Reply To: Crunched some numbers

[lawnor 25939xp 1]

While your maths is interesting, it ignores the actual rules.  It ignores that models have more abilities than just their stats.  It ignores the table and what can be on it.  It ignores any scenarios. It is built on the principle that all units are different.  I have tried some games before where I have truly felt that most of the units are basically the same and the differences are fluff and visual.  I’m sure its a useful statistic, but I suspect it needs a better name than complexity.  Populous Complexity?  Scope/Scale of range?

Perhaps it need some kind of multiplier factored in to make it more a measure of Complexity?  An X where X is between 0 and 1, where 0 is perfect understanding without even needing to see the rules, and 1 is the rules are infinitely complex and written to be impossible to understand what the author was trying to say.  Also factor in how complex it is to play and track the play.  If you were to develop this idea further, then perhaps we use current edition 40k as our defining starting point for this and set that to 0.5 and measure everything else relative to that?

Even then, this would be an oversimplification.  Maybe we need to measure complexity of the different factors: Rules complexity, rules presentation and access, ease of play for first few games, ease of play after 20+ games, scale and variation of range, etc, and then come up with a combined stat that might not weigh them all equally.