP5
2 AP4
3 AP3
6 AP2
2 AP1

Against a standard army listing (which lets face it a popular armoured soldier with an average of a 3+ save) it would appear that their armour is ignored on 11 out of the possible 26 weapons.

However then once you factor is the AP1 weapons are Fusion Pistols (which you can have max of 2 per squad, and only one squad (Quins) can have them and Heatlances which are restricted to 3 units, and then 1 in 3 models, 2 in 5 and 1 monstrous creature they are few and far between compared to the AP5 rounds carried on every warrior, wych, jetbike, venom, Talos, scourge, Trueborn etc.

In my army list (your experience may vary) I use a lot of weapons. In my competition winning 1500 point list I throw out (per turn)

4 D3 + 2D6 AP-
0 AP6
65 AP5
0 AP4
0 AP3
10 AP2
0 AP1
2 APD6

So the balence of power is far outweighed in a standard list toward High AP values.

In the case of my list a normal marine with a 3+ save is getting an armour save of approximatly (assuming average D6 rolls on the variables) on 83 out of 93 shots a turn (a percentage survival rate in practicallity of 89%. Assuming math hit rates of 66% average passes the 3+ armour is being protected against 58% of all shots.

Upgrading this save to a 2+ means you get a save in...83 out of 93 shots. With the terminators armour pass rate that is...74% of wounds fired at them being saved.

With an increase that is identical to the 16% rise of upgrading the armour the maths shows that the variabilty in the amount of weapons has little to do with the terminators survival rate. As your comment is about AP value in weapons, not in CC power weapons and the like can be igonred. With most armies reliant on a AP5 weapons (Bolter, Shuriken Cannon, Pulse Rifle, Splinter Rifle and the like) with low AP weapons general being a statistically small part of an army list (with the exception of 1KSons CSM very few possible builds feature an modal AP average that is not 4 or greater)

And in the area of the jump from 3+ to 2+...I can't think of very many AP3 weapons. Of 3 in the DE codex 1 is an expensive upgrade to a CC unit (incubi and Bloodstone) and the other 2 are short ranged on one monstrous creature (Cronos). Now with battlecannons and Hotshot lasguns in mind I can't think of many other AP3 weapons(maybe just me...feel free to add any if you want...but i'm sure they wn't be too widespread), meaning most guns that give Terminators a save would also give a standard marine a save, greatly reducing the proposed percentile increase of survivability you quoted.

Finally do Invulnerable saves and FNP really add more complexity? How is it difficult to remember...this ignores my save, so i get to take a unmodfiable save of different value. FNP is just a 2nd set of rules. yes its more complex as it has more categories that make it ignorable (ID for example) but its no different to the save gifted through cover.

Finally Finally....these things your complaining about are not made by GW for short term marketing plans. These are rules in the rule book that overlooks all armies, favouring none over the other. If making agame that plays well counts as a markeitng ploy then its a pretty good one!

[Melissia]

Flamestorm cannons and chem cannons also ignore power armor, which is excrucitingly painful when playing Sisters, given that Sisters rely on power armor to survive (Sisters aren't MEQ, they can't take a hit as well as Marines, even if their power armor lets them take it better than guardsmen).

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
My point was the current game mechanics and multiple resolution methods make an over complicated rule set that is a nightmare to balance , and takes far longer to play test.
This slows down rules updates ,(codex releases.)

Other rule sets that use more suitable game mechanics get can use fewer resolution methods , and make for an easier game to ACTUALY develop.

(AoA got provable levels of balance and TWENTY THREE army lists , in 8 years.)

The goal of a game developers is maximum game play minimum rules.
Rick Priestley said '...clarit brevity and wit...'And I totaly agree with this.(He is a great bloke IMO.)
So the game developers left to thier own ends would NEVER chose the level of level of over complication found in 40k rules!

WHY would you want to use more rules than necissary , to make provable levels of ballance all but impossible ,and delay codex releases due to the amount of play testing required....?

The only reason you would purposley make a game and so over complicated ,abstract and holistic .
Is to make it overly difficult for the players to PROVE the levels of imballance.

To allow you to manupulate the rules to support the latest releases.
And continue to release codexes based on revenue return over game paly requirements.

I am tryting to point out a new rule set would be the best option for gamers and game developers a like.
But it goes against strict adherance to GW plcs corperate line of '...selling toy soldiers to children...'

Asthetics are subjective , they are based purley on opoinion.
Rule sets are objective, they are written instructions .So rules sets can be impiricaly compared and rated.

As instructions to arrive ar 40k current game paly the current rules are over complicated.

I dont want to remove anything good from 40k.
Just change the rules to better reflect conflict in the 41 milennium.

Dont you want fast fun game play with provable levels of balance, and more support for the actual game?

[DrLove42]

You're contradicting yourself a lot there

In one sentence you say you want a simpler game and in another you say that the "powers that be" at GW set out to sell toy soldier to children. A simpler rule system would help that

And that is not hte aim of the company. Any one with knowledge of hobby centres knows that dedicated players are the lifeblood of the hobby, and although getting new blood in is important, 1 players for ten years will bring mor emoney to GW than 10 children who only play for a year.

The slwoer rate of codexes launches is necessary. Do you think the entire DE line would have been so good if they'd been told they only had 2 months to do it before moving onto something else? The Storm of Magic models have been designed over 2 years so they can't speed up launches, because of both model design and marketing strategy. A new codex every month would be impractical as well as pointless.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Drlove42.
I am not contradicting myself.But may not be explaining myself adequatley.

GAME PLAY.
The amount of options gamers have in the actual game.

Therfore the game play can be simple (Snakes and ladders),or complex(chess.).
Both games have straight forward rules, but chess has a higher replay value, because it has a higher level of complexity in the game play.

RULE SET.
The amount of complication ( amount of written rules )can also vary in the game .
Good rules cover the game play with the minumum of written rules.

Eg
Using a movement characteristic usualy results in 2 pages of well defined rules to cover unit movement.
This is what I define as 'straghtforword rules.'

40ks not using a movement characteritic means the rules to cover moveing units, cover14 pages of rules spread out over 3 seperate sections of the rule book!:eek:
To achive the same funtion as a movement stat, but takes up 7 times as many pages of the rule book!
Thefore this is what I refer to as 'overcomplcated rules'.

The 40k rules are the complete opposite to what gamers actualy want!

The rules are over complicated,(too many pages of rules to learn.)

And the game play is too simple,(not enough options for players in the game to keep them interested long term.)

What I am proposing is using the MOST APROPRIATE game mechanics, to allow the game play to be covered with fewer rules.This allows more gameplay to be included!

So the new players get to learn to play in about an hour.(And have complete and total knowledge of how EVERYTHING works in the game system.)

And players can take a life time to explore the complexities of the increased gameplay.

[DrLove42]

Using your definitions (which I agree with what you define as Gameplay and Rules BTW) I would argue that the rule book is the core to give the game, and then the codexes are the gameplay aspects.

On your example of movement your mention have a move value. The Fantasy rule book uses a move value. And its movement section is indeed only 2 pages. But this only explains movement and maneuvres. If you start adding in the pages that involve terrain and other bits it adds up quickly

In the 40K rule book the rules for moving actually only cover 1 page. The movement section then includes rules for coherency and terrain. Admittadly later there are more rules for different types of models movements (beasts, bikes etc). You seem to argue that there are too many rules and they need to be simplified. Would the removal of rules for walking through terrain and unit coherency make the game simpler? Yes. Would they make the game better? Absolutly not.

Movement values are complex. You need to know that each model has a different number. This is usually defined in the models army book entry so by your definitions the gameplay aspect, not the rules. In 40K the movement values are set by the rules. The movement values are given in the rules and applied to all. Infantry M = 6" for instance.

And while talking about length of the rules....we're talking about a book that takes 7 lines to explain what a D6 is. And a further 15 lines to explain what 3D6 and D6 + 1 mean. Hell it even takes the book 14 lines to explain how to measure from one model to the next.

On the subject of beginners...I happen to have the beginners guide that comes in the Black Reach box set here. All the rules you need to have a basic game and understand how it works. The entire book is a total of 33 pages long. Of which the rules and gameplay mechanics cover....6. The rest is fluff and hobby information. I've seen staff members getitng people playing beginer games in less than 5 minutes to explain all the rules.

I'll concede...the rules can be on the complex side. But frankly...i like it that way. In a simplified world every model would move in the same manner, realistic combat simulations like terrain slowing movement would fall by wayside. Every army would be basically the same as extra rules like Power from Pain, Markerlights, And They Shall Know No Fear, We'll be Back, Synapse would have to be cut as they add too much complexity if they had to be explained from scratch in the codex. But thanks to USR's the basic knowledge behind them is known to everyone to help the "advanced" rules be introduced much more easier.

If you had to explain Power from Pain without the extra rules it would be horrific.

"So the first unit I kill with a unit gains a 2nd 4+ save take after their primary save, which is only aplied if the strength is not twice their toughness, not AP1 or 2 or never allows a save. After a second kill they gain this previous abilty and the gain one strength and Initiative during the 1st round of assault but only if they charged. A third one gives both of these and the abiltiy to automatically pass leadership tests, but if they lose combat then they take a number of wounds equal to the number they lost by."

If you'd never heard any of this that would be incomprehensable to you

With more complex background rules the explanation boils down to;

"1 kill they get FNP, 2nd kill they get FNP and Furious Charge. 3rd they get FNP, FC and are Fearless"

Much simpler

At the end of the day it comes down to peoples preferences and the way they play the game. If you are only playing friendly games in the back room of a pub somewhere, or on your dining room table the rules are not that complex. Its only when people start trying to pick the wording apart (RAW vs RAI) that the complexity becomes an issue

[Mauglum.]

Hi DrLove42.
You stll seem to mis understand, the fact is, you can achive more complex gameplay (More in game interaction and detail,) with fewer rules (less complication,)than 40k curentley has.

Lets have a quick run through and see where it goes wrong shall we.;)

Pg 2. 'The most important rules then is , the rules are not that important!'
(Blatent cop out for sloppy rules writing.:mad:)

Pg 4 UNIT TYPES.
Artificialy creates unecissary division in the rules .
There are only 2 types of units in 40k , from a game play perspective.(Discrete and Indescrete units.)
(The units you remove models from to show damage, and the unit you record damage seperatlely)

ALL other in game interaction SHOULD be covered by the units Characteristics and Special abilities.

Pg 6 Characteristics.
As 40k uses modern type units, (Skirmishing infantry with ranged weapons, and amoured vehicles.)
Then modern warfare makes for a more intuitive gameplay.
Modern warfare is a balance of mobility ,(to sieze objectives,)firepower (to control enemy movement ), and assault( to contest objectives.)

Thefore an EQUAL loading on mobility Firepower and Assault is preferable.

40k has ..

ZERO characteristics for mobility.

ONE characteristic for firepower.

FOUR characteristics for assault.

Oh dear, not very ballanced is it.:eek:

Ill quickly comment on the game turn mechanic.(Alternating game turns .)

Overly restrictive and abstracted.Reduces tactical concideration to a minimum.(And increases the focus on strategic aspects.)
And re -introducing any form of interaction requires complicated conditional rules.

In short ...
Using WHFB game mechanics for 40k is like using the rules for golf for a game football!
You may end up with a playable game, but is is never going to be as good as it could be!

Is my argument any clearer, or would you like me to post some alternative game mechanics to ilustrate my point with more clarity?