Over complication of the rules

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Over complication of the rules

    So some rules are written as confusing as they possibly can be. I ran accross one recently that is particularly bad and caused several veteran and skilled players to read it wrong for several games.

    Amulet of Spite (50 pts) - Wizards only. In each friendly Magic Phase, before Siphon the Veil, the Active Player gains an additional Magic Dice. In each of the opponent’s Magic Phases, before Siphon the Veil, the Reactive Player must discard a single Magic Dice.

    I understand why this rule is written the way that it is. The problem is that it uses different words to refer to the same player. It should read "during your magic phase you gain an extra die and during the opponents magic phase you lose a magic die."

    This way you don't have a wall of text that makes it really hard to understand what is going on.

    There have been other instances of this happening that I have seen this is just the one that was most recent in my group of players.

    Let's talk about this are the rules written with too much complexity? Have you had any other examples recently?
  • Some rules border on the absurd when it comes to complexity, with 2-3 exceptions written into the same rule. ”X does Y but not for W and only for Z under B circumstance” and so on. I found a really good example last week, I’ll see if I can find it again.

    I fully understand the rationale, the team wants to make the rules abuse-proof and make it clear how they should be interpreted even in unusual circumstances, which is very good for competitive play. The downside is you’ve made a game that must be incredibly intimidating to newcomers. I only play with veterans of WHFB, but I pity the people who would need to convince new people to try the game.

    This is, I assume, a trade-off the team is aware of.
    Bear cav or riot!
  • Thorek Ironbrown wrote:

    The downside is you’ve made a game that must be incredibly intimidating to newcomers. I only play with veterans of WHFB, but I pity the people who would need to convince new people to try the game.


    This is, I assume, a trade-off the team is aware of.
    This is why the QS rules exist - the game is mostly meant to be learnt with the QS rules, but played longterm with the core rules.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

  • We have a couple of brand-spankin'-new FB players in our 9th group and the QS rules were the first step. Worked fine.

    The second step was upping the point level to 3k and having one of us vets bring a softer list, but explain why we were choosing to move, charge, cast etc as we went. We took one step at a time through the rules with lists that were more than beatable, but while learning, could still be daunting.

    After a game or two, we'd get them to look over the rule book themselves and set them up against another newer player or, if they were really taking to the game, against one of the vets with one of their proper lists.

    Worked fine, so far.
    Goblin, Daemon Legions and Empire of Sonnstahl Player and 9th Age Staffer
    Follow my journey through the world of 9th Age HERE
  • Darken wrote:

    So some rules are written as confusing as they possibly can be. I ran accross one recently that is particularly bad and caused several veteran and skilled players to read it wrong for several games.

    Amulet of Spite (50 pts) - Wizards only. In each friendly Magic Phase, before Siphon the Veil, the Active Player gains an additional Magic Dice. In each of the opponent’s Magic Phases, before Siphon the Veil, the Reactive Player must discard a single Magic Dice.

    I understand why this rule is written the way that it is. The problem is that it uses different words to refer to the same player. It should read "during your magic phase you gain an extra die and during the opponents magic phase you lose a magic die."

    This way you don't have a wall of text that makes it really hard to understand what is going on.

    There have been other instances of this happening that I have seen this is just the one that was most recent in my group of players.

    Let's talk about this are the rules written with too much complexity? Have you had any other examples recently?
    Totally agree and there are many many threads about this. The Quick starter rules is and can never be an excuse to compensate poorly written rules.

    We have been promised great improvements. Right @kisanis?
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Pellegrim wrote:

    We have been promised great improvements. Right @kisanis?
    I promised improvements - the rest is subjective ;)

    But yes, it is something we are trying hard to both make the rules easier to read, clearer, but also less ambiguous. Its a difficult task to get all 3 and not change how a rule functions or interacts with other rules - but I think every release has brought improvements.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

  • King Slayer 60 pts
    Close Combat Weapon enchantment.
    The wielder of the enchanted weapon gains +X
    Strength, +X Armour Penetration, +X Attack Value
    and Magical Attacks when attacking with it, where
    X is equal to the number of enemy Characters in base
    contact with the wielder’s unit. This bonus is calcu-
    lated and effective
    at the Initiative Step when such
    attacks are made.


    :huh:
    So the guy who has the enchanted close combat weapon which he has to use, gains a bonus when he's using that enchanted close combat weapon to attack the enemy.
    And this needs to be said within the weapon enchantment rule instead of being a core rule of how weapons function?


    Touch of Greatness 40 pts
    Close Combat Weapon enchantment.
    Attacks made with this enchanted weapon gain +1
    Strength, +1 Armour Penetration and Magical At-
    tacks.
    Strength modifiers from this weapon (combining

    both mundane and Weapon Enchantment modifiers)
    cannot exceed +2 (but can exceed +2 through modi-
    fiersfrom other sources, such as spells)
    .


    This is an overly complex way of capping strength modifiers when we could just say "Hand Weapon Enchantment" and not need any of that. But we're running into one of those seemingly arbitrary limitations so we need a clarifier which makes the rule overly complicated for some marginal benefit that most players won't see any reason for.

    Crown of Autocracy 70 pts
    The bearer gains +1 Discipline. This modifier cannot
    be used to increase the bearer’s Discipline above 10
    .
    If taken by the General, the opponent doubles the Vic-
    toryPoints bonus for killing this General (normally
    +400 instead of +200)
    .


    Some seemingly redundant reminders of how the rules function.
  • Touch of Greatness is not a Hand Weapon enchantment; it is quite useful on Light Lances, Halberds, Spears and Paired Weapons as well.

    And I think on a couple of race-specific gear items that can be enchanted generically?



    But setting those aside:

    Hand Weapon, Halberd, Light Lance, Paired Weapon and Spear enchantment

    is still probably simpler...

    ...but you can also take it on a Lance as-is and have it give you a bonus when not charging.
    But that's niche and possibly worth removing for clarity.



    Crown of Autocracy: I believe the rules allow stats to go above 10 now, actually? I've even had it come up (Vampire Count with Potion of Swiftness charging a Vengeance Seeker.).
  • Until proven otherwise, it seem inescapable given the material inherited from Warhammer Fantasy Battles: Complex and inviting to interpretations and confusion. And obviously abuse. Rules systems such as KoW, AoS and perhaps War of the Ring sport simpler rules. Given the detailed and complex rules of T9A and the long history of players having to handle rules glitches for themselves in WHFB (handled by designers in T9A), the trade-off seem bound to lie in the overcomplicated end of the spectrum, even if rules were to be brought to an optimal state of elegant and concise writing.
  • I just found a great example of the subject matter.

    Now I surmise that rules are probably the product of compromises between different teams (RT, BLT and so on). Which is probably great for balance. I suspect that it's terrible from the Point of view of keeping the rules simple.

    Enter "Favour of Nukuja, Goddess of Sloth". I guess that the rule needed to be adjusted in a way that prevents some kind of abuse (that's beyond me) or otherwise tone it down? But did you guys really think this through?

    Imagine you are someone that does not frequent tournaments or even play that often, you don't have all (or even most) of the rules in your muscle memory so to say. For someone like that this rule is terrible! When it comes time to actually look at a unit's resilience value, say in the shooting or Close combat phases, you may well have forgotten where the unit was at the start of the movement phase. Has it charged more than 10"? Moved more than 10"? Nobody knows. Worse, what if something happens that needs a resilience test in the next players turn when the unit may well have moved even further due to pursuit or whatever. So at best you have a situation where you just have to guess, at worst this leads to a dispute. In any case it slows down the game.

    "You'll just have to keep track, remember or use a marker" you say. The problem is there are already so many things to keep track of in this game, in each phase, in each combat, for each unit. You can't keep adding more! You already need a set of different markers to remember different effects on different units. Thankfully most of the time you can just check the profile when the time comes and look up the rules. But with something like this not even that can save you.

    WHFB sometimes had rules like this too. To me, it's just not good design.
    Bear cav or riot!
  • Alzam wrote:

    Just want to say that the more than 10" part is not to prevent any kind of abuse, that's the actual design of the unit. They are lazy. Why 10? Probably balance reason. Would have been simpler if it was as soon as you move or charge, but I guess they couldn't find something good with that. :/
    The problem is it feels very arbitrary and tacked on, as if there is some abuse available if it wasn't there.

    It would be better if it was something more like:
    The model gains +1 Resilience so long as it did not move more than 10" that turn

    And maybe have a bit of flavour text saying something like:
    as Najuka frowns upon those who move with haste.

    I know it's not quite the same effect and you get punished for fleeing more than 10" (but it's a dark god....why wouldn't they be capricious like that?) but it's a simpler way of getting the same effect and writing it that way doesn't feel as clunky.

    The Master of Destruction Gift has an over-explanation in it as well.
    Master of Destruction 50 pts
    The bearer can use a Shield (or a Spiked Shield) simultaneouslywith a Great Weapon or a Halberd (it doesnot gain the Special Attack from the Spiked Shieldhowever).

    It doesn't need to say the
    text in red.
    Although the Spiked Shield does need to be clearer about the hit it causes being a Special Attack and it should really just state "Shield." at the start of it's rules so we all know that it's actually a Shield and not just a thing following the rules for one but it might not be one.
    ie.
    Special Attack:
    Whenever a model that isusing the Shield simultaneously with a Hand Weapon is attacked by a Melee Attack from an enemy model in thewielder’s Front Facing, and it passes its Armour Save on a natural roll of 4+, the unit that performed the attackimmediately suffers a hit with Strength 4 and Armour Penetration 1.

    Rather than saying it's considered a Special Attack right at the very end in a separate sentence.

    It's also got a clunky "doesn't give +1 armour to large cavalry" which feels very tacked on and clunky but I haven't got an easy solution for that beyond just removing it and living with what the result of that change is.
  • I would love adding flavor for rules, unit entries and other.
    We had to specify charge, because if you charge 10", you probably actually move way more than that. Unfortunately, core rules on how charge measurement work simply don't allow that much simplicity.

    Master of destruction, I think we had questions about it, so we added the red part.

    Yea, restriction on spiked shield is what it is unfortunately, can't find a prettier way to do. Agree we should do something about special.
  • Spiked Shield and Sloth were my two biggest concerns. I didn't like them, but I can't change the rules either.
    Personally - I think a spiked shield should be +1 Attack AND a Shield (iirc the same as the ogre item?) Do I care that its the same? No. I care that it is functionally better and immensely simpler to learn, implement, and clarify.

    But I'm not rules or army design and so it didn't happen - and that's fine! (Trust me, you don't want me writing rules from scratch, or else there will be FAQ's everywhere!)

    Sloth just - I feel they should just have all their movement stats cut by half, (And/Or they charge on minimized rolls) but have their toughness upped by 1 as a balance to this (plus any points adjustments). They are tough, and they move slowly. Done.

    But that's just like, my opinion, man.

    If you like any of these (for the WDG) start a thread on the appropriate forum, and take your ACS and maybe some of the task team and get a discussion going!

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team