Are the 40k rules still too Clunky?

[stonehorse]

Back when we heard that GW were trimming 40k down from the colossal rules bloat it had become during 7th edition, there was almost universally rejoicing from the community.

8 months into 8th edition, and I think GW are encroaching upon their old addiction to adding in rules. Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Artifacts, faction and sub faction rules. These have all added a lot of extra moving parts that it becomes hard to keep track of what is what. Never mind any additional rules brought to the table from the mission being played.

We were promised that 8th edition would be quicker, and honestly I am not seeing it. There may be no more Universal Special Rules, but special rules still exist, and are scattered in so many different areas, that trying to find them, or keep track becomes clunky and slows the game down. With so many rules scattered around it is only natural that rules will be missed during a game, which can lead to players feeling cheated or/and annoyed.

What puzzles me is why there is a need for special rules? Surely a system should exist that allows a stat line to help demonstrate how good, average, or poor a model is?

Ultimately, there is far too much having to flick through books to find scattered information for casual play, for those who play just 40k I can imagine it is fine, for those who play a wide variety of game systems it has become a nightmare.

I really like the setting, and the models are wonderfully imaginative, however I am still finding their rules to be needlessly convoluted and I've been playing since 2nd edition.
Am I alone in this line of thought, or are there others who are coming to the same conclusion?

[mattblowers]

In short, yes.

I'm just really sad that it's become so convoluted again. They dropped USRs only to give them back under different names for every army. Sometimes they even are worded differently. It's riding season in Florida, and my son just got his first motorcycle (and I'm rebuilding an old bike as well) so my gaming has taken a back seat for a bit. My work schedule slowed my gaming down November - January (only played two tournaments) and in that short time I'm shocked by how much the game meta has shifted. Once all the new codexes drop maybe things will settle a little, but with new codexes on the horizon and a new FAQ in the next month, I suspect it will only get worse. It's hard to play well in 40K and not be absolutely immersed in it. Whether that is good or bad in the long term is hard to tell. As for now the company is doing gangbusters so I don't expect change anytime soon. I hobby heavily June-September as it just gets so blazing hot here I don't like wrenching in my garage, but until then I'll probably be a more casual player.

[nurglitch]

I like my rules like I like my women.

[nidzy]

Feb 21, 2018 15:36:48 GMT nurglitch said:

I like my rules like I like my women.

You like rules that are completely unsatisfied with your performance? hashtag zinger

[Hive Bahamut]

Too clunky? I digress.

Movement phase elimated rolling and accounting for terrain
Psychic phase was sternly beaten by a nerf to max of 6 bat.
Shooting phase has no more night fighting and everyone can split fire
Charge phase is easy to know who assaulted
Fight phase is alternating without initiative anymore

Wounding is easy to figure out
Cover mechanic is GONE
All the rules (unless Astartes) are literally on the datasheet
NO Vehicle profiles
NO immortal units anymore
NO REROLL 2++

8TH is amazing. Sure there are kinks, but that's expected with the largest overhaul of the system since.. Forever?

The BRB layout is a disaster, but it is easily my favourite edition, because stuff happens. 7th was about seeing who could field the most immortal armies. 8th Nids have some of the best Mortal Wound output.

Tyranids are great in 8th. Too many options is a good problem.

[infornography]

The problem with 40k is nothing that a good technical writer can't fix. Unfortunately GW is clearly lacking a good technical writer and their rulebooks are horribly laid out.

Really astoundingly horribly laid out.

To fully understand a specific unit when you understand the core rules perfectly (never going to happen but putting that aside) you have to reference at least 4 different sections of the codex. For some units that bloats up to a dozen due to ability to field as a warlord, looking at artifacts, various strategems, different hive fleet/chapter rules, points costs for weapons, weapons options tables, points costs for the unit without weapons, and all the info on the datasheet itself.

This could be greatly streamlined by just putting all options and points costs on the datasheet as well as all the rules that apply to the unit. Yeah warlord traits, strategems, and artifacts would get cumbersome to list on all applicable unit datasheets, but everything else easily could, sometimes without substantially increasing the page count, and I would happily sacrifice several pages elsewhere to have easier to reference rules for units.

Long story short, GW needs to hire a good technical writer or two.

[stonehorse]

What I mean by clunky isn't that the rules are too complex, but rather are inelegant, for example Space Marines Intercessors have Leadership 7, with the Sergeant increasing this to 8 for the unit. They also have 'And They Shall Know No Fear'. This results in 3 different pieces of information to remember for something as simple as how a unit responds to morale. It would be more refined to have Loyal Space Marines at Leadership 10, and would cut down on the number of dice being re-rolled.

I could be wrong, but I do suspect that Space Marines in 8th edition have far more re-roll abilities than they ever did in 7th.

[gigasnail]

still a better love story than twilight.

[Hive Bahamut]

Feb 21, 2018 22:43:56 GMT gigasnail said:

still a better love story than twilight.

My god yes.

Morale has been worked out very intricately as you need checks on casualties. The only army that has Ld10 is Necrons. This is good, as it actually makes the morale phase important. It was pointless before, or with ATSKNF which added a whole different mechanic of run and recover.

A technical writer would be a good thing. I still think they are on the right track.

Is it perfect? Nope.
Are they interacting with us to make it the game we want? Yup.
Will it ever please everyone? God no.

The layout from index to codex shows how they are trying to lay it out easy, but this is a huge undertaking on their part. Remember, even 2 years ago this is the company that could have given a rats ass about what we wanted.

[gigasnail]

the biggest thing for me is lack of official army building software ((please do not swear) battlescribe). the way points are in the back of the book is kind of annoying and while i can add and set up a spreadsheet to make things easier on myself, what i can't do is easily check my opponent's (please do not swear) list on the fly. we have a couple of folks out here that are notorious for oh, say, sliding an extra 200+ points into a list.

this needs to be addressed.

[almostmercury]

I used to reference the rulebook constantly in 7th. I barely reference it at all anymore, with a few corner cases of exact wording notwithstanding.

I understand there is a similar number of rules as before, but datasheets are much more elegant now as everything the unit does is in one place. This helps with a conceptual understanding and become easier to retain.

If the complaint amounts to, there are too many armies and each army is too complex for me to keep it all straight, then I don’t think you’ll ever be happy. Without going back to a much slower pace of codex release.

[nidzy]

Feb 21, 2018 23:53:30 GMT almostmercury said:

I used to reference the rulebook constantly in 7th. I barely reference it at all anymore, with a few corner cases of exact wording notwithstanding.

I understand there is a similar number of rules as before, but datasheets are much more elegant now as everything the unit does is in one place. This helps with a conceptual understanding and become easier to retain.

If the complaint amounts to, there are too many armies and each army is too complex for me to keep it all straight, then I don’t think you’ll ever be happy. Without going back to a much slower pace of codex release.

This sums up my feeling really well. I was super worried when I was told that 40k was getting simplified because I love the complexity of this game. It is certainly the best it has been since I started in 2009 or so(5th ed).

I want to be caught off guard by an army every now and again because I play the same 4 or 5 lists all the time. It is great to see something new. It just sucks when it happens at a GT or something

[nurglitch]

Feb 21, 2018 19:02:38 GMT infornography said:

The problem with 40k is nothing that a good technical writer can't fix. Unfortunately GW is clearly lacking a good technical writer and their rulebooks are horribly laid out.

Really astoundingly horribly laid out.

To fully understand a specific unit when you understand the core rules perfectly (never going to happen but putting that aside) you have to reference at least 4 different sections of the codex. For some units that bloats up to a dozen due to ability to field as a warlord, looking at artifacts, various strategems, different hive fleet/chapter rules, points costs for weapons, weapons options tables, points costs for the unit without weapons, and all the info on the datasheet itself.

This could be greatly streamlined by just putting all options and points costs on the datasheet as well as all the rules that apply to the unit. Yeah warlord traits, strategems, and artifacts would get cumbersome to list on all applicable unit datasheets, but everything else easily could, sometimes without substantially increasing the page count, and I would happily sacrifice several pages elsewhere to have easier to reference rules for units.

Long story short, GW needs to hire a good technical writer or two.

I'm a technical writer and it's my vaguely considered opinion that what GW is producing is good enough given whatever they're paying for it. Indeed, that's one of the skills in technical writing is producing deliverables that satisfy both the specifications and budget. Where you're doing it on a deadline then one of those is going to take the hit, and it's never the budget. I'd also say that manuals and rule-books are different beasts, in terms of use-documentation. The former isn't something you can reasonably expect users to game, for example. That said, I'm working on a game at the moment (and when I say working I mean getting miniatures into production, requisitioning artwork, and sourcing quotes for production and distribution), and I'm hoping that I can put some of my training to good use in making the rules transparent so players can concentrate on the game.

[mattblowers]

Feb 21, 2018 22:43:56 GMT gigasnail said:

still a better love story than twilight.

Worst measuring stick ever on this forum!

"Hey, at least it beats dick cancer!" said no one ever.

[almostmercury]

I’m certain that someone has said that before your post. Certain.