6th ed , reshuffle or re boot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gir

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!

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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?