Why do you think that the rules are crap? They didn't change that much since third edition.
The codex rules didn't get easier either.
I think the rules have had randomisation injected to lower the skill ceiling and create an artificially level playing field. If you can only ever reach so high because of mechanical limitations in the game then once you hit that level you merely wait for others to reach it also. In 40k's situation specifically you had dice for critically 5 things - shoot to hit, strength to wound, wound saves (armour/invulnerable etc) and then vehicle damage. Charging in 5th was 6" charge for infantry and walkers, 12" for beasts or characters with special rules. Morale checks.
Now we enter 6th edition - vehicles and buildings get damage charts reworked, exploding a vehicle made a technical roll of 7, exploding a building also harder. Charges get made random (I leave it up to you to decide if predictable charge distance was a negative factor [i]pro tip; it wasn't, it's part of what made melee armies work since you could semi-reliably position yourself for charging. In today's game you can literally fail a 3" charge, you have roughly a 25% failure rate to charge distances under 5". You have a 75% failure rate to charge over 10".[/i]). Psychic powers had their failure rates increased by virtue of deny the witch shenanigans. Lots more examples. I dont need to patronise you with a comprehensive list.
Codexes weren't simplified - let's say I agree with you, but bring it back around. Introducing more random variables stamps out the peaks and troughs of player performance, eliminates the bell curve through the law of large numbers and allows GW to post official figures about win/loss ratios being within 40/55%. It was used 4 years ago and I bought it then but now I've seen where they're going with it and I no longer like it.
If anything DE are bucking the trend with their codex progression from 5th->7th.
PFP made predictable and static. Poison weapons being the great equalizer that MC and special characters fear.
And yet still it is bloated with random elements. Let's make something clear - I don't believe 40k is a game about rolling dice, dice poker and craps exist for that. I believe 40k is about two army builds being tested against one another with an enormous amount of variation made possible by dice. But that is a contradictory statement; once dice take up too much of the gameplay it breaks down the viability of special weapons, special units, tactics and strategic plays. People start hedging their bets one of two ways - predictable performance with either 3+/4+ hit rolls etc, or they start banking on being favoured by the extreme performance swings of super powered highly random abilities (like elements of the daemon codex, CSM codex, psyker power generation etc etc). I'll look at a couple of specific examples right here:
Combat drugs - technically all of these are useful but some of them aren't worth it compared to other results against given enemies. It would be better if you just paid a flat unit tax (1 or 2pts per model, with all models in a unit either having drugs or not having drugs, ICs get to choose for themselves) and then choose what drug you took before the game started with all units using drugs that game being required to use the same drugs. In other words everyone uses Grave Lotus, or Hypex but not a mix of the two. "oh but that would be OP then" no it wouldn't because randomising whether you get an appropriate benefit or not vs just outright buying the benefit for an additional cost is the just the same thing but in a less sequitous method of approach. Also giving your [i]whole army[/i] combat drugs would quickly become too expensive and you would start sacrificing it on some units to free up points for more warm bodies.
Crucible of malediction - I guarantee you've never seen a player use this more than once. And here's why - http://statistics.about.com/od/ProbHelpandTutorials/a/Probabilities-For-Rolling-Three-Dice.htm
Instead of just giving the weapon 9" of range and calling it a day, they make it totally random which for a once-per-game weapon that only affects an extremely specific kind of enemy that you had to pre-buy before the game even began and at not insignificant cost I find to be credulous. Maybe you bank on hitting at 10" and crash your IC in to a group of jetbike warlocks or whatever, you fire the weapon off and only get 5" at a probability of 3%, you hit like what, 4 of them? And then another time you're getting way too close for comfort to some grey knights, fire off at full 18" on a probability of 0.5% and curse your luck because the law of averages is fucking you right in the ass right now, with 2W models soaking up damage and maintaining full combat effectiveness with the same damage output at 50% Wounds as at 100% Wounds compared to a big squad of 1W models that you could easily have killed half of them if you had the statistically average roll just simply there for your use instead of having to roll for it. Never mind it's a shooting attack, nevermind you only get to use it once.
By reducing predictability they reduce variety - some units and weapons especially those which are too random just get dropped completely. GW says wildly swinging games where winning or losing isn't a surety until the end of the last turn is fun - yeah I bet if you're the credulous type who doesn't believe that having the better team and the better strategies should give you the higher chance of winning. But the thing is people already do compensate for the winds of fate by buttoning down and making cookie-cutter lists that lack unit variety and hinge on 1, maybe 2, maybe 3 inherent properties of constituent units to flatten the randomisation and introduce the predictability they need to formulate a winning army list.
No comments:
Post a Comment