Alright everyone, here are the results from the 2022 Warhammer “X-Edition” Survey. As a reminder, the purpose of this survey was to reflect back on editions past and current in an effort to understand the overall perception of each edition of 40k and shine a light on what people liked or didn’t like about a given edition. There’s no shortage of conversation across online 40k communities about what worked well (or not), and this survey is an opportunity to put some numbers behind the discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------- Basic information about the survey:
Survey opened: September 2, 2022 Survey closed: September 30, 2022 (last submission Sept 28) Responses: 397 -------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly, the survey asked questions across the following categories:
Player/Community Demographics Included questions related to how they heard about the survey (e.g. dakka dakka vs reddit), the extent to which players are driven or motivated by competitive play, narrative play, or modeling aspects of the hobby. Also explores where players play, their frequency, and the format of games they play
Edition Plays & Cohorts Questions about the editions that players have played and the volume of games played under a given edition. The results of these questions are used to form players into “cohorts” of players that share a similar pattern of editions played. Cohorts are a useful way of exploring how different groups of respondents respond to certain other questions.
Armies Played (pending) Questions about what armies players played across a given edition. Full analysis is pending, raw results can be viewed in the result viewer.
Edition Ratings These are questions that break down the “overall” ratings that players gave to editions of 40k. Ratings are based on a 1-5 scale, which can be translated into an index by assigning point value to the responses as follows:
-2 : Did not like it at all! -1 : Take it or leave it, some parts okay, some parts bad 0: Decent but certainly not perfect +1: Great overall, some minor quibbles +2: Loved it! A favorite edition!
Game Aspects A series of ten (10) game aspects were identified, and respondents were asked to identify which aspects they DID LIKE for a given edition and what aspects they did NOT LIKE for a given edition. These aspects included:
* Core rules overall (clarity, depth, complexity) * Codex complexity and structure * Codex unit and option diversity, types of army lists * Relative balance and power between factions * Mission design and game formats * Lore and fluffy rules * Level of competitiveness / the competitive scene * Narrative focused gameplay / campaigns * Depth of tactics and strategy on the battlefield * Strategy in assembling a strong army
Rule Opinions 41 different rules were listed, and respondents could rate how well they liked or disliked a given rule. In many cases, alternative rules were presented in side-to-side questions, in order to draw comparisons between preferences over a similar mechanical system that was handled using different rules across editions.
First item is the breakdown of where people found out about the survey, a rough approximation for the different online communities respondents may be part of.
Reddit provided the largest group of respondents, after posting on r/warhammer and r/warhammercompetitive. But DakkaDakka was not too far behind.
I was interested in seeing if there was much of a difference between the two communities in terms of their overall tendency towards competitive versus narrative play, and the importance placed on modeling/painting. Hence the series of three charts below:
Reddit has almost triple the number of self-identified high competitive players (competitiveness 4 and 5) compared to DakkaDakka, which sees itself as less competitive. The numeric index for Reddit is 3.12 versus 2.44 for Dakka.
In contrast, when it comes to narrative play it leans more towards DakkaDakka, with DakkaDakka averaging 3.67 versus reddit at 3.18. Other communities average around 3.5.
The last charts looks at the importance of painting and modeling as a driver for engagement in the hobby. This was actually the strongest factor across all three communities, with the average being over 4.0 for every community! This wasn't a result I was expecting - but I suppose it isn't too surprising at the end of the day.
------------------------------------------------------------- Edition Plays & Cohorts -------------------------------------------------------------
There's a few thing to unpack here, so let's break it down.
First is a simple chart of which editions of 40k each respondent played. You can see the breakdown below and the % of total respondents that reporting playing each edition.
For context, it's important to note that over 85% of respondents played 9th edition, about 78% played 8th, and 3rd-7th edition hovered in the 50-60% range. 2nd edition was played by only a third of respondents (I'm surprised it was that high actually!) and over 16% had played rogue trader (even more surprised!).
It is worth pointing out that the higher rates of responses to questions pertaining to 9th edition have the potential to skew results, where the volume of results matters to the assessment. In many cases, scores and responses were "normalized" relative to the number of edition players, presenting %'s instead of direct numbers.
The next chart was a quick comparison looking at a given edition and seeing ow frequently players of that edition also played other editions. See below:
Ultimately, all of this information fed into the establishment of "cohorts" - which are different groups of respondents organized into unique, non-overlapping groupings, based the pattern of editions they had played.
The cohort breakdown is below:
* Note the numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of respondents within each cohort.
Unsurprisingly, most people and most cohorts have played 8th/9th edition - and certainly there is some bias here as active players are the one's more likely to be in online 40k communities and apt to see the survey. So results for things do skew towards familiarity with 8th/9th edition.
The cohort descriptions are thus.
Legends: These are players that started with 1st or 2nd edition and have played across each era up to and included the modern 8th/9th ed era. Surprised to see so many 1st/2nd edition players
Oldtimers: Similar to above, but they missed out on 1st and 2nd edition. Players would've started in 3rd or 4th edition.
Veterans: Essentially the people that started in 5th edition and kept playing up through the current modern era.
Youngbloods: Started in 6th/7th edition (poor saps!) and stuck with it into the modern era.
Initiates: Started playing in 8th/9th. I'm surprised (but not surprised) that this cohort is as big as it is. There was a lot of buzz about 8th edition and big reset, and I think a lot of veteran players were roping newer players into the hobby, which may explain the relative size of this cohort despite the relative newness of the applicable editions.
Revivalists: This is a decent size cohort of people that are playing 8th/9th, but skipped 6th/7th after playing some combination of earlier editions/eras of 40k. Basically, it is older vets turned off by the churn and direction of 6th that dropped the game, only to come back in 8th or 9th edition.
Gap Yearists: People that played during 6th/7th and 8th/9th and in at least one or two other eras, but which had a "gap" somewhere in their history.
Classicists: These is the group of people falling into a range of different combinations (and is only 25 people in total) that haven't played 8th/9th edition at all, but have played some other combination of older editions that don't fall into any of the above categories.
Here's (probably) the moment you've been waiting for. How do the editions stack up!?
First up is just the raw responses broken down by the numbers of each response option, for each edition:
The bottom row of the chart lists the "weighted overall score" (which I sometimes call an index) for each edition. Values over 0.0 (positive numbers) are overall good ratings, whereas negative numbers are overall.... not good.
From this, we can see that 2nd edition (gasp!) was most liked, at a 0.50 index score. 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition were close behind however, at 0.47, 0.46, and 0.48 respectively.
6th and 7th edition dipped hard into the negative territory (-0.44 and -0.68 respectively).
8th and 9th edition were overall positive, but were quite a bit closer to the 0 zero mark (0.17 and 0.08 respectively).
My takeaway from this is that, especially for 9th edition, being the closest to "0" means that the community overall is fairly divided over the game. Yes, it leans slightly positive but the numbers of people that "don't like it at all" is very close to the number of people that "love it" - and these are fairly high quantities in both cases. This quantifies a bit of the tension and frustration we see in the community over 9th edition. This is quite a bit different compared to 7th edition, which a clear majority of people dislike for example.
Drilling further into these ratings, I wanted to understand more about "who" liked or disliked a given edition, which is where the cohorts come in.
The chart below assess the total edition rating score for each edition across each relevant cohort.
There are some strong and interesting observations to make about this data.
#1 In shifting from 8th to 9th edition, the rating went down for every cohort except the "initiates." The initiates are people that have only played 8th or 9th edition games. Given the relative streamlining that the 8th edition "reset" brought about, I wonder for this group (which doesn't have pre-8th experience) if the added refinements to the core rules coupled with more perceived depth and detail in the rules/codexes was seen as a positive. In contrast, for every other cohort that may have lived through a "bloat" phase in the rules, they perceived this complexity creep in a more negative light. This is speculation, but I think it's interesting.
#2 The Old-timers that started in 3rd/4th edition really liked 5th edition, with an index score of 0.72 (and this was the second highest positive index score). I see many expressing the sentiment of 5th being the "best" of the classic period and a highwater mark, and for people most rooted in the classic 3rd-7th edition eras, it's easy to see why they'd gravitate towards 5th. What's interesting however is that the Legends cohort favors 5th quite a bit less, and veterans that started in 5th score it even less.
#3 Speaking of veterans, this group is interesting, They started with 5th, yet didn't rate it all that high (0.18). 6th and 7th were of course negatively rated, but this group places 8th and 9th edition above 5th (and remember too 5th is the overall favored still).
#4 Similarly, the Revivalists and Gap Yearists place 8th and 9th a bit higher. For the Revivalists, 3rd edition was a highwater mark (preference for a newly streamlined gameplay?) and each subsequent edition went further and further downhill until 8th kicked things back up (only for it to go downhill again with 9th!).
#5 The classicists have a strong liking for 4th edition, and the biggest dislike of 8th and 9th edition of any cohorts. Technically, Classicists by their cohort definition should not be rating 8th/9th since they didn't play it to a significant degree. Maybe they are just haters on principal!
------------------------------------------------------------- Game Aspects -------------------------------------------------------------
The game aspects questions will let us dig a little more into big picture aspects of why people did or didn't like a given edition. The charts presented below show the "net" positive (or negative) result for each aspect across each edition.
Aspects 1-5
Unsurprisingly 6th and 7th fares poorly across the board.
In terms of balance, we see that 9th edition (and to a lesser extent 8th) trends negatively on "Relative Balance of Factions." I do sometimes wonder if balance discussions have become more angsty over the years and a source of complaint, or whether imbalances are just felt more under 9th edition because the game caters to and supports more of a "matched play" and competitive environment? Maybe? Balance was highest during 3rd edition and nearly neutral during 5th.
I think 9th edition should get kudos for its mission design, as clearly that's a strength of the edition, with the matched play, narrative, and open war missions providing some great formats. I feel like people are generally discussing the missions in a favorable light these days. Still, 2nd through 5th edition also scored relatively well.
I was surprised to see the classic 3rd-5th edition core rules score better than 8th/9th edition, despite my personal beef with the oversimplification of 8th/9th rules. But 3rd-5th was posting nearly double the net positive rating.
Another knock on 9th edition that stands out is the codex complexity and structure, which was quite low. 9th edition codexes give me a headache to read, so I concur with the results
Aspects 6-10
Here we go on the next set of 5 aspects.
Lore and fluffy rules puts 2nd edition at the top of the pile, although 3rd-5th wasn't far behind. I'm sort of surprised to see 9th edition (and 8th) being so much lower. There are a lot of rules layered into codexes, but maybe the feeling is that these aren't realty that thematically unique. A personal critique of mine is that a lot of the things in 9th that are passed off as "fluff" are really just the same set of die roll modifiers or re-roll triggers given a unique name. But I digress.
I was hoping that 9th would score higher on the narrative-focused gameplay, since the crusade system appears to be a well-loved method of play and is more of fully-featured progression that we've had before, with lots of campaign support for it. It scores about in the same range as 1st-5th edition.
Last, when it comes to battlefield tactics and army strategy, 8th and 9th score quite a bit below 3rd-5th edition on both fronts. 5th edition, for the record, has the highest "tactics on the battlefield" score, which aligns with much of the community sentiment when it comes to gameplay.
Aspects Overall I think overall these aspects highlight some of the major perceived strengths and weaknesses across the editions, and help explain the overall ratings a bit more.
In this section of the survey, it asked for people's reactions to specific mechanics in the rules, in many cases separate questions for ways that different editions handled a given mechanic (e.g., were charge distances fixed or variable based on rolling a 2D6, and which did people like/dislike). As a summary of this section, the chart below provides the total index score for each of the individual rules in question.
As with other indexes, positive numbers indicate a preference and good outlook towards the item, whereas a negative number indicates something people dislike overall.
Here's the detailed results:
MEASUREMENT METHODS
I'm a little surprised here. I assumed most people preferred freely measuring ranges, but I didn't think it would be quite such a stark contrast. Revivalists seemed to like it the most, relatively speaking, but overall was a negative for all groups.
LINE OF SIGHT METHODS
Lots of discussion happening below on Line of Sight. Overall, the results are quite close here, being slightly positive for TLOS and slightly negative for more abstract. I think based on the discussion the truth is that the "devil is in the details" and there are things that make either approach work well or be totally broken. People clearly don't like TLOS when you can shoot an antenna by drawing LoS from tail pipe or whatever, but when TLOS is working properly, I feel like it gets more favorable reception.
The reality too is that most editions have actually been a blending of the approaches in many ways.
DIE ROLLING METHODS
This one is interesting, because between the two big options, no one seems particularly enamored. The "general avoidance" of die roll modifiers is more preferred, but its still trending negative. Interestingly the "Legends" players really don't like avoiding modifiers - maybe because they cut their teeth with 1st/2nd edition that was chock full of them?
WOUNDING AND DAMAGE
This is an instance where the 8th/9th rule direction trends negative, whereas older editions trend positive. Based on conversations in recent years, I do think there's frustrating tied into the new paradigm of "everything has a chance to wound everything!" and the positive response for the old damage chart maybe reflects that. That said, I didn't ask a question directly about the "new" wounding chart - maybe for next time.
SAVING THROWS, COVER
This is another topic where the items hover around the 0.0 line, where roughly equal numbers of people like and don't like a selected approach. Splitting hairs a bit, but a modifier system for armor pen and the effects of cover is slightly positive, whereas the 3rd-7th edition model of cover providing an invulnerable save and armor pen automatically negating armor trends a little negative. The closeness results still leaves a fair number of people dissatisfied, so it's an area for improvement in the future.
VEHICLE ARMOR & DAMAGE
This is another case where the newer 8th/9th paradigm fared more poorly. In conversations, I feel that people want/like the idea of "vehicles acting like vehicles" with armor facings having some impact on how vehicles are damaged being a part of the rules, versus just treating vehicles the same as other models or monstrous creatures.
MORALE
This one is a big swing from +0.5 for the older style of morale with units falling back to the newer approach at -0.5 for attrition effects on failed models. The latter, IMHO, is a "feelsbad" moment where your unit suffers additional loses in response to already suffering loses just feels wrong.
I didn't get into any questions about sweeping advance rules however, as those changed a few different ways over the course of editions. Probably worth asking about next time, as the "feelsbad" element of the older morale rules is that a unit caught in a sweeping advance is insta-wiped, which doesn't feel great either.
BLAST WEAPONS
Over there the years there has been no shortage of complaining about blast weapons, templates, scattering, determining if models are fully/partially under the template etc. And much of these seems to be that it was a "fuzzy" aspect of the design that often led to arguments and debates. I get it. What's interesting is that people like the 8th/9th edition way of handling blast weapons even less! There are more that "don't like the 8th/9th way at all" than there are that don't like the old system (84 vs 66). The old way wasn't perfect, but perhaps needed more refinement as opposed to being tossed entirely.
CHARGING AND ASSAULT
Oh the assault phase... Maybe we're starting to see a trend here, but the older style fixed charges were again preferred over the new random charge distances. Personally, I'm not sure why GW is so wedded to the idea of random charges. It seems to be an effort to avoid having edge rules to deal with things like charging from deepstrike being too powerful, so they build in a fail chance. But why not just add something to those specific instances instead of adding a fail chance in for a basic unit action? I digress...
Using an initiative stat seems well received.
DEEP STRIKE
Deepstrike. Oh deepstrike. Such a fun concept crippled by basically poor implementation across most editions. Respondents had a slight positive preference for the 8th/9th non-scatter deepstrike rules (0.1), whereas the older 3rd-7th edition version has a slightly negative preference (-0.2).
Based on conversations and comments, I feel like the dislike for the older system was less about the scattering and more about the possibility for "mishaps" just resulting in a unit being outright deleted. Couple that feelsbad possibility with not having the possibility of charging after a deepstrike either (which 8th/9th allows if you roll well-enough on the charge roll).
SIDE NOTE: Horus Heresy 2.0 rules a modified classic deepstrike role where a "misshap" result lets your opponent redeploy your deepstriking unit within 18" of the original location. Great idea! (cough... I swear this was lifted from ProHammer!)
TURN STRUCTURE
Not much love for the IGOUGO turn structure, but a pretty strong positive opinion on the idea of "reactions" as a way to mix up the turn structure. HH2.0 may have tapped into this with their proper reaction system.
Command Points are one of the most disliked element in the survey. Strong dislike across the board, but the Legends and Oldtimers (and Revivalists) in particular really dislike it.
A dedicated psychic phase is surprisingly positive - which is a bit curious to me since there's been a lot of complaining about the fiddliness of psychic phases over the years. Need to drill into this one more.
FORCE ORGANIZATION
The first comparison is a standard force organization chart versus the multiple-detachment approach used in 8th/9th. Overall, strong (0.5) preference for a standard force org versus disfavor (-0.4) for the multiple detachment system. Perhaps the latter is just too convoluted of a system and/or allows players to skirt around taking a "balanced" force and opens the door to more skew? Not sure, but something worth drilling into.
Formations... Ugh... people really don't like these (another highly negative preference).
The last two, "Sub-Faction Rules / Traits" and "Special Detachment Rules" are interesting. The former is fairly well-received (0.5) whereas the latter trends a bit negative (-0.2). If I had to make a prediction, liking the former is because it gives you an ability to tailor your force at an army-wide level and make something unique feeling. The detachment level rules are disliked, perhaps because they are perceived as a "layer too many" and also intersects with the general dislike of multiple-detachments discussed above.
ARMY CONSTRUCTION
This one is about the most straight forward item. Power level: bad. Points: good. Can we ditch power level already?
MISSION SCORING AND OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------------- Written Comments -------------------------------------------------------------
My analysis of this is forthcoming. I have detailed results, by cohort, for each of the 41 items on this list, but that will be a bear to work through and I'll save that for an update in the near future. In the meantime, you can browse the auto-generated charts here if you want a preview of rule opinion results. You just won't get my commentary yet
The rule opinions seem super contentious, you're really never going to make people happy when you're writing a core rules book.
Even within codex design, there are some haters of the sub-faction system but it seems like there are still a lot of fans also, I'd love to see the spread on that, are most people ambivalent or are there two strong camps? Despite my constant gripes on Dakka about sub-factions, I gave more of an ambivalent answer, but I guess I have also made numerous posts about how I'd change, use or expand the system. 30/30/122/98/98 seems way more positive than the number 0,54 seems to indicate, removing the rules on bloat charges alone seems wrong when so many like or love them.
40k competitive rejected my polls, I'm pretty sure they were a lot more relevant than your poll as well *grumple grumple*.
I guess I'm weird in the I like 2nd the most followed directly behind by pre-SM2.0 8th. They're completely opposite in almost all metrics but I would play either one right now...over 9th especially.
The rules results are interesting, although a bit tricky. Like the hate for Strats is real, but I also often see the opinion that Strats could be fine if they weren't so overdone. It's harder to get nuance from polls like that, but it's still interesting to see your results.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: I guess I'm weird in the I like 2nd the most followed directly behind by pre-SM2.0 8th. They're completely opposite in almost all metrics but I would play either one right now...over 9th especially.
I agree that those were two high points for the game. That little period in 8th isn't gonna be reflected in the data, but I've seen that positive sentiment about it numerous times.
The rules results are interesting, although a bit tricky. Like the hate for Strats is real, but I also often see the opinion that Strats could be fine if they weren't so overdone. It's harder to get nuance from polls like that, but it's still interesting to see your results.
Racerguy180 wrote: I guess I'm weird in the I like 2nd the most followed directly behind by pre-SM2.0 8th. They're completely opposite in almost all metrics but I would play either one right now...over 9th especially.
I agree that those were two high points for the game. That little period in 8th isn't gonna be reflected in the data, but I've seen that positive sentiment about it numerous times.
If you click the link you'll see a lot of written opinions with more nuanced takes, although a lot of people just want Stratagems gone entirely, the most common wish for the system to change was to have no more than 10 Strats per player. A lot of competitive players are actually saying 9th is in that phase right now because of the relatively tight balance spread before the balance dataslate, although who knows if the balance dataslate has somehow ruined that now.
Racerguy180 wrote: I guess I'm weird in the I like 2nd the most followed directly behind by pre-SM2.0 8th. They're completely opposite in almost all metrics but I would play either one right now...over 9th especially.
What makes you prefer 8th over 9th? Is it combat doctrines?
Pre-measuring is far more popular than the opposite, but people prefer TLOS. Far more favour for vehicle facings playing a role than not. Morale is liked more than 'attrition'. Far more favour for blast markers/scattering than rando hits (that surprises me...).
Massive difference between liking Power Level vs liking points (kinda obvious when you think about it, despite one or two holdouts at Dakka), and slightly positive towards "old size" tables, rather than GW's stupid ones.
What makes you prefer 8th over 9th? Is it combat doctrines?
Honestly it's the over-complication that 9th brought Fundamentally. I happened to really like strats, until units were built around using them. But the OVER proliferation and power of them is what just killed my interest. 2.0 ramped it up, PA took it and said "nuh ungh" not even close and 9th has taken that to the MAX(tm). But yes, doctrines are a tad too much and in the couple dozen (compared to the 5-600 i played in 8th)games of 9th I've played, I've totally forgotten to do them and it would not have changed the outcome(positive or negative).
With every rules release, 9th has clearly not been the game for me. 30k & specialist games have my undivided attention, I've even pivoted away from 40k for my Slanneshi daemons, Traitor Guard & EmpChild. My Squats coming back couldn't even drag me back, oh wait...They're not Squats(is that too soon?)
So spitballing again, you could take the 5th Ed system (no hull points), but do something like have each penetrating hit cause a cumulative +1 on the damage table for all successive glancing/penetrating hits (marked by some damage token on the vehicle). No glancing a tank to death from full health, but a tank that'd already eaten two penetrating hits would be in real danger of getting knocked out by even a glancing hit, and be very unlikely to survive a third penetrating hit.
One big problem with the hull point system was that it existed *in addition* to the damage table. Essentially you were having weapons damaged, crew shaken, etc, while also losing wounds immediately. It made it so vehicles were fairly squishy, as even marines just swinging their fists could glance AV10 on a lucky roll.
Since Mezmorki asked us to port this conversation over i needed to touch on these two points before we move on to the results.
The 5th ed damage chart is actually fine. there were already modifiers to the result-
AP 1 added the +1 as did open topped. on a pen hit it means you were doing serious damage on a 2+ only doing minor damage on a 1 considering this is also the roll to fail to hurt any non-vehicle model regardless of toughness it is a pretty fair comparison. especially considering all vehicles aside from superheavies only really have a single wound. there is also the immersive aspect of real world damage to vehicles that our minds can understand. 5th is all about bringing the right tool to the right fight and in the case of vehicle also getting into the right positioning. glancing hits represented minor damage and thus were reduced in severity. That being said as somebody who STILL regularly plays 5th ed with zero changes to the vehicle damage chart. destroying vehicles or making them less effective through damage happens quite often. some posters here have far removed memories of 5th where they seem to think the vehicle damage chart was too resilient when it really was not.
On the matter of hull points-
Yes, it was a horrible implementation of a bad idea (and a pet peeve of mine) that could have been good. It effectively punished players in 40K games for bringing vehicles with 2 sets of damage charts. the fact that both glancing and pen results stripped them without a roll to confirm or some other mechanic made them overly effective.
A fine comparison of how it could have been done well is DUST 1947. it uses a "wound" mechanics and an armor class system (similar to toughness). Vehicles are represented from the light end to the super heavy end by classes of 1-7 and corresponding wounds/hull points go up from 2-10+. however, it adds in the mitigating factors as the armor class goes up most guns become less and less effective (getting less shots/damage per shot) so that by the time you get to class 4 (medium vehicles like a sherman) things like small arms cannot even hurt them compared to say an open topped vehicle that is class 2/3 (like a halftrack). whereas anti-armor weapons put out the damage at a higher scale per shot through all the classes. vehicles can only ever get a cover save. so, there is no save mechanic to worry about.
Now that i have had time to dig through the results-
#2
The Old-timers that started in 3rd/4th edition really liked 5th edition, with an index score of 0.72 (and this was the second highest positive index score). I see many expressing the sentiment of 5th being the "best" of the classic period and a highwater mark, and for people most rooted in the classic 3rd-7th edition eras, it's easy to see why they'd gravitate towards 5th. What's interesting however is that the Legends cohort favors 5th quite a bit less, and veterans that started in 5th score it even less.
This pretty well checks out with my experience. i think the big difference of how much those of us who started in 3rd and played continuously VS those who started with 5th is that we got to see the generally positive improvements in gameplay. it is much like players who i have taught who only knew 8th ed onward. once they understand it may use many of the same minis it is effectively a completely different game. it becomes a fresh and new way to play 40K to them. i also often get questioned as to why GW would do something they see as bad like removing built in unit traits, options/access to the armory etc... since it was so much more fun.
Overall, the last chart i was pretty much in agreement with except for 4 things
. scoring at the end encourages players to play to the end
. psychic power usage used to be so intuitive...having it in its own phase just clogs up game flow
. the risk of deep strike is an enjoyable strategic part of the game.
. the all or nothing armor saves/cover saves. one (of many) reason i avoided WHFB because i disliked the armor reduction modifiers. porting it over to 40K was a huge turn off.
Thanks for sharing the analysis of the results. I was expecting 3rd and 8th to lead for "Great but some minor quibbles" since those were the editions where everyone at least started off on the same playing field (armies in the rulebook / indexes).
Little disappointed people prefer TLOS. Being able to shoot a tank because you can see its antenna or spiky bit behind a hill has always been my most disliked portion of recent 40k. Then again if many respondents started in edition where TLOS was standard they may not know anything else.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Thanks for sharing the analysis of the results. I was expecting 3rd and 8th to lead for "Great but some minor quibbles" since those were the editions where everyone at least started off on the same playing field (armies in the rulebook / indexes).
Little disappointed people prefer TLOS. Being able to shoot a tank because you can see its antenna or spiky bit behind a hill has always been my most disliked portion of recent 40k. Then again if many respondents started in edition where TLOS was standard they may not know anything else.
Well, when TLOS was first introduced you had to see the body/hull of the model. wings, antenna, spiky bits didn't count and could not be shot at. also, the firing weapon had to actually draw LOS to the target. not the right front fender of a repulsor being able "see" you and then fire all its guns at you through terrain and tank alike.
I am shocked and disappointed that people dislike abstracted line of sight. As far as I am concerned TLOS can go die in a fire. 4th is still the high water mark (to me and of editions I've played) of line of sight and terrain rules.
Mildly surprised about Deep Strike, I'm a bit more neutral on this than line of sight but it is still interesting to me that people prefer being able to place the unit with no risk. If it has to be the "just place it" way I kind of prefer OPR's version of it where you can plop a unit down risk free but its at the very start of the battle round and alternate activations means your opponent can still play around the unit.
I think the dislike for abstract line of sight comes from the rather bad version of it in 4th with TLOS in 5th being a real upgrade making things easier (but it went downhill from that)
like, a size 3 Land Raider on a size 3 Hill could not draw line of sight over another size 3 Land Raider standing in front of the hill because height was capped at 3
I find the Los thing interesting as I think most players play a more abstract version anyway.
As well as depends on what games you have played with different system using the different versions.
kodos wrote: I think the dislike for abstract line of sight comes from the rather bad version of it in 4th with TLOS in 5th being a real upgrade making things easier (but it went downhill from that)
like, a size 3 Land Raider on a size 3 Hill could not draw line of sight over another size 3 Land Raider standing in front of the hill because height was capped at 3
You would be incorrect i suggest you look at the rules again. the size category was only for the size the area terrain needed to be to HIDE the vehicle behind. LOS could still be drawn past the vehicle over the hull. i know this because this issue came up with a known cheater at our FLGS who tried to use the argument in 2 games in a row.
4th ed main rule book specifically addresses vehicles- PG 20 "A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a models eye view to determine if you can see past them."
Area terrain was blocking LOS unless you were in the terrain and less than 6" back (DUST uses the same abstract rule but it is only 4" thank Andy Chambers for inserting the rule there when he wrote the 3d terrain rules for DUST tactics).
Most 28mm games (save DUST) that i know all use TLOS or some form of it for most things warmachine uses a base sized cylinder with a fixed height for the base sizes for speed of play, infinity also has a fixed model height so that epic posed models do not grant an advantage/disadvantage. otherwise, both these games require a model's eye view. BFG requires post to post LOS to be able to see an enemy ship and so on.
aphyon wrote: You would be incorrect i suggest you look at the rules again
does not matter, if the original rules were meant to be different and actually had True Line of Sight, it was ignored (but I have to check it) as this was the way it was played here (in Clubs and Tournaments) and and also were the hate for abstract line of sight came from
models block LOS and max height is 3, a Land Raider cannot see past another Land Raider not matter what
I am looking at the English language rulebook, i am not sure how it got translated where you are at, but it is very clear in my rulebook as i quoted above.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Thanks for sharing the analysis of the results. I was expecting 3rd and 8th to lead for "Great but some minor quibbles" since those were the editions where everyone at least started off on the same playing field (armies in the rulebook / indexes).
Little disappointed people prefer TLOS. Being able to shoot a tank because you can see its antenna or spiky bit behind a hill has always been my most disliked portion of recent 40k. Then again if many respondents started in edition where TLOS was standard they may not know anything else.
My experience with GW's abstract LOS rules was a Carnosaur riding Saurus hiding behind a loose formation of Skinks. I'll take my TLOS and forge a narrative. Short and stupid is better than lengthy and stupid.
The real problem with the return to TLOS in 5th was the sudden ability to see through what was formerly area terrain, such as forests and ruins. Absolutely awful development for the importance of maneuvering. So in 5th high powered weapons were distributed at higher rates, and simultaneously LOS blocking terrain was reduced. No wonder the "leafblower" became a thing.
I know my group, over the years, basically used a hybrid solution to LOS rules that felt intuitive to us and kept the positional aspect of the game interesting. It's basically what we formalized into ProHammer, but the short version is:
The system mostly uses TLOS, but clearly defines that LOS is based on the "body" of figurine models and the "hull" of vehicle models. When it comes to the origin point, LOS is measured from head of a figurine model and the axis/pivot point of a weapon mounted on a vehicle. This addresses all of the weirdness about shooting an antenna from the vantage point of an exhaust pipe.
Next, in terms of terrain determinizing which models are in LOS, True LOS is needed, with the one big exception that more than 6" of area terrain (up to the height of the terrain piece) blocks line of sight automatically.
What this means is that things are largely what you see is what you get. If you have a piece of area terrain with a big opaque wall/object that you have a model hidden behind, even if its within 6" of the edge they are still out of "true" LOS (as logically they would be). But then the 6" rule kicks in for models that might be visible but are assumed to be crawling around dense terrain. It works well.
I think part of 4th and 5th editions' popularity could also stem from that being (IIRC) when Cities of Death and Apocalypse came out. I know I had lots of fun playing with that stuff.
aphyon wrote: I am looking at the English language rulebook, i am not sure how it got translated where you are at, but it is very clear in my rulebook as i quoted above.
checked my book: infantry only blocks LOS in close combat unless the shooting unit is larger (size 3), vehicles always block LOS (you cannot see thru them) unless anti-grav and in any case you only have free LOS if the shooting unit or the target unit is larger than anything between them
Tannhauser42 wrote: I think part of 4th and 5th editions' popularity could also stem from that being (IIRC) when Cities of Death and Apocalypse came out. I know I had lots of fun playing with that stuff.
I played the first Cityfight quite a bit, it was pretty solid. I never played the second one, although I thought it might have introduced too many extra rules.
vict0988 wrote: The rule opinions seem super contentious, you're really never going to make people happy when you're writing a core rules book.
So I've uploaded the detailed breakdown for each ruling and added it to the original post.
Also below, I was curious to "tally" up the rulings that were distinct within editions for purposes of comparison. The chart below is updated and I've flagged things unique to 9th edition versus those unique to 4th and tallied it up. It's not a perfect comparison, but you can see the the total trends negative for 9th, and positive for 4th. If you add in some of the things that both editions have, I think both end up positive, with 4th leaning more positive.
Going back to the individual rule results added to the OP, there are items that have more of an expected "bell curve" result, versus those that show a split/rift in opinion. You can have a 0.0 rating because it's a perfect bell curve or because you have equal numbers hating and liking a given mechanic and no one in the middle. So seeing those results should provide more clarity and context for the responses.
Averages out to 0,032 and 0,072, if you just add up the numbers you could change the outcome with the addition or removal of a couple of questions. I think the use of the term specialist detachments is also misleading because that is an actual thing in 9th and we could make armies out of anything in 6th-8th without those.
You're not going to make everyone happy by sticking with 9th or going back to 4th and you're not going to make everyone happy by making even the best possible Franken edition of all the most popular mechanics and none of the unpopular mechanics because some people like the unpopular mechanics and some people dislike the popular mechanics.
I think we have to deal with the question of how much we want to care about what other people think and how much we want to trust our own intuition because design by committee can end up horrible as well as a design that takes no input on what people generally find preferable to play with.
There needs to be a red thread in a the game's design, putting a horse breeding mechanic into Cookie Clicker's world of clicking cookies to automate cookie clicking wouldn't work even if adding that to Total Warhammer's knights of Camelot faction Bretonnia might work out really well. The question isn't necessarily whether Stratagems are good or bad but how does including Stratagems help or hurt whatever your game is trying to do?
vict0988 wrote: Averages out to 0,032 and 0,072, if you just add up the numbers you could change the outcome with the addition or removal of a couple of questions. I think the use of the term specialist detachments is also misleading because that is an actual thing in 9th and we could make armies out of anything in 6th-8th without those.
You're not going to make everyone happy by sticking with 9th or going back to 4th and you're not going to make everyone happy by making even the best possible Franken edition of all the most popular mechanics and none of the unpopular mechanics because some people like the unpopular mechanics and some people dislike the popular mechanics.
I think we have to deal with the question of how much we want to care about what other people think and how much we want to trust our own intuition because design by committee can end up horrible as well as a design that takes no input on what people generally find preferable to play with.
There needs to be a red thread in a the game's design, putting a horse breeding mechanic into Cookie Clicker's world of clicking cookies to automate cookie clicking wouldn't work even if adding that to Total Warhammer's knights of Camelot faction Bretonnia might work out really well. The question isn't necessarily whether Stratagems are good or bad but how does including Stratagems help or hurt whatever your game is trying to do?
I'm not intending this to set up a justification for a frankenstein edition. And I fully acknowledge that a given ruleset won't make everyone happy. However, I do think designing the game intentionally towards design objectives while trying to minimize the volume of strongly-negative reactions to parts of the design is probably a good thing. The volume of negativity around bad design decisions in 7th edition (i.e. formations) tended to drown out any of the positives, and I feel like we're headed in a similar direction with 9th between the command points/stratagem system, layering of codex rules, etc.
As a criticism against the survey, the questions around the force organization were pretty nebulous and vague, and could've been spelled out more clearly for sure.
I'm surprised that sub-faction rules are o positively popular, expected them to be neutral as sub-faction rules are one of those layered rules that greatly expanded complexity and messed with balance.
But I guess people like "bloat" if it gives them greater identity.
Tyran wrote: I'm surprised that sub-faction rules are o positively popular, expected them to be neutral as sub-faction rules are one of those layered rules that greatly expanded complexity and messed with balance.
But I guess people like "bloat" if it gives them greater identity.
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
Mezmorki wrote:I know my group, over the years, basically used a hybrid solution to LOS rules that felt intuitive to us and kept the positional aspect of the game interesting. It's basically what we formalized into ProHammer, but the short version is:
The system mostly uses TLOS, but clearly defines that LOS is based on the "body" of figurine models and the "hull" of vehicle models. When it comes to the origin point, LOS is measured from head of a figurine model and the axis/pivot point of a weapon mounted on a vehicle. This addresses all of the weirdness about shooting an antenna from the vantage point of an exhaust pipe.
Next, in terms of terrain determinizing which models are in LOS, True LOS is needed, with the one big exception that more than 6" of area terrain (up to the height of the terrain piece) blocks line of sight automatically.
What this means is that things are largely what you see is what you get. If you have a piece of area terrain with a big opaque wall/object that you have a model hidden behind, even if its within 6" of the edge they are still out of "true" LOS (as logically they would be). But then the 6" rule kicks in for models that might be visible but are assumed to be crawling around dense terrain. It works well.
We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.
kodos wrote:this was also not a legal target in 5th
aphyon wrote: I am looking at the English language rulebook, i am not sure how it got translated where you are at, but it is very clear in my rulebook as i quoted above.
checked my book: infantry only blocks LOS in close combat unless the shooting unit is larger (size 3), vehicles always block LOS (you cannot see thru them) unless anti-grav and in any case you only have free LOS if the shooting unit or the target unit is larger than anything between them
That was not the rule i was referencing, it was the fact you could see PAST vehicles like a landraider via TLOS regardless of their size category. as per the page 20 rules first bullet point i quoted previously. the size class for a landraider only meant it could only fully hide behind a size 3 section of area terrain.
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.
aphyon wrote: We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.
Same - we just have the flexibility to recognize that a big piece of terrain can be both. The "SOLID" parts of the terrain are solid and can thus block LOS regardless of whether that terrain piece is also considered area terrain or not. If it IS also Area Terrain (or more accurately dense terrain), then models on it are ALSO subject to those rules and can't be seen further than 6" from the edge regardless. If that makes sense (we think it does).
aphyon wrote: We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.
Same - we just have the flexibility to recognize that a big piece of terrain can be both. The "SOLID" parts of the terrain are solid and can thus block LOS regardless of whether that terrain piece is also considered area terrain or not. If it IS also Area Terrain (or more accurately dense terrain), then models on it are ALSO subject to those rules and can't be seen further than 6" from the edge regardless. If that makes sense (we think it does).
I get what you mean. i am sure you have seen my table setups. terrain is a particular passion of mine since i really do not do any model building/painting anymore (i have more than enough)
an example table is the imperial city i just recently finished. it has several very large solid buildings that block LOS as well as smaller terrain items that provide cover but not blocking like the craters as well as some that are a mix
Spoiler:
The GF9 ruined corner is such a piece you described. solid and large enough to block LOS for small vehicles or infantry or provide area terrain cover for infantry standing in it.
That was not the rule i was referencing, it was the fact you could see PAST vehicles like a landraider via TLOS regardless of their size category. as per the page 20 rules first bullet point i quoted previously. the size class for a landraider only meant it could only fully hide behind a size 3 section of area terrain.
I don't have the englisch book and there are 2 sections for LOS, one on page 7 that mentions which units are which size and that clear LOS is only given if the target or the shooting unit is larger than the anything between
and the page 20, that says Infantry only blocks LOS in CC and vehicles always block LOS and you cannot see thru them except Anti-Grav
nothing mentions area terrain (in fact there is no such thing as area terrain with the LOS rules)
may it be lost in translation, there is a reason why everyone here saw the LOS and terrain rules as a big upgrade from 4th to 5th
H.B.M.C. wrote: Man that GF9 stuff works so well with that mat.
Indeed it does, and it is really affordable (here at least).
may it be lost in translation, there is a reason why everyone here saw the LOS and terrain rules as a big upgrade from 4th to 5th
I assumed that was the case. even people here made the mistake when it was spelled out clearly in the English version. i think the big change was the removal of the size categories reduced the level of disagreement caused, similar to what turned you off about it in your gaming group.
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
My dream for this was always something like the 3ed Craftworld Eldar supplement, one book that coalated all of the subfactions for a given faction. Each one given some force-org mixups, special rules, maybe a special unit or two (depending on the other things it gets), and then Characters. I do acknowledge some factions like Grey knights or Black Templar might need their own book, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Especially in the current state of 40k where a vast majority of the special units that the sub factions (like all but 3 the UM special characters and Tyrannic vets, as an example) have either been discontinued or nebulously in "the rotation"
the 4th ed eldar codex has the rules to make all the craft world specific lists. it is our groups go to eldar codex. the FW imperial armor book "the doom of mymeara"
Has the Eldar corsairs army list (compatible with 3rd-7th editions).
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.
"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.
"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".
Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.
Insectum7 wrote: It'sall in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
That's always been GW's failing: good ideas with bad execution. The idea of formations wasn't bad, it was giving piles of really good free bonuses for them that was the problem. The idea of stratagems wasn't bad, but having 30+ stratagems for every army was the problem.
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.
"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".
Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.
And now you're going to be factually incorrect, as well? At least for three of the most well-known Chapters - or have you forgotten that the first Codex was Space Wolves?
At best, you can say that some went Codex, Supplement, Codex, and now Supplement again, but they were a Codex for far more time than they were Supplements.
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
Insectum7 wrote: It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.
There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.
I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.
When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.
They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.
"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".
Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.
And now you're going to be factually incorrect, as well? At least for three of the most well-known Chapters - or have you forgotten that the first Codex was Space Wolves?
At best, you can say that some went Codex, Supplement, Codex, and now Supplement again, but they were a Codex for far more time than they were Supplements.
I'm glad the history of what book came out when is the highest order of priority rather than considering which application is right or better.
Dudeface wrote: I'm glad the history of what book came out when is the highest order of priority rather than considering which application is right or better.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.
fify
No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.
I vehemently disagree, having 4000 relics would not be as big a problem as 400 Stratagems. WL Traits and Relics are pretty quick to explain before a game because you can only have so many, there is no floodgate for Strats and objectives. If GW decided to give Ultramarines an extra Strat in the next White Dwarf that gave them +1 to hit while inside a water feature because they're blue like water then we'd all just have to learn to remember that extra ability, if it was a WL trait we could all just ignore it until someone actually took it, finding out about a Stratagem when it is being used is too late.
It is no secret that GW writes bad rules and Relics and WL traits are no exception, bad rules writing + lots of rules writing = unnecessary bloat. For example there is a relic that improves a weapon's Damage by 1 and adds 1 to wound rolls against Chaos units, can you tell me whose faction that belongs to and why it should belong to them? WL traits could probably work like in 7th where they are generic, there are only so many ways to lead an army and I don't see a reason why my custom Necron Dynasty shouldn't have access to a WL trait that buffs either the shooting of my WL or one that buffs the shooting of my Troops. If I hadn't been bitten so bad by the reading bug I might already be done with the alpha version of my take on how Relics could look to be more interesting and thematic and less +1 Sword-y.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.
fify
No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.
There should be like 3-5wl traits an maybe 8 strats TOTAL for all codex & units need to stop requiring strats to work.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.
I vehemently disagree, having 4000 relics would not be as big a problem as 400 Stratagems. WL Traits and Relics are pretty quick to explain before a game because you can only have so many, there is no floodgate for Strats and objectives. If GW decided to give Ultramarines an extra Strat in the next White Dwarf that gave them +1 to hit while inside a water feature because they're blue like water then we'd all just have to learn to remember that extra ability, if it was a WL trait we could all just ignore it until someone actually took it, finding out about a Stratagem when it is being used is too late.
It is no secret that GW writes bad rules and Relics and WL traits are no exception, bad rules writing + lots of rules writing = unnecessary bloat. For example there is a relic that improves a weapon's Damage by 1 and adds 1 to wound rolls against Chaos units, can you tell me whose faction that belongs to and why it should belong to them? WL traits could probably work like in 7th where they are generic, there are only so many ways to lead an army and I don't see a reason why my custom Necron Dynasty shouldn't have access to a WL trait that buffs either the shooting of my WL or one that buffs the shooting of my Troops. If I hadn't been bitten so bad by the reading bug I might already be done with the alpha version of my take on how Relics could look to be more interesting and thematic and less +1 Sword-y.
You know back when i first started playing they did that relic/trait stuff pretty good.
*breaks out the best dark angels codex from 3rd edition*
.one army wide trait for non-deathwing/ravenwing units-intractable
.three banners
.5 relics, 2 of which are only carried by Azrael
Insectum7 wrote: I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
sad thing is that armies now, with a lot of subfactions etc. are less customizable than they were without
simply because if a Codex needs to be able to represent all different kinds of armies for that faction, it needs to be flexible and adjustable, while rules for subfactions just need to represent that faction in their typical way without doing anything else
a Codex Space Marines that needs to be able to make the typical Ravenwing, Deathing, or Iron Hands army is much better for custom armies than a subfaction Codex Ravenwing
and than were are not even talking about the problem that all Codex Marines are basically the same in organisation and that those get different special rules to make them special is a stupid way to piss everyone else off
as if the Imperial Fist and Ultramarines are that different in rules when they are basically the same in Background, the different Eldar or Ork Factions would need a full standalone Codex to be properly represented
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.
fify
No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.
There should be like 3-5wl traits an maybe 8 strats TOTAL for all codex & units need to stop requiring strats to work.
Strats are mostly fine. The problem is straight offensive/defensive buffs that only apply to one unit, and those can mostly go the way of the dodo.
Death to strats and buffs and modifiers! As a “legend” era gamer, I’ve come to respect that games are better when you just play the units.
I don’t mind command units rerolling 1s and cover saves… but the bloat and combos need to go. Horus Heresy rules just feel better sometimes, but that seems contradictory to the above to me.
This wasn't posted on r/warhammer40K ? I find that interesting.
Glad to see a lot of appeal for some of the game mechanics that where cut from modern era 40k and a general dislike for things like command points, strategems, the "die more" morale system, etc. I am a bit surprised that the old method of cover saves was mixed in its scoring considering that it worked fairly well and really did a lot to make terrain matter outside of LOS blockers. I don't really recall a big dislike for cover saves as a mechanic but more to do with how cover was determined (stuff like MC putting a toe into a ruins giving it a 4+ vs a tank needing to have it 25% obstructed by some terrain between it and the shooter for only a 5+).
Maybe its just me but I feel like some of the scoring for things regarding 7th edition are a bit tainted by brown tinted glasses, especially when comparing the scores for 6th and 7th on things like fluff or core rules. In particular the fluffy rule part doesn't make any sense as 7th edition formations where loaded with fluffy ways to play your army with quite a few formations actually having some decently interest game mechanics associated with certain formations. Fully expected the game balance and codex scores to be in the toilet for 7th but I think those aspects of the edition dragged the perception of 7th as a whole down with it.
I agree with your assessment of 7th. It was very fluffy and I liked how some underplayed units saw new life because they were part of the Formation tax. I actually think the Core Rules for 7th and 8th were solid on release and the poor scores should be owned by horrible Codex balancing. In fact, I wonder how much of the edition perception has nothing to do with the core rules and is really about Codex hate.
Personally, I don't think the "core rules" of 6th and 7th were as bad as they are made out to be. Rather, I think there were some acute issues that ruined the entire editions. Like:
- Formations
- Randomly determined warlord powers and psychic powers
- wildly imbalanced psychic powers
- proliferation of USRs, especially nested ones
- overly powerful rules for flyers
- some wretchedly broken codex stuff - like buffed eldar scat bikes
- and certainly more
A few of these would be manageable, but all together it was just too much for people. And it has totally jaded peoples perceptions.
Horus Heresy 1.0 was very close to 7th, but with more reasonably balance codex-level rules, and people generally loved it. 7th needed some trimming and de-chroming, but it wasn't bad as a core rule set like the poles might indicate.
Tokhuah wrote: I agree with your assessment of 7th. It was very fluffy and I liked how some underplayed units saw new life because they were part of the Formation tax. I actually think the Core Rules for 7th and 8th were solid on release and the poor scores should be owned by horrible Codex balancing. In fact, I wonder how much of the edition perception has nothing to do with the core rules and is really about Codex hate.
Psychic powers were part of the core rules in 7th, invisibility was always going to be broken unless units had to pay 100 pts extra to get it compared to something like a heavy flamer. There was nothing fluffy about 7th edition formations, Decurions were rules justified by fluff instead of rules filling a fluff demand, there's an important difference there and you cannot really bring up 7th without bringing up formations since that is the core identity of edition. Other than that 7th was also overly complicated and took away player agency in favour of artificial stupidity that limited how units could interact in melee and the morale rules were often instant death which forced codex writers to write rules that let their faction ignore morale. Hull points were also horribly unbalanced, that's a core game mechanic. GW could've fixed it by having hull points be in the 6-12 range instead of 2-4 range but I feel like that's a major enough thing to call it core rules because the designers envisioned with the core rules that with three glancing hits most vehicles would be destroyed. I liked the core rules of 7th well enough, but only until I played 8th and found something that was finally as tactical as Fantasy had been.
For me personally 6th and 7th main problems were already in the Core rules:
- Close combat had no player agency whatsoever, you were stuck and rolled dice until one side was dead
- WS table meant despite 10 different values you always hit on 3 or 4
- Unit types were a mess that was simply solved with the movement value, even after 50games I still had to look up the difference between jump and Jet
- Psychic phase in 7th, oh my, a lot if rolling and outside of extreme cases denying was basically impossible
- Wound allocation from the front sucked and was another nail in the coffin for CC - Due to Hull points all those vehicles rules turned into bloat to make tanks bad, it became obvious when SM could field 300 points of Transports for free and still didn't break the game because vehicles were just that bad
- Challenges... Okay I actually liked challenges but in 6th they were badly implemented and Sergeants could make the unit worse because of them
- Free Overwatch, because CC really had to die
Yes, HH 1.0 used that system and it was my observation that it was exactly the reason for people dropping the system once 8th was released, which solved many of the problems mentioned. Now we know GW just started a new escalation.
Mezmorki wrote: Personally, I don't think the "core rules" of 6th and 7th were as bad as they are made out to be. Rather, I think there were some acute issues that ruined the entire editions. Like:
- Formations
- Randomly determined warlord powers and psychic powers
- wildly imbalanced psychic powers
- proliferation of USRs, especially nested ones
- overly powerful rules for flyers
- some wretchedly broken codex stuff - like buffed eldar scat bikes
- and certainly more
A few of these would be manageable, but all together it was just too much for people. And it has totally jaded peoples perceptions.
Horus Heresy 1.0 was very close to 7th, but with more reasonably balance codex-level rules, and people generally loved it. 7th needed some trimming and de-chroming, but it wasn't bad as a core rule set like the poles might indicate.
In my experience 6th actually had worse core rules. 7th attempted to fix some of them but kept some glaring problems like hull points, psychic phase/dice pool etc... then formation bloat became a thing. HH 1.0 came along and refined 7th even more by removing the thing that became the elephant in the room-formations, along with a few other minor fixes.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: For me personally 6th and 7th main problems were already in the Core rules:
- Close combat had no player agency whatsoever, you were stuck and rolled dice until one side was dead
- WS table meant despite 10 different values you always hit on 3 or 4
- Unit types were a mess that was simply solved with the movement value, even after 50games I still had to look up the difference between jump and Jet
- Psychic phase in 7th, oh my, a lot if rolling and outside of extreme cases denying was basically impossible
- Wound allocation from the front sucked and was another nail in the coffin for CC - Due to Hull points all those vehicles rules turned into bloat to make tanks bad, it became obvious when SM could field 300 points of Transports for free and still didn't break the game because vehicles were just that bad
- Challenges... Okay I actually liked challenges but in 6th they were badly implemented and Sergeants could make the unit worse because of them
- Free Overwatch, because CC really had to die
Yes, HH 1.0 used that system and it was my observation that it was exactly the reason for people dropping the system once 8th was released, which solved many of the problems mentioned. Now we know GW just started a new escalation.
The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?
-7th psychic phase was trash. Worked decently when each army had 1 psyker but it wasn't hard for certain factions to be able to spam warp dice which broke the system. I did like the risk/reward system of pumping more warp charges into a power to increase the odds of getting it off at the increased risk of perils of the warp. It was just another example of GW not doing proper edge case testing when coming up with the system.
-Hull points were poorly implemented and was compounded by vehicles lacking any armor save. That said I enjoyed playing with the rule that all vehicles had a 3+ armor save except for skimmers and flyers which had a 4+ while rear armor hits made the armor save 1 worse. Wasn't a perfect solution but it does indirectly nerf those high strength AP crap weapons like scatter lasers from shredding hull points off vehicles.
-I personally didn't like challenges very much and unfortunately had to learned how to abuse the challenge distance rule to keep my PK Nobz out of a challenge but able to still swing once they piled in.
-Overwatch wasn't implemented well. I like how Tau does their overwatch as it plays to the theme of the Tau being group focused but it being a free action for being charged was annoying.
-I'm mixed on wound allocation as I like the tactical potential that it has with flanking allowing you to potentially get at the special weapons/characters before having to chew through the entire squad's assortment of cannon fodder models. Being an Ork player first, I also know the pain of having melee squads getting shot backwards due to front model casualties. Per model cover and not allowing weapons to inflict casualties outside of their maximum range are also minor benefits that the system gave but again it does hurt melee a lot.
The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?
They are a little different in 5th, but definitely cross compatible. as all 3rd-7th edition rule sets were all progressions of 3rd with added changes here and there.
1.CC in 5th had LD checks if you lost combat and you could break and run and be run down/whipped out or you could fall back and get away to regroup later.
2.the WS to hit number varied from 3-5 (unless you were kharn) in 5th. that combined with initiative gave it something more, even being locked into a limited D6 system.
3. movement by unit types were very clear in 5th
A.all infantry/walking (except the odd slow and purposeful units) models moved 6" and assaulted 6" + run a d6 B.beasts/cav/leapers moved 6" and assaulted 12" + run a d6 c..jump units and bikes moved 12" and assaulted 6" + run a d6 /bikes got an extra 12" for turbo (with eldar bikes getting the option to move extra instead of taking the 6" charge)
d.jet pack units had the odd move 6" and assault 6" but they did not have to actually charge into assault they just got the option to move 6"
There was no confusing random different movement for every different kind of infantry unit, terminator armor patter or bike type etc... that became a thing in 8th onward. it was all very standardized.
It also made units stand out as having a very specific role for tactical deployment.
HH 2.0 is the fix 7th needed. Really hope 10th edition incorporates HH2.0 core rules as narrative playset, and keep the 9th core for matched. The thing lacking from 9th that 3rd-7th had is that role play element.
Tyran wrote: I hate standardized movement. It created a lot of bloat for something that could be solved with one characteristic: Move.
Even HH ended including a Move characteristic into its improved version of the classic ruleset.
I agree, I just wish charges weren't just a random crap shoot of dice rolls when a movement value exists.
Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?
I'd prefer a combination of single die roll and either the move or a modified move. It worked fine for several editions to be honest where charge was either 6 or 12 depending on unit type, pre-measure has no impact in reality and lets face it landing assault units out of deepstrike is either it works and you get a big win or it whiffs and you lose a unit for no reason other than dice. Beyond the choice to do it in the first place there isn't much agency there.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: HH 2.0 is the fix 7th needed. Really hope 10th edition incorporates HH2.0 core rules as narrative playset, and keep the 9th core for matched. The thing lacking from 9th that 3rd-7th had is that role play element.
vict0988 wrote: Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?
just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG
vict0988 wrote: Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?
just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG
Perfect answer. I'd love such design philisophy in Warhammer.
There is WAAAAAYYYYYYY too little risk to way too much reward.
There is not nearly enuff uncertainty.
There are far too few instances of units interacting without just killing the entire thing.
There are not enuff instances of in game effect that can negatively/positively either or both players.
You don't necessarily need uncertainty as much as to reduce the reward for the risk. A 3rd ed bolter marine was fairly pathetic in output comparatively to now for example, but they're at the bottom end of today's scale.
The first three examples existed in 5th edition as well in almost the exact same form as it was in 6th and 7th. Was it problematic in 5th or is it something about 6th and 7th that made those things different?
Indeed I found these things in earlier editions annoying, too. But I'm one of these "veterans" in Mezmorki's poll who didn't like 5th as well and is pretty much okay with many things that were implemented in 8th. HH 2.0 seems to have fixed two of the three problems (not so sure about how CC is resolved, but the WS table has been improved and the movement value seems to solve many problems around unit types), that's why I'm interested in giving it a try one day.
vict0988 wrote: Do you want fully predictable charges? How would that work with pre-measure and deep strikes?
just like it does with shooting
it is a risk-reward situation as there is not attack, be it shooting or melee that is not predictable, so you play against the other player and not the game RNG
Good point. think how people would react if suddenly all small arms in the game rolled 4d6 to see how far they could shoot every time they activated a unit.
it throws your ability as a commander to use tactical skill right out the window.
Standardization in game rules is an important thing. especially in the core mechanics.
There are places where some mitigation makes sense like the 3rd-5th rules for assaulting through cover. you had to roll to see how far you actually got because the terrain interacted with how far you could move. over open flat ground....not so much.
I think the issue of when RNG is appropriate or not and how that interfaces with risk, decision-making, and agency is really critical to good game design, and it something GW struggles with. And I think they have it almost completely backwards in 8th/9th.
In my view, and for a strategy wargame, the core functions or abilities of a unit shouldn't be left up to chance, especially if there are strong outlier effects.
A 2D6" charge move is the perfect illustration of what not to do. If I have a melee focused unit, it's core function is charging into melee. I have agency in determining where to deploy and what unit to try and charge and the route to take, etc. But to then slap it with a chance to not have a successful charge across open ground just undermines all the decision-making.
It is indeed like if all ranged weapons actually shot 12" less and you then had to roll a 2D6 to seen whether your target was even in range. There is enough RNG in the resolution of the actual attack, for both melee and shooting. We don't need more RNG just to see if we can even take the action.
But what about terrain!? Here again the old way of moving 2D6" (take highest) through difficult terrain was great because it was an unknowable risk. Just moving slower by a fixed amount let's you calculate the most optimum route and just do that. There is no risk and no meaningful decision to make. Of terrain is variable, maybe you'll get through there more quickly, or maybe you got bogged down, but taking the risk was a choice.
Mezmorki got it right. All those "high variance, high impact" rolls should just die. There's a difference between a strategy game with risk management and binary random effects arbitrarily rewarding/smacking you out of the blue for no reason.
Random charge distance can be a thing but there should also be the option to take a non random charge distance instead. So you can charge for 2d6 or charge for something like 6" or 5" flat so you know that you have a safe charge distance to play around but you could roll the dice to try for a longer charge with the risk of it failing.
Vankraken wrote: Random charge distance can be a thing but there should also be the option to take a non random charge distance instead. So you can charge for 2d6 or charge for something like 6" or 5" flat so you know that you have a safe charge distance to play around but you could roll the dice to try for a longer charge with the risk of it failing.
Initiative +D6" would have been a great charge distance. Makes it a variable stat you can tune units on, and give you a "floor" so you can mitigate randomness.
The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").
Faster overall movement (base move + charge) within a turn is already reflected by units having different base movement speeds. Just have the charge be a fixed additional move on top of that. There's no reason for it to be variable.
Except people will point out "deepstriking" for why charges need to be variable. What frustrates me is that this situation makes the core rule subservient to a special rule, instead of modifying deepstrike rules to incorporate the appropriate counter-balancing mechanism on their own.
Thankfully, HH2.0 seems to have gotten it (mostly) right. Go back to scattering with deep striking units again, but instead of a mishap insta-wiping your unit temper the penalty a bit (and I like to think they lifted the rule where your opponent's get to deploy your unit from ProHammer... ).
Or just slap deep striking and assault units with a penalty during assault or something. Balance it that way.
Mezmorki wrote: The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").
Faster overall movement (base move + charge) within a turn is already reflected by units having different base movement speeds. Just have the charge be a fixed additional move on top of that. There's no reason for it to be variable.
Except people will point out "deepstriking" for why charges need to be variable. What frustrates me is that this situation makes the core rule subservient to a special rule, instead of modifying deepstrike rules to incorporate the appropriate counter-balancing mechanism on their own.
Thankfully, HH2.0 seems to have gotten it (mostly) right. Go back to scattering with deep striking units again, but instead of a mishap insta-wiping your unit temper the penalty a bit (and I like to think they lifted the rule where your opponent's get to deploy your unit from ProHammer... ).
Or just slap deep striking and assault units with a penalty during assault or something. Balance it that way.
I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.
Dudeface wrote: I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.
The thing is, deepstrike can be really powerful. For deepstriking melee units, I'd argue what really is the point of them if they can't charge after they deepstrike (which is the problem older editions had). If you deepstrike into melee range and have to wait a turn before charging, your unit is a sitting duck and will likely get blown to pieces. I'd also argue why is that deepstriking units can SHOOT completely without penalty, whereas melee units either can't charge (older editions) or have to roll particularly high on the charge (newer editions). Both options are dumb.
There are rules for "disordered charges" and the like, and IMHO effects like that should get applied to deepstriking units that want to charge. I also think something similar (albiet not as crippling as snap fire) should also apply to units deepstirking that then want to go onto shooting.
The other approach, of course, is that you give your opponent reactions and counter-plays that let them build somewhat of a defense against deepstriking, which is even better because it makes the whole thing more tactically rich.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.
100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.
Dudeface wrote: I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.
The thing is, deepstrike can be really powerful. For deepstriking melee units, I'd argue what really is the point of them if they can't charge after they deepstrike (which is the problem older editions had). If you deepstrike into melee range and have to wait a turn before charging, your unit is a sitting duck and will likely get blown to pieces. I'd also argue why is that deepstriking units can SHOOT completely without penalty, whereas melee units either can't charge (older editions) or have to roll particularly high on the charge (newer editions). Both options are dumb.
There are rules for "disordered charges" and the like, and IMHO effects like that should get applied to deepstriking units that want to charge. I also think something similar (albiet not as crippling as snap fire) should also apply to units deepstirking that then want to go onto shooting.
The other approach, of course, is that you give your opponent reactions and counter-plays that let them build somewhat of a defense against deepstriking, which is even better because it makes the whole thing more tactically rich.
Deepstrike circumvents multiple turns of movement and taking enemy fire, its a positioning tool and idbe ok with hefty penalties for shooting out of it too, or even removing the option.
Transports sit in the same grey area, they're rarely useful for melee delivery at present for most armies without the transport charging in due to the timing of moves and disembarkation.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.
100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.
I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.
100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.
I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.
It's also removed the feel of some armies that got the ability to Rapid Fire or fire at max range on the move in exchange for slower movement and the like. Thousands Sons and Death Guard slowly and methodically advancing while laying down a curtain of fire felt a lot more characterful when everyone couldn't do the same thing but faster.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.
100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.
I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.
It's also removed the feel of some armies that got the ability to Rapid Fire or fire at max range on the move in exchange for slower movement and the like. Thousands Sons and Death Guard slowly and methodically advancing while laying down a curtain of fire felt a lot more characterful when everyone couldn't do the same thing but faster.
At this point there are essentially only 2 weapon types...
And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.
Oh, and I play UM, so there's no penalty for moving at all now.
Insectum7 wrote: And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.
Oh, and I play UM, so there's no penalty for moving at all now.
Heavy Weapons should've been -2 AT MINIMUM for moving, and Rapid Fire could've been -1 to hit while moving and/or some penalty to charge.
The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.
Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.
Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.
Mezmorki wrote: The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.
Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.
Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.
Ok, I'll "say what I will". *ahem*.......I 100% agree with you.
There, I feel much better having gotten that off my chest.
Insectum7 wrote: And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.
It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.
Insectum7 wrote: And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.
It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.
I liked the only models that moved counted as moving. When a tac squad piled out of the rhino you needed to think about who went where. The following turn you could either use the heavy to anchor the squad while the rest of the boys pivoted around him, or just up and move if the situation had changed. Or everyone could just stand and shoot.
Insectum7 wrote: And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.
It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.
I liked the only models that moved counted as moving. When a tac squad piled out of the rhino you needed to think about who went where. The following turn you could either use the heavy to anchor the squad while the rest of the boys pivoted around him, or just up and move if the situation had changed. Or everyone could just stand and shoot.
^Yeah I liked that too.
Both the planning ahead for the next turn, and the sort of "wheeling" a squad around for positioning while the Heavy stayed put.
Mezmorki wrote: The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.
Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.
Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.
Agreed, the game is more "game" and less strategic "war" game in the current incarnation.
On the point of deep strike, it worked as intended and didn't change much from 3rd - 5th. it also fits the lore
.lore wise
teleporting/deep striking is notoriously inaccurate. it is a high risk/high reward tactic. you keep those assault or close range shooting units alive long enough to get there by virtue of them not being on the table at the start of the game. but when coming in you risk landing outside the optimal location or into something dangerous. the mishap table is a good representation of this.
.tactics wise
it gives you board control as to where you want to put them. As almost nobody is allowed to assault from deep strike in these editions save the following exceptions
.vanguard veterans (5th ed codex)
.Zagstrukk with his squad of storm boys (4th ed codex)
.dreadnoughts in lucius pattern drop pods
(There may be some characters i am missing that is just what i remember off the top of my head)
What it does do is give you a chance. a previous post mentioned that they get shot at when they deep strike in, and it handicaps them because they are a CC unit for example that cannot immediately charge in in most cases. by comparison is it fair to the other player to say the shooting unit that will get wrecked by the CC unit has no recourse to deal with them? especially if you use any rules that do not allow snap fire style overwatch?
One thing i can guarantee is if you cannot deep strike or use some other method of delayed entry. they will get shot at for multiple turns as they try to make their way there. VS just once.
Some players may be misremembering how easy CC does happen in 5th edition (and how effective it is) if they have not played in a while. i have played 3 games of 5th in the last 2 weeks and effective CC was achieved in every game on a 6X4 table. i expect it to happen so much i always build well rounded lists for my games where at least half my force is there to counter CC.
Back on the lore/experience side of things it makes for some fun and often times interesting game play, but then i am not a tournament player who needs a reliable performance guarantee.
Mezmorki wrote: The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.
Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.
Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.
Ok, I'll "say what I will". *ahem*.......I 100% agree with you.
There, I feel much better having gotten that off my chest.
Yeah, the more GAME it becomes the less war it has.
Mezmorki wrote: The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").
If we're assuming the distance traveled due to a charge over a fixed period of time, and we accept that different units have different movement values, then it breaks verisimilitude for units to suddenly be travelling the same distance in that period of time.
Say we use your fixed 6" charge distance for all INFANTRY units (because if I'm keeping anything from 8/9th, it is the keyword system), and on the battlefield I have a unit with a Move of 4", while you have a unit with a move of 8" - what I'd expect to see for Squats vs. Daemonettes, basically.
If a charge move is 6", suddenly the Squats manage to travel 150% of their Move in the same length of time that the Daemonettes travel 66% of their normal move - this should cause people to go "Wait a minute..." when they run into it.
Now, I'm not advocating for the 2d6" charge here, but something like the d6+(Move/2) allows you to show that a, terrain, etc, may influence how far you move in a charge; and b, that faster units will charge further on average (in the case of the above example, by 2").
Mezmorki wrote: Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.
How is "unit moved and can only fire snap shots" different from "unit moved and gets -1 to hit" in terms of whether there is a trade-off and whether there is an optimal decision?
aphyon wrote: Back on the lore/experience side of things it makes for some fun and often times interesting game play, but then i am not a tournament player who needs a reliable performance guarantee.
No, it ruins games by deciding everything with a dice roll or two and often leading to units seeing no use because their deep strike malfunctioned.
One thing i can guarantee is if you cannot deep strike or use some other method of delayed entry. they will get shot at for multiple turns as they try to make their way there. VS just once.
You cannot guarantee anything, because my unit might be moving up behind cover or I might have other units that my opponent prioritizes. Another thing you cannot guarantee is that your deep striking unit coming in on turn 4 will ever see combat when I get to place it in the corner of the table far away from my units.
you exaggerate the outcomes. how often do you mishap? it does happen but nearly as much as you think. not exactly where you wanted? adapt and overcome.
That thing happened in a game last month between iron warriors and khorn berserkers (3.5 codex in 5th ed rules). the khornate chosen terminators mishapped and got placed in the back corner. but reaper autocannons can still reach out and touch things even as they move up the field. it was a good fight and khorne won that battle (if barely...but who is counting as long as blood is spilled khorne always wins by default )
As for units seeing no use? how is that any different in 9th when you fail the 2d6 charge from your free 9.1" deployment and stand there and get shot to death anyway?
As for units having to move up the table. yeah, we use cover in our games and loads of it. it is still a huge risk getting them there. any player taking an army not really equipped for CC like TAU or guard are going to priorities those targets no matter what you do. and terrain doesn't save you from indirect fire no matter what edition you are playing.
The deep strike system makes sense if you are playing 40K as an epic battle in the 41st millennium in accordance with the setting as to how your dudes would and should behave.
if you are playing a rigid tournament mind set then the setting doesn't matter just the rules "balance". you could be playing with plastic blocks or green army men for the same experience.
As an "old-timer" in Mezmorki's survey who has played thousands of games of just 40K (not counting all the other games) over the last 20 years and still actively play every weekend i am not playing to be frustrated, i am playing to have epic fun. it is far more important to me than just winning.
Ork trukks careening out of control in a random direction=fun orkiness
Risky teleport landings=fun risk/reward
Being guaranteed X result because i popped the right strat while using the right relic and a boat load of re-rolls=not fun in my book.
aphyon wrote: you exaggerate the outcomes. how often do you mishap?
I haven't had a mishap since June 17, 2017.
As for units seeing no use? how is that any different in 9th when you fail the 2d6 charge from your free 9.1" deployment and stand there and get shot to death anyway?
Considering how easy it is to bring damage to bear in 9th that damage would have probably landed elsewhere, the best you can do in 9th is delay a unit from mattering one turn, maybe two, but with the lethality that's all you really need I suppose. I'm not saying 9th is perfect, I didn't try to argue with people saying that random charge ranges are good just because that's how the rules work in 9th for example, I just hate the old DS rules from every angle. Delayed reinforcements? Mishappened deep strike? Those sound like great missions that you decide ahead of the game to play with your opponent or decide ahead of the game to be part of the mission pack you will be playing. I see no reason why these also couldn't be balanced or why those misplaced reinforcements couldn't be playing a role in the game instead of being totally ignored.
if you are playing a rigid tournament mind set then the setting doesn't matter just the rules "balance". you could be playing with plastic blocks or green army men for the same experience.
I think we all have the places were we are more or less rigid when it comes to getting into the setting, I don't care too much about having a painted army, but I think if it's not GW it might as well be a lego man. I hate AoC and HotE because I don't think it is fluffy. I am okay with randomness but I think fail forwards mechanics are the best option, so instead of the gun failing and you taking damage the gun does extra damage to your opponent and you take damage or the gun fails but you're guaranteed it won't fail next turn.
i am playing to have epic fun. it is far more important to me than just winning.
Me too, DS mishaps happened more to my opponents than me because I didn't use the mechanic except for a short phase where I was lucky and Necrons were strong enough that when it went wrong I was still alright. I do think engaging in the adversarial spirit of the game is fun.
Ork trukks careening out of control in a random direction=fun orkiness
I think Orks are a special case, but I know there are Ork players that want their Orks to be as reliable as I want Space Marines to be. For something like Ork vehicle careening out of control I think you can make it more interesting than just taking away player control. For example you could roll on a table, either the vehicle gains the ability to enter melee with the move and if it does it gains a bonus to hit or the vehicle gains a bonus to shoot the closest visible enemy unit as it times a lucky shot while spinning around wildly or it gains bonus movement if it ends the move further away enemy units than it started, the player can either play into the option and benefit from the bonus or ignore it.
kodos wrote: I think the dislike for abstract line of sight comes from the rather bad version of it in 4th with TLOS in 5th being a real upgrade making things easier (but it went downhill from that)
like, a size 3 Land Raider on a size 3 Hill could not draw line of sight over another size 3 Land Raider standing in front of the hill because height was capped at 3
Nonsensical stuff like this encouraged me to use custom rules.
Mezmorki wrote: I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.
Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.
Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.
Do a core codex for a faction which includes ALL sub-faction rules as an option. However those sub-faction boni will cost additional points. Example:
1) Yellow SM fight vs. Black SM. No sub-faction rules are used so that you can have a true mirror match.
2) Dedicate one or two pages for each sub-faction to add special rules. Now Imperial Fists fight vs. Iron Hands with the former being more accurate with the bolter and the latter being able to shrug off more damage.
And for the crowd who desperately need easy wins you can sell a supplement book which includes ALL overpowered sub-faction special characters.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.
100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.
Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.
Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.
^I think this particular example is explained by the high volume of fire from the Storm Bolter and the troops who traditionally carried them, which was Terminators.
Back in 2nd ed Terminators were the only unit able to carry Storm Bolters, and they also had a higher BS than normal Marine, could move and fire their Heavy weapons without penalty, and also had Targeters for an additional +1 to hit. I think that all got condensed into Storm Bolter: Assault 2 24" for 3rd. The net result was, compared to Marines, the average Terminator put out more accurate firepower on the move and at longer range.
Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.
^I think this particular example is explained by the high volume of fire from the Storm Bolter and the troops who traditionally carried them, which was Terminators.
Back in 2nd ed Terminators were the only unit able to carry Storm Bolters, and they also had a higher BS than normal Marine, could move and fire their Heavy weapons without penalty, and also had Targeters for an additional +1 to hit. I think that all got condensed into Storm Bolter: Assault 2 24" for 3rd. The net result was, compared to Marines, the average Terminator put out more accurate firepower on the move and at longer range.
Much has eroded since then.
It’s a fascinating journey to follow the stormbolter and the regular bolter throughout the editions. For most of it their stats remain static (rapid fie and assault2) but as the rules and the game change around them, their power and abilities shift.
I have to admit, I much prefer the 'place outside 9" and then go from there' method of Deep Striking/Teleportation.
I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.
I just wish the 40k rules were more scalable, so rather than "Deep Strike = place 9" away", you could have Deep Strike (X), where "X" = the minimum number the unit has to be placed away from the enemy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.
In practice, that seems to mean you don't generally try for a charge out of deep strike unless you have abilities that boost your charge roll or give you re-rolls, and then it becomes reliable. And in 9th Ed, reliability is everything- I've noticed a definite trend towards units that behave consistently and reliably rather than having swingy potential to either punch above their weight or flop entirely. It's a bit... sterile, I guess.
But personally, my bigger issue with charging out of deep strike (or shooting 12" weapons) in 8th/9th is that it takes all the fun tactics and challenge out of countering a melee unit and just boils down to a binary 'did you screen your units correctly?'. If you correctly draw your Magic 9" Bubble of Protection with sacrificial troops, you don't need to worry about the deep strike deathstar; if you leave one model out of position then you've activated my trap card and bad things happen. I just don't find it to be particularly interesting gameplay.
I'm not a huge fan of the old system, either, but at least with scatter there was an element of brinkmanship to it. Just keeping units 6-12" apart didn't guarantee a unit couldn't come down between them, so you had to gamble on how risky your opponent was willing to be with their DSing troops, and conversely they got to decide how much they wanted to push their luck.
Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.
Edit: I like the way Apocalypse handles movement and charging- IIRC you can move your normal distance and shoot, forgo shooting to double move and fight in melee (charging and advancing as the same mechanic, essentially), or stay still and get +1 to hit. It forces decision-making, means units can't do everything in the same turn, and very neatly ties melee threat ranges to the core movement stat.
You can force your opponent to DS into difficult terrain, that'll make charging nearly impossible. Screens can also be destroyed, so is sometimes to try to charge T2 against a screen or wait for T3 when the screen may or may not be gone or deep strike in the back T2 and just do an action.
You can also take a risk by leaving yourself up to getting rear-charged in the hopes that it fails for your opponent and you can just run away from the deep striking unit by charging towards your opponent's deployment zone and just ignoring the enemy deathstar in your deployment zone.
catbarf wrote: Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.
By the same token, I never liked how you could Deep Strike anywhere - almost as close as you want - then scatter, and then sit there and do nothing for a turn. I mean why bother with HTH units that DS if they have to sit there for a turn and weather all the incoming fire? Not every army has Terminators.
Perhaps the rules better show hidden deployment over deep strike/teleportation, but I like being able to place units where I need them to go plus the rando charge applies to everyone, not just those coming in from DS, so it seems fine to me.
I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.
In practice, that seems to mean you don't generally try for a charge out of deep strike unless you have abilities that boost your charge roll or give you re-rolls, and then it becomes reliable. And in 9th Ed, reliability is everything- I've noticed a definite trend towards units that behave consistently and reliably rather than having swingy potential to either punch above their weight or flop entirely. It's a bit... sterile, I guess.
Removing randumb isn't sterile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.
Drop Pods only felt cheaty because you could put Centurions in them. Otherwise the best unit was Sternguard, and remember those guys used to be 25 points a dude.
Insectum7 wrote: I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.
Drop Pods only felt cheaty because you could put Centurions in them. Otherwise the best unit was Sternguard, and remember those guys used to be 25 points a dude.
Centurions couldn't do as much damage as Drop Melta squads. 25 points a guy is a steal when you're deploying against Knights and Titans. Combi-plasma loadout for situations otherwise. Rude and brutal.
I remember a Tau player warning me that he had a strong list before a game. Joke was on him. He was shocked at what some power armored dudes in Pods could achieve. 6th ed I think . . . The Pods weren't free yet . . .
I want to say the Sternguard were 28 points, 18 for Veteran and 10 for the combi. Probably depends on edition.
you always gonna use the most reliable way if getting stuff done
so Deep Strike being unreliable for everyone means it hardly gets used and is for people who like to gamble
yet as soon as a faction get rules that make it more reliable, or has the possibility to get more units deep striking, we have power creep because a former gimmick is now a reliable way to get things done and causes all kind of problems (which are solved by changing the core rules instead of changing the rules for the units)
remember when the best Anti Tank weapons CSM had were 3 Termis with Combi weapons as getting in the back was important and deep striking 3 1-shot weapons was the most reliable way to get it done
it does not really matter how those things are rules in the core, the important part is that all armies are on the same level
kodos wrote: this shows a very basic problem of 40k
you always gonna use the most reliable way if getting stuff done
so Deep Strike being unreliable for everyone means it hardly gets used and is for people who like to gamble
yet as soon as a faction get rules that make it more reliable, or has the possibility to get more units deep striking, we have power creep because a former gimmick is now a reliable way to get things done and causes all kind of problems (which are solved by changing the core rules instead of changing the rules for the units)
remember when the best Anti Tank weapons CSM had were 3 Termis with Combi weapons as getting in the back was important and deep striking 3 1-shot weapons was the most reliable way to get it done
it does not really matter how those things are rules in the core, the important part is that all armies are on the same level
Not always true, it depends on your attitude towards the game. i use occasionally use drop pods for dreadnoughts because that is the only way to deep strike them. my assault marines on the other hand either start on the table or risk a strike. my scouts always outflank or infiltrate. i also enjoy using my librarian to gate my tac squad around via deep strike rules even with the added risk involved from using the power + deep strike. my army is themed as a marine version of elysians/paratroopers that is why my choice of units isn't based purely on how powerful they are.
vict0988 wrote: You can force your opponent to DS into difficult terrain, that'll make charging nearly impossible. Screens can also be destroyed, so is sometimes to try to charge T2 against a screen or wait for T3 when the screen may or may not be gone or deep strike in the back T2 and just do an action.
I'd find it a lot more interesting if you could kill a screening unit with shooting and then immediately DS where it used to be- then screening would be a little less deterministic. But instead it's perfectly viable to run a cheap single model up the board (or DS in your own units) to project a magical 254 square inch bubble of No-DS-Here for a turn. To me it feels less like managing uncertainty and mitigating risk, and more like following a checklist, measuring distances between units to make sure nobody has an 18+" gap.
With melee occurring in both players' turns you do get some uncertainty, where you don't know whether your units already in combat will survive the turn and thus block DS, but when two shooting armies meet you can reliably determine by the end of your opponent's movement phase whether your DSing units will be able to come in at an optimal location or not.
catbarf wrote: Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.
By the same token, I never liked how you could Deep Strike anywhere - almost as close as you want - then scatter, and then sit there and do nothing for a turn. I mean why bother with HTH units that DS if they have to sit there for a turn and weather all the incoming fire? Not every army has Terminators.
That really gets to a more fundamental issue, which is that high lethality combined with the IGOUGO turn structure means that either a deep striking unit drops onto the board and immediately gets into combat before your opponent has any chance to react, or it drops onto the board, flubs the charge, and then gets shot by the entire enemy army before it ever has a chance to try again. Meanwhile, you can drop a unit of meltagunners or whatever and they can shoot immediately at full effectiveness, and the general expectation is that a good unit will recoup its points in that single attack.
I think DS ought to have some downsides, because you are getting the opportunity to deposit your star melee unit wherever you want instead of having to actually get a transport there or footslog it up the board, but clearly not being able to charge on the turn you drop would be too harsh in a game environment where that typically means they die before they ever have a chance to act.
Bear in mind in the older editions you also had to roll to see when reserves actually showed up, and with the exception of drop pods you couldn't even start rolling until turn 2, and there was only a 50/50 chance they'd arrive on turn 2.
Now of course there is no uncertainty and you can bring on reserves on turn 1. It's dumb.
I think Deep Strike should be a hybrid system; outside of 9" the controlling player gets full control of placement, but try to go closer and there is progressively greater potential for mishap result of increasingly dire consequence. Could create a fun dynamic with the penalties too;
Mild Mishap - Deployed unit cannot shoot or charge this turn while there are enemies within 9" of them [so if the nearby offending units are cleared out by the rest of the army the DSing unit can then act as it normally would]. Some armies/units could get rules to ignore the shooting or charging component of this result.
Major Mishap - Deployed unit cannot shoot or charge this turn, period.
Mezmorki wrote: Bear in mind in the older editions you also had to roll to see when reserves actually showed up, and with the exception of drop pods you couldn't even start rolling until turn 2, and there was only a 50/50 chance they'd arrive on turn 2.
Now of course there is no uncertainty and you can bring on reserves on turn 1. It's dumb.
Poster boy bonus of the game.
I was introduced to the idea of Drop Pods in Space Marine (2nd Epic). You would have a company of Drop Pods which would be deployed like this:
1) Put numbered counters (each representing a single Drop Pod) on the actual company card.
2) Hold the card with the counters roughly 30 cm over the location where you want to drop them.
3) Tilt the card in such a way that the counters slide down.
4) Place the counters next to units, if they have landed on them.
5) Opposing units on First Fire orders and LOS to the Drop Pods were eligible to shoot the Drop Pods out of the sky destroying both the occupants and the transport in the process. 6) Any surviving Drop Pods can act according to the rules (e.g.: either marines pour out of them or the Deathwind systems can fire upon the opposition).
IMHO the opponent should be able to shoot down Drop Pods in 40K too. It would need a bit of tweaking of the rules when they arrive because the Drop Pod player may want to suppress some opposing units first or else suffer the loss of his cargo.
I'm a bit fonder of the older Deep Strike rules, minus the "that unit just dies" results, but a more modern version of that could possibly be riffed off of the way One Page Rules does it (admittedly part of what makes the OPR version work is Alternate Activations, which on its own really helps with units getting to do a thing). Beginning of the overall battleround you declare your deep strikes, roll your scatter and position them etc, then you can play the unit as normal. I find that with AA that works well enough at least as you know, your opponent can react to them, but not with their full army, and on the flip side you can activate the unit early on, but cannot support it with your entire army.
for Alternate Activation you need a game system written for it to work fine
but at the same time, if you have a game system written for it, also Alternate Turns or Alternate Phases work fine
Most problems in 40k come from having a system written for something and than thru some random rules in because they sound great, creating a mess that has no clear base and nor clear goal, hence it does not work but is just a collection of stuff that was sounds cool on paper
the main advantage for AA in 40k will be that lethality is toned down because you cannot kill the opponents army in 1 go
yet "not killing the opponents army in 1 go" is the actual solution to the problem it does not matter what this "1 go" (be it activation, phase turn) but because GW likes cinematic alpha strikes, even with AA it would take 1-2 Marine Codices and that 1 Activation would be back in killing the opponents army
Charges imo should've always been faster than a regular move but not significantly so.
(f.e. if you have a M value of 6 add +1 for inf +2 bikes and cav etc)
Vice versa reactionary fire should've hit better the closer an enemy unit decides to charge
I do think GW's move towards more focus on reactions in HH2.0 is a good way to improve the current system. Ideally, the stratagem system gets tossed and CP's get used as a basis for a reaction system. Just one idea.
My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.
AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.
My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.
Mezmorki wrote: I do think GW's move towards more focus on reactions in HH2.0 is a good way to improve the current system. Ideally, the stratagem system gets tossed and CP's get used as a basis for a reaction system. Just one idea.
My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.
AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.
Does AA stop turn 1 wins? Yes. So how a person feels about it becomes a secondary concern when the gameplay is vastly improved. People waste their time packing their army, driving to a location, setting it all up and then getting demolished in 1-2 turns. Yeah, I could fathom a better way to spend my precious time than to have the worst possible outcome of a 40K game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: AA is just a different set of problems; for every one it solves, it creates another somewhere else.
it doesn't, it just means that you have the chance to do something as well before turn 1 ends
it does not mean you won't get steamrolled turn 1 by another army if the balance between them is off
or in other words, AA removes the ability to win in "1 Go" as this is just 1 unit (but never say never to GW army design), it does not remove the ability to win in 1 turn, which is several "Goes"
if 1 Go is also 1 Turn, than armies just should not have the ability to win in one turn, so this is simply a problem that the faction rules don't fit to the core rules
if GW reduces the "Go" to 1 activation and than increase the power level of units so you have the chance to win with 1 "Go" again, AA solved nothing because no one addressed the actual problem
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system. Alternate-by-phase I have seen work on the AoS side and I suspect would work for 40k with similar modifications. But ultimately it's irrelevant since we have no reason to believe Warhammer will be anything but igougo for the foreseeable future. It's what Warhammer has always been, it's what the rule writers have experience with, and given GWs utter domination of the market sphere there's no pressing need to change it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system.
you just always refuse to read them, not even talking about playing them
there are enough examples of system based on 40k (like Bolt Action) or in the same genre (Warpath Firefight) that have a functional AA system
But those are skirmish games.mr Ninth may as well bring up the example of Infinity then and say that non AA system work fine too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
All of those sound like a super buff to armies with skimers, out of LoS shoting and having +2 or +3 rules extra on top of what others have. I don't want to see what happens to an army which starts in full overwatch and then blows me up on my turn 1.
Any army which is designed with focus fire and chip damage in mind, would work horrible under an AA system, same with armies that require multiple activations and buffs to one unit to make an impact on the board, or ones that have to sacrifice crucial offensive assets to do buffs or objective taking. It would on the other hand greatly promote cheap super killy units, which trade great and can be spammed. Especialy if they can ignore terrain.
just because GW wants you to put more models on the table does not make it something different
all the rules are written for a Skirmish game
I don't know how you would style 9th ed, but the last time the core game was skirmish was second edition. it became a squad based game in 3rd and then moved up to army scale game with the release of apocalypse or if you prefer the entire army you play epic. i would not consider it skirmish scale for the last 20 years.
so you don't have single model mechanics?
no single model dice rolls, no tracking of movement of each model or cover?
everything is done on a unit level in 9th?
Bolt Action or Firefight are less of a Skirmish Game than 40k and this is also what causes some of the problems, that you get more and more detailed rules for single models in a game that is meant to be played with several units
just because you have 100 models on the table does not make it something else, but that you play a Skirmish game with 100 models is part of the problem
I think wether we decide to call it a skirmish game or not is really beside the point. I've seen games of all sizes; small post-3rd ed., huge 2nd ed, and even a Bolt Action game with 100+ models or so per side.
What matters in the end is whether or not the mechanics function well for the intended scope.
100 models is not a problem, 200 is a problem. If you don't want 100 models just play 500 pts. The available missions for non-Crusade 500 pts games is awfully small, unfortunately.
Mezmorki wrote: My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.
AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.
I'd argue that a lot of problems with 40K's gameplay stem from the turn structure being essentially an afterthought. And not just IGOUGO vs AA, but also the mechanics of what a unit can do in any given turn and how it interacts with other units in your army. 40K's the only modern game I can think of where not only does your entire army go at once, but every model can do essentially everything it is capable of on any given turn.
I don't think it's fair to say that AA makes the gameplay 'focused on the AA system', because it's not really any different from how IGOUGO makes the gameplay focused on committing all your forces at once- tactics like turn 1 alpha strikes, or just activating units to shoot one at a time until a problem unit is eliminated, are products of the IGOUGO structure. It's just different, in that the tempo of gameplay and the interaction points between players are different.
Three examples I've played a fair bit of that shake up the IGOUGO paradigm while keeping some sense of 'big sweeping plays' are Apocalypse, Starship Troopers, and Dust. Apocalypse has you activating formations at a time, so your Battalion can conduct all its activity before your opponent has a chance to respond. It makes your command structure (ie force composition) relevant, because bigger formations like Brigades can mobilize more units to act at once, but are consequently less granular in when they can act. Starship Troopers is IGOUGO with your whole army going at once, but lots of things can trigger reactions, so you have to contend with the enemy moving and shooting back while you do it. And Dust has an active and a reactive player, with reactions early in the turn coming at the cost of actions later in the turn.
None of the three play exactly like 40K because, well, that's rather the point. Pure IGOUGO is suited to certain games (Warmachine, for example, benefits from it- the ability to perform wombo-combos is a core part of its design), but 40K's style of skirmish wargaming isn't it, IMO. I've had more tactically engaging games come from the OPR ruleset in spite of a far simpler set of rules, just on account of the increased interaction between players and more emphasis on moment-to-moment decision-making.
@Catbarf: How similar is the Starship Troopers game's version of IGOUGO + Reactions to the system used by HH2.0? Does it have any advantages over the HH2.0 system in your opinion?
FWIW I do agree that 40ks purist IGOUGO isn't great - despite me liking the potential it affords. I like the aspect of where it's like coming up with a "play" (eg in American football) for turn (eg down) that's covers your army at once. But of course this can break down quickly and cause problems with the way it's implemented.
I appreciate the examples you cited, and I definitely believe there is a possible middle ground that preserves the spirit/intent of IGOUGO and having to come up with a "whole army gameplan" but builds in more reactivity.
I also think the older EPIC rule sets could be a model too, where it's a combinations of orders based (need to assign orders ahead of time as a big turn-wide plan) and then alternating PHASES with opportunities for simultaneous attack resolutions. The alternating phase approach is nice because it it makes things more dynamic, can allow for simultaneous attacks and exchanges of fire, and avoids issues with elements of your army not being able to move in a coordinated way. It's pretty clean.
Gadzilla666 wrote:@Catbarf: How similar is the Starship Troopers game's version of IGOUGO + Reactions to the system used by HH2.0? Does it have any advantages over the HH2.0 system in your opinion?
HH2.0's system definitely feels to me like a retrofit rather than something built into the game from the ground up. SST's reaction system is army-wide, but generally limited to things happening within 12" of you. So the first turn or two is similar to 40K in that armies do movement or prep fire without much interaction, but once the armies get close the chaos erupts. The bugs are close, so you shoot them, but they react by moving to get closer, and then it's their turn and they move into melee, but you react to shoot them with one unit while another retreats. Things get very hectic very quickly, and once the forces are in close contact basically every action provokes a reaction.
In HH2.0, it's much more stratagem-like in that you're generally limited to one reaction per phase. That means you tend to save them for your star units, and they're a little less foundational to the gameplay. They're not irrelevant, though, and you will have a very bad day if you, say, fail to suppress a Mechanicum unit before trying to assault it. I really, really like how the reaction mechanic has finally made pinning worthwhile- in conjunction with morale, there's a strong 'soft damage' component to HH2.0 that has historically been lacking in 40K.
Basically I think they're trying to do two different things. SST enforces a distinction between predictable IGOUGO long-ranged action and then chaotic, fast-paced close combat; it's very well suited to space marines versus bug aliens but I don't know that it would work so well for 40K (eg, melee units need serious advantages like weight of numbers to be worth a damn in SST, because the enemy can always react by shooting or moving away unless you really swarm them). Meanwhile HH2.0 is basically taking an established 40K formula and grafting a very limited 'trap card' reaction mechanic onto it, allowing for some interactivity without drastically affecting the tempo of gameplay.
Like I said in my last post, I think the activation structure of a game has a massive shaping effect on gameplay, and is one of the purest ways for a designer to express their vision. Not all activation mechanics work for all settings or gameplay concepts, so I don't mean to give the impression that I feel there is one system to rule them all. But it often feels to me like 40K is IGOUGO because it's always been IGOUGO, and it started as IGOUGO because that's just how wargames were in the 80s, rather than because it's the best that 40K could be. Worth noting that Andy Chambers- having already masterminded the rewrite from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed- left GW in large part because he wanted to continue iterating on the game, but the suits felt that their cash cow had to be left as intact as possible.
Mezmorki wrote:^^^^^^ Great points all around.
FWIW I do agree that 40ks purist IGOUGO isn't great - despite me liking the potential it affords. I like the aspect of where it's like coming up with a "play" (eg in American football) for turn (eg down) that's covers your army at once. But of course this can break down quickly and cause problems with the way it's implemented.
I appreciate the examples you cited, and I definitely believe there is a possible middle ground that preserves the spirit/intent of IGOUGO and having to come up with a "whole army gameplan" but builds in more reactivity.
I also think the older EPIC rule sets could be a model too, where it's a combinations of orders based (need to assign orders ahead of time as a big turn-wide plan) and then alternating PHASES with opportunities for simultaneous attack resolutions. The alternating phase approach is nice because it it makes things more dynamic, can allow for simultaneous attacks and exchanges of fire, and avoids issues with elements of your army not being able to move in a coordinated way. It's pretty clean.
Since you mention both the idea of a 'play' and Epic, let me also cite Fireball Forward. Basically in FF, you determine how many activations you're going to get at once (the exact method for which is more or less irrelevant to this discussion), then for each activation you got you get to assign an order to each of your units and what sequence to execute those orders in.
So if you get two activations, you might decide to have your MG team hold position and shoot, then your infantry will move in and shoot while the enemy is suppressed (so they don't get opportunity fire). The key is that once you decide on which orders to give and what order they'll be executed in, they're set in stone- so if the MGsdon't suppress the enemy, your infantry don't necessarily need to throw themselves into opportunity fire, but they can't change their order to sustained fire instead. The designer's goal, which I think the game achieves, is capturing the idea of a junior officer directing nearby troops to execute a hastily prepared tactical plan. Now, I wouldn't say that's as relevant to 40K as it is to a WW2 game, but it's a neat little example of how a game can both implement tactical-level command and allow more than one unit to activate at a time.
Also worth noting that Apocalypse has you give orders in secret and then alternate activating formations. When I first read the rules I thought that calculating damage at the end of the turn would render the planning and AA largely pointless, but I was surprised to find that this isn't the case; giving a formation an order where it can shoot at +1 to hit but not move is crippling if the enemy either moves out of LOS/range or charges you first before you get to execute. There's some strategy to predicting what your opponent will do, and managing which orders to prioritize.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of 'I activate a unit, you activate a unit, and so on' pure AA, so I just wanted to point out that there are lots and lots of other ways to do it depending on the design intent, some of which still capture that idea of executing a maneuver with multiple units (or even your entire army) at once.
Like I said in my last post, I think the activation structure of a game has a massive shaping effect on gameplay, and is one of the purest ways for a designer to express their vision. Not all activation mechanics work for all settings or gameplay concepts, so I don't mean to give the impression that I feel there is one system to rule them all. But it often feels to me like 40K is IGOUGO because it's always been IGOUGO, and it started as IGOUGO because that's just how wargames were in the 80s, rather than because it's the best that 40K could be. Worth noting that Andy Chambers- having already masterminded the rewrite from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed- left GW in large part because he wanted to continue iterating on the game, but the suits felt that their cash cow had to be left as intact as possible.
It is kinda funny that Andy Chambers also designed Starship Troopers and Dust Warfare.
I can't speak about SST, but I really liked the way Dust Warfare handled IGOUGO. As it was complimented with initiative, the Command Phase (basically a turn-before the turn with limited actions/pre-reactions) and reactions. I liked that the player that had the fewer units (whether by them being more elite or through losses) usually won initiative for the turn, but conversely had few Command actions. Initiative was determined by basically rolling a die for every unit on the table needing a 5+, which each die allowed the player an action (more like 1/2 an action), but the player that rolled the fewest command actions went first.
This had a sort of rubber band effect to the game, since as units were removed, the suffering player was much more likely to be able to dictate the pace of the game next turn to swing it back in their favor. But at the same time, the rubber band effect didn't feel like it was artificially holding the other player back. Because of by having more command dice, they could reposition before the turn began in earnest or even attack twice (hitting 1/3 the time instead of 2/3 of the time, though). Which wasn't always a good idea, as one of Dust Warfare's weaker elements was it could be really tough to do damage on some things due to the way armor and cover worked.
That said, I certainly would have liked to see what Andy Chambers could have done with 40k if he was allowed to take it in the direction he wanted to.
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
one big difference between SST and 40k/HH is also that SST does not have phases but use Actions
so you have the possibility to shoot first and than move, move twice or shoot twice
this makes up for very different possibilities as you cannot move everyone before the first enemy unit might get a reaction from your action
another point is that it is strict IGoUGo, as in every Action is finished before a Reaction happens, even stuff like Overwatch would be done after the move, not as an interrupt (so if you wipe out the unit with you close range shooting, it cannot shoot back as a reaction)
one problem of the current versions of 40k is that there is no clear structure any more
like you have phases, just to ignore them, an IGoUGo turn sequence, just to ignore it, etc
so first point would be to decide if you want to keep the structure, and enforce it again or go with something different but not keeping things by name only
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: It is kinda funny that Andy Chambers also designed Starship Troopers and Dust Warfare.
the SSTs core rules were Chambers suggestion for 40k 4th Edition but GW decided to just go with a minor update to 3rd instead resulting in Chambers selling the idea off to another company
there was also a community version of an SST for 40k back during 6th Edition (based on the community updated core rules, SSTpk), but it never really growth as it was too different to 40k by that time for people to have great interest (even finding playtesters outside the design team was hard)
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I think it helps curb lethality quite a bit. HH2.0 does most of this, with the following differences:
-Heavy Weapons CAN fire after moving, but only hit on Snapshots (6s).
-Relentless CAN charge after firing Heavy Weapons
Also, split firing is very rare outside of vehicles, with additional restrictions on that, with only vehicles with PotMS and Super Heavys being able to do it 100% freely. And if you shoot a unit in the Shooting Phase, that's the unit you can charge in the Charge Phase. You can't shoot Unit A in the Shooting Phase and then charge Unit B in the Charge Phase. If you want to charge, it has to be Unit A.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf: Are any of those systems you talked about more favorable for 40k in your mind?
Great writeup.
I still havent played OPR. Hopefully within a week or two.
So far I've deliberately shied away from explicitly saying '[game]'s system would be better for 40K' because like I said before, it's core to the identity of any system. Applying a new activation structure (or activation economy, like Kodos mentions) is changing a fundamental element of the game and, like Mezmorki said, does change the tactics and general feel. That said, I do think some systems are better or worse than others for tactical depth, player engagement, reflecting particular types of conflict, or modeling general warfighting concepts like friction. So it all depends on what you're looking for.
(I'm giving this disclaimer because otherwise I'm going to say what I would enjoy, and then someone else is going to say 'that doesn't sound like the 40K I know and love', and they're right and that's fine. Even HH2.0's light-touch reaction system changes the feel of gameplay significantly.)
But anyways, all that aside, I think SST's IGOUGO-with-reactions would be a good fit, in no small part because it was originally designed for 40K. You still get to coordinate your entire force and execute at once, so it isn't the constant back-and-forth of AA systems, but your opponent is also an active participant during your turn. Unlike with stratagems that can feel like 'gotchas', it's also intuitive what will trigger a reaction. And unit/army archetypes that can be very frustrating to deal with in pure IGOUGO (see: mechanized Drukhari that can pull off T1 charge alpha strikes before you even get your first turn) are less game-breaking because you can react to them.
The two-actions-per-turn activation economy forces some tough decisions about how to employ your units, but simultaneously allows them to have interesting capabilities (eg, basic infantry can actually be pretty mobile when move+move covers 12" ). It also lets you choose how to sequence your units' activity, rather than being locked into everyone moves -> everyone shoots -> everyone charges. You can choose whether to charge an enemy unit at the start of your turn so that it can't react with opportunity fire as you bring more troops up, or to soften it up with shooting (eating some reaction fire) so the melee unit will be able to wipe it out. You can take advantage of the changing battlefield situation as it unfolds, but your opponent isn't stuck helpless as you do it. And lastly, it's just a good system for defining what a unit can do in a turn. Interacting with an objective? That's an action. Calling in an air strike? Action. Psychic power? Action. Rallying? Action. Clean and straightforward.
That said, I think there are some major caveats.
The first is that the unlimited reactions within 10" system is great for the SST license and really captures the feel of the horde of bugs versus overwhelming firepower, but I'm not sure it's right for 40K. I feel something more akin to Dust, where reactions in the opponent's turn come at the cost of actions in your own turn, would be a bit more appropriate. You could maybe do something like limit a unit to reacting once per turn, and then have a unit that reacted only get one action instead of two in its own turn. So essentially, the reaction system would allow you to respond immediately to the enemy, but without getting 'bonus' movement or shooting out of it, and ceding the initiative in the process.
The other is that even with the reaction system tinkered with to avoid changing too much about how units behave in close contact, it'd still have major impact on how the game plays. As people are learning through HH2.0, when your opponent can react, it gets much harder to simply run melee troops into the enemy. They need support to turn off the enemy's reactions (ie, a suppression mechanic), so melee/close assault tends to be a little more realistic in how it's employed and typically needs at least some shooting to back it up. Additionally, having a more limited action economy changes the value of some units and weapons significantly. If you can't move/shoot/charge all in the same turn, then a unit capable of all three is less valuable, and ranged weapons on melee units are not going to see a ton of use if they're spending their actions on moving and melee (which I suppose is actually not that different from old 40K, in how you couldn't shoot Rapid Fire weapons if you were Fleet-ing or charging). And of course, allowing units to potentially shoot or fight more than once as a core mechanic requires a long hard look at lethality.
So, it'd be a substantial rewrite, and it would certainly feel like a different game from current 40K, but I think it would be much more in line with what I personally want from a wargame- player interactivity, tactical decision-making based on board state, and verisimilitude.
By the way, I think you will find that OPR, despite using completely different mechanics, achieves some of the same feel as I described. Individual unit activations are more like SST's than 40K's, and the pure AA structure allows for lots of interactivity and makes sequencing important. Definitely interested to hear how it goes for you.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I like it in principle, but this would also require a serious balancing pass across the game. Infantry would be a lot more limited in firepower, while armor and stationary guns would be unaffected. Maybe that's not a bad thing if it's an opportunity to further delineate how the different troop types interact and make static long-ranged firepower more expensive, but it'd be a tall order.
for me personally, I am happy with the current version of Warpath Firefight as this game covers all aspects I want from a SciFi platoon level game and is fun to play
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf: Are any of those systems you talked about more favorable for 40k in your mind?
Great writeup.
I still havent played OPR. Hopefully within a week or two.
So far I've deliberately shied away from explicitly saying '[game]'s system would be better for 40K' because like I said before, it's core to the identity of any system. Applying a new activation structure (or activation economy, like Kodos mentions) is changing a fundamental element of the game and, like Mezmorki said, does change the tactics and general feel. That said, I do think some systems are better or worse than others for tactical depth, player engagement, reflecting particular types of conflict, or modeling general warfighting concepts like friction. So it all depends on what you're looking for.
(I'm giving this disclaimer because otherwise I'm going to say what I would enjoy, and then someone else is going to say 'that doesn't sound like the 40K I know and love', and they're right and that's fine. Even HH2.0's light-touch reaction system changes the feel of gameplay significantly.)
But anyways, all that aside, I think SST's IGOUGO-with-reactions would be a good fit, in no small part because it was originally designed for 40K. You still get to coordinate your entire force and execute at once, so it isn't the constant back-and-forth of AA systems, but your opponent is also an active participant during your turn. Unlike with stratagems that can feel like 'gotchas', it's also intuitive what will trigger a reaction. And unit/army archetypes that can be very frustrating to deal with in pure IGOUGO (see: mechanized Drukhari that can pull off T1 charge alpha strikes before you even get your first turn) are less game-breaking because you can react to them.
The two-actions-per-turn activation economy forces some tough decisions about how to employ your units, but simultaneously allows them to have interesting capabilities (eg, basic infantry can actually be pretty mobile when move+move covers 12" ). It also lets you choose how to sequence your units' activity, rather than being locked into everyone moves -> everyone shoots -> everyone charges. You can choose whether to charge an enemy unit at the start of your turn so that it can't react with opportunity fire as you bring more troops up, or to soften it up with shooting (eating some reaction fire) so the melee unit will be able to wipe it out. You can take advantage of the changing battlefield situation as it unfolds, but your opponent isn't stuck helpless as you do it. And lastly, it's just a good system for defining what a unit can do in a turn. Interacting with an objective? That's an action. Calling in an air strike? Action. Psychic power? Action. Rallying? Action. Clean and straightforward.
That said, I think there are some major caveats.
The first is that the unlimited reactions within 10" system is great for the SST license and really captures the feel of the horde of bugs versus overwhelming firepower, but I'm not sure it's right for 40K. I feel something more akin to Dust, where reactions in the opponent's turn come at the cost of actions in your own turn, would be a bit more appropriate. You could maybe do something like limit a unit to reacting once per turn, and then have a unit that reacted only get one action instead of two in its own turn. So essentially, the reaction system would allow you to respond immediately to the enemy, but without getting 'bonus' movement or shooting out of it, and ceding the initiative in the process.
The other is that even with the reaction system tinkered with to avoid changing too much about how units behave in close contact, it'd still have major impact on how the game plays. As people are learning through HH2.0, when your opponent can react, it gets much harder to simply run melee troops into the enemy. They need support to turn off the enemy's reactions (ie, a suppression mechanic), so melee/close assault tends to be a little more realistic in how it's employed and typically needs at least some shooting to back it up. Additionally, having a more limited action economy changes the value of some units and weapons significantly. If you can't move/shoot/charge all in the same turn, then a unit capable of all three is less valuable, and ranged weapons on melee units are not going to see a ton of use if they're spending their actions on moving and melee (which I suppose is actually not that different from old 40K, in how you couldn't shoot Rapid Fire weapons if you were Fleet-ing or charging). And of course, allowing units to potentially shoot or fight more than once as a core mechanic requires a long hard look at lethality.
So, it'd be a substantial rewrite, and it would certainly feel like a different game from current 40K, but I think it would be much more in line with what I personally want from a wargame- player interactivity, tactical decision-making based on board state, and verisimilitude.
By the way, I think you will find that OPR, despite using completely different mechanics, achieves some of the same feel as I described. Individual unit activations are more like SST's than 40K's, and the pure AA structure allows for lots of interactivity and makes sequencing important. Definitely interested to hear how it goes for you.
Very informative reply! Thanks catbarf!
I will let you know my take on OPR once I have a few games in.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.
As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.
As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.
To clarify, you're happy having some armies literally unable to hit some opponents?
I think it's pretty clear that was his problem with 8th, that Orks did not have the ability to stack +3 to hit to counter negative modifiers to hit. Orks got around some of it with a Stratagem, but that only works while CP lasts and doesn't scale.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.
On the subject of modifiers, I'd want to test splitting them into modifiers you're applying vs. modifiers your opponent is applying (including terrain on this side, I think), with each side capped at a net +/-1 - gives a theoretical range between +2 and -2. No more firing ASSAULT weapons after advancing with no additional penalty just because your opponent already applies a -1 to hit, for example. Not 100% sure what you do with Orks in this scenario, though - 6's always hit, after all, so even ending up with a -2 means they're only really having to deal with a -1, while your average Guardsman (with the same net modifier) is dealing with the full -2.
vict0988 wrote: I think it's pretty clear that was his problem with 8th, that Orks did not have the ability to stack +3 to hit to counter negative modifiers to hit. Orks got around some of it with a Stratagem, but that only works while CP lasts and doesn't scale.
That's an equally gakky option as well though. What happens if your orks get +3 to hit but your opponent doesn't have any -1 to hit, that's even more of an impossible balancing situation than they have now.
Plus when know what GW are like, it'd turn into a hit modifier bidding war, latest and greatest releases having greater and greater numbers of each until we hit "ignores all modifiers" followed by "all negative modifiers" followed by "prevents modifiers being ingored" and so on.
A hard fast ruling on weapon types is more immutable and becomes a fixture you can easily balance around.
I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.
This is also my preference regarding modifiers in general, and I totally agree that setting up a hard choice leads to more interesting gameplay decisions than slapping a modifier on something. Not to mention modifiers and allowing compound actions both make the game longer.
Since we've talked about Andy Chambers a fair bit in this thread, I want to point out how he explicitly designed 3rd Ed (and many of the specialist games) to not use modifiers whenever possible.
Some 3rd Ed 40K examples:
-Rapid Fire controls the number of shots you get based on range and movement, not applying modifiers to the roll.
-Heavy is binary move-or-fire, not fire-with-a-penalty.
-Master-Crafted gives you re-rolls of 1s, rather than +1 to hit or whatever.
-AP system is all-or-nothing.
-Vehicles used two different damage tables for glancing hits vs penetrating hits.
-Cover provides a bonus save, not a change to hit chance.
The primary goal is to reduce cognitive burden, since you don't need to remember a bunch of modifiers. If I'm firing a master-crafted bolter at short range against a heavily-armored target in cover, I do not need to tally up bonuses and penalties and figure out an adjusted roll to hit; each of these is applied separately and independently at different stages of the process. It also speeds up resolution if penalties manifest as fewer dice rolled rather than rolls that need 5s or 6s to succeed.
More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed. They also don't affect armies equally, as -2 to hit is significant for Marines (cutting their effectiveness in half), crippling for Guard (effectiveness down to a third), and an existential problem for Orks. Then the patchwork fixes, like 9th's cap on penalties, means you get silliness like moving and shooting Heavy because there's no penalty if your target is already at -1 to hit. Separating out these effects into discrete mechanics makes it easier for them to coexist.
I guess I'm a hypocrite, because I have often been a proponent of heavier use of modifiers, but there is an elegance to modifier-free design. Really, I think the issue is that the current to-hit mechanic in particular- just a D6 roll against a fixed value- is too simplistic to wrap a bunch of secondary modifiers and effects into it, and more gentle modifiers to avoid breaking it don't have the kind of significant effect that I feel they ought to. Having to decide whether to move or fire, or move and shoot up to half range or stay still and shoot up to max range, has more impact on both weapon choice and moment-to-moment tactical decision-making than just a -1.
I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.
This is also my preference regarding modifiers in general, and I totally agree that setting up a hard choice leads to more interesting gameplay decisions than slapping a modifier on something. Not to mention modifiers and allowing compound actions both make the game longer.
I don't see why the mechanics should be exclusive. I'd just use both. Infantry cannot move and fire a Heavy weapon. Firing into cover confers a -1 to hit.
This is the framework of 2nd ed, although 3rd introduced interesting additional mechanics involving weapons categories like Assault. I'd take a bit of all of it.
Having twice as many tables instead of one with modifiers is bloated and clunky.
I think re-rolls are a very useful mechanic to have in the tool bag. But yeah they have to be limited in use because it's such a pain at the large scale. Like, Twin Linked used to be re-rolls, and it was no problem because they were comparatively rare.
Dysartes wrote: How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?
For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).
* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.
I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.
Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.
As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.
To clarify, you're happy having some armies literally unable to hit some opponents?
6s always hit, and not every unit is gonna be -3 to hit. That affects the higher BS armies like Marines, Eldar, and Custodes. That's not a bad thing and encourages sources of autohit (flamers), specific tools (AA platforms) or melee units.
Fact is, most complaints were from people building 100% shooting armies that wanted no opposition. Raven Guard and Eldar fliers with -2 to hit aren't a problem.
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
If an ork moves with a heavy weapon then no amount of negative modifiers matter.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.
It's funny.... Ballistic Skill being represented as a X+ values makes a lot more sense in 3rd-7th edition where you don't have hit roll modifiers, than it does in 8th/9th.
Conversely, having BS be a range from 1-10 (with heroes have BS5, BS6, BS7, etc.) makes a lot more sense in 8th/9th where you DO have the potential for lots of modifiers to stack - so your elite ranged units with a high BS, targeters, etc. have a purpose (this is what 2nd edition did).
Mezmorki wrote: It's funny.... Ballistic Skill being represented as a X+ values makes a lot more sense in 3rd-7th edition where you don't have hit roll modifiers, than it does in 8th/9th.
Conversely, having BS be a range from 1-10 (with heroes have BS5, BS6, BS7, etc.) makes a lot more sense in 8th/9th where you DO have the potential for lots of modifiers to stack - so your elite ranged units with a high BS, targeters, etc. have a purpose (this is what 2nd edition did).
GW has their systems backwards.
I think they just wanted to get rid of a chart, which is a reasonable goal.
If modifiers were back in full swing though, I wonder if it would be too weird to express high BS as 1+, 0+ and even -1+. That seems ok to me.
Edit: Just capping at 0 might be good enough anyways. That translated to a BS of 7 in 2nd. Max I recall was 8?
Neat, thanks! Seems reasonable since those models were pretty rare. I think Space Marines capped out at 5. I played Crons too but they're not known for outstanding marksmanship. I may have never used a model with BS 6.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.
Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.
Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?
It's any 4+ to anything being affected by -3 or more.
So for your examples moving with a heavy weapon team, firing through a forest at a vehicle with smoke launchers would be a 4+ with -4 to hit.
Insectum7 wrote: Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.
It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.
As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.
Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?
My point I guess is that when you say that I'm referring to a cap on +1,-1, I am in fact not referring to that cap mechanic, and instead refering to the mechanic I was actually talking about, which is the "6+ always hits" mechanic.
The reason why they are not the same is because we're talking about potential alternative rulesets, with potentially other modifiers that could also stack.
catbarf wrote: More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.
And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.
catbarf wrote: More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.
And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.
Lasguns that auto-wound Titans and armour saves that stop things that "Invulnerable" saves can't. Peak 9th edition 40k.
catbarf wrote: More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.
And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.
Lasguns that auto-wound Titans and armour saves that stop things that "Invulnerable" saves can't. Peak 9th edition 40k.
Remember when an "Invulnerable" save was actually invulnerable, it could never be bypassed. kind of defeats the point of having one if you can ignore it.
Don't even get me started on the non-immersive concept that infantry small arms could do more than scratch the paint on armored fighting vehicles specifically designed to defeat them.
Even Andy addressed that with the armor class/wound system in DUST.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Well . . . There was the C'tan blades, Necrodermis, and the Pariah weapon. Very limited though.
True, but they were exceedingly rare bits of wargear not an entire class of weapons that ignored it.
The dread axe by itself only ignored invul saves, unless you put it on a greater demon that naturally ignored armor saves you still get an armor save. same with psy-cannons (demon hunters codex) designed specifically to kill demons that only have an invul save (except khorne). in the latter case having grey knights on the table means they get to come back on the table the next turn for free (demonic infestation). so, it is kind of a wash.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Well . . . There was the C'tan blades, Necrodermis, and the Pariah weapon. Very limited though.
I think the important thing here is how rare they were. Back then, it was extremely unlikely you'd see these weapons in a standard game and even if you did there weren't actually that many Invulnerable saves anyway, so they would have limited - but potentially very impactful - effect. The problem with modern 40k is how any new mechanic seems to multiply quickly and go from a rare, interesting rule to common enough that you need to consider how to counter it, even in relatively small, closed metas. -1 damage is a good example, and now the various "ignore Invulnerables" weapons too. The only reason we "need" so many weapons that ignore Invulnerables is because of the proliferation in them we've seen in the last few editions. If there'd been more restraint there, and more restraint in stacking both offensive and defensive buffs, there wouldn't be the same need for all these additional rules to get around the original additional rules.
An invulnerable save being ignored makes it no more irrelevant than armour saves being ignored. Invulnerable saves on models with decent saves are already ignored most of the time. Big guns ignoring invulnerable saves to make them more powerful rather than as a way to show narrative through gameplay is no worse than arbitrarily letting weapons ignore Toughness like HotE does or arbitrarily increasing AP of Necrons Flayed Ones melee weapons,
Just more of the same 9th edition bad codex writing.
The rarity of weapons that ignored Invuls made those occasional exceptions more palatable. They felt significant, and not just "Shoots metal more fasterer than other weapons that shoot metal really fast!" like the current fething incongruence of the Hammerhead Railgun rules.
A C'Tan phase-blade or a Psycannon ignoring invulnerables was something special, not just the next level of escalation in an ever and increasingly worse and badly written set of rules.
aphyon wrote: Same with psy-cannons (demon hunters codex) designed specifically to kill demons that only have an invul save (except khorne). in the latter case having grey knights on the table means they get to come back on the table the next turn for free (demonic infestation). so, it is kind of a wash.
And as a weird side effect, the Psycannon was the most effective anti-Eldar weapon there was. Grey Knights were pretty good against Daemons. They were great against Eldar, Ulthwe especially.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A C'Tan phase-blade or a Psycannon ignoring invulnerables was something special, not just the next level of escalation in an ever and increasingly worse and badly written set of rules.
Yup, and as corollary, invulns were special too when they were rare, and moderated by generally topping out at 5++. It cut your casualties a bit and gave characters a chance to survive Instant Death, but wasn't as powerful (or annoying to play against!) as the 3++s all over 8th or the 4++ that many have been toned down to in 9th.
The one-upmanship has been a recurring problem in 40K's writing history; it's a classic symptom of too many cooks in the kitchen and lack of coherent vision for how the game ought to work.
Yeah it's true that the invulns were pretty rare back then too, and they were pretty solidly capped iirc. I think the first 3++s showed up in 5th with the Storm Shield. (Another reason I didn't like that edition too much.)
As for one-upmanship, I'm mostly against the idea of codex creep for much of earlier 40k, as most of the time there were new increases to power, they tended to go along with high costs and drawbacks. Like those Pariahs who ignored invulns, they were not only expensive, but also had significant limitations such as not benefitting from WBB (resurrection) and incompatible with teleport mechanics.
If GW had been keen on updating points back then like they are now, I'm convinced the few problem units/choices that were around (starcannons) could have been adequately dealt with.
Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.
Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.
It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.
Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.
Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.
Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.
It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.
Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.
The reasons to use them over Scarabs were:
1: S 6 vs the Scarabs S 3.
2: I 6 over Scarabs I 3
3: WS 4 over Scarabs WS 2 4: They were Necrons and could therefore be teleported through the Monolith Portal, for extra WBB rolls if necessary, and tremendous potential engagement range (18" distance to Monolith + 6" size of Monolith + 18" Move+Charge from Monolith = 42"), since you could charge after Portal teleportation (and subsequent movement). At 3 attacks per model they was 4 each on the Charge, and 12 Attacks at S6 I6 was pretty solid.
A Destroyer Lord, while also a good model, capped out at 4 Attacks on the Charge and only had S5. It was sorta terrible at dealing with swarms. (and still only had I 4)
The fact that Wraiths were I 6 was a big part of their defense, as you could enter a combined combat against a small part of the target squad, kill just a model or two before anyone else fights, and ensure that the opposing unit could never strike back. I used them in conjunction with Flayed Ones a bunch. The Flayed Ones would soak hits and the Wraiths added extra oomph to the Assault while avoiding attacks in return.
Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.
Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.
It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.
Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.
The reasons to use them over Scarabs were:
1: S 6 vs the Scarabs S 3.
2: I 6 over Scarabs I 3
3: WS 4 over Scarabs WS 2 4: They were Necrons and could therefore be teleported through the Monolith Portal, for extra WBB rolls if necessary, and tremendous potential engagement range (18" distance to Monolith + 6" size of Monolith + 18" Move+Charge from Monolith = 42"), since you could charge after Portal teleportation (and subsequent movement). At 3 attacks per model they was 4 each on the Charge, and 12 Attacks at S6 I6 was pretty solid.
A Destroyer Lord, while also a good model, capped out at 4 Attacks on the Charge and only had S5. It was sorta terrible at dealing with swarms. (and still only had I 4)
The fact that Wraiths were I 6 was a big part of their defense, as you could enter a combined combat against a small part of the target squad, kill just a model or two before anyone else fights, and ensure that the opposing unit could never strike back. I used them in conjunction with Flayed Ones a bunch. The Flayed Ones would soak hits and the Wraiths added extra oomph to the Assault while avoiding attacks in return.
1. S6 doesn't matter when you aren't ignoring saves on what is already an expensive model. S3 on Scarabs doesn't matter either when you're just taking disruption fields.
2. Once again, I6 only matters if you don't hit line a wet noodle
3. So that means the Wraith hits on a 4 vs important targets. So that's already half the attacks gone. At least Scarabs have the weight of attacks.
The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system.
you just always refuse to read them, not even talking about playing them
there are enough examples of system based on 40k (like Bolt Action) or in the same genre (Warpath Firefight) that have a functional AA system
GW had already AA in Space Marine (2nd Epic) during the 90s.
Mezmorki wrote: AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: Orks should hit on a 5+ and ignore all hit modifiers.
Mezmorki wrote: AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.
Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.
Mezmorki wrote: AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.
Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.
Weird, your argument for jump pack lords and 10 flamer chaos terminators is based on legacy though. Or do you change stance when it comes to physical models rather than an abstract rules?
It's not legacy keeping orks on a low BS it's their previous editions of fluff and to an extent faction identity. We're already pretty much at the game where everything hits on a 3+ or better, why make it worse and start reducing the number of effective values?
The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.
And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .
The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.
And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .
I found Slayer-Fan more entertaining though and didn't cap most posts off with a LOL.
Orks suffered from a homogenisation issue when Gorkamorka hit. Everything became a "Generic Goff", and that lasted into 3rd Edition, with so much of their identity taken away (all the nutso Orky field artillery became "Kannon", "Lobba" and "Zzapp Gun"... wow... ). It was a long time before Orks reclaimed their identity (and the various Klanz) in any serious fashion.
By then GW had a brainbug that "Orks = Bad Shots" and wouldn't budge from that position. Situations such as this are why things like him exist.
Mezmorki wrote: AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.
You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.
This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.
Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.
Weird, your argument for jump pack lords and 10 flamer chaos terminators is based on legacy though. Or do you change stance when it comes to physical models rather than an abstract rules?
Physical models are more important, but Orks weren't actually always BS5+.
Plus the rules were written just to try to cut off 3rd party bitz sellers, or do you think the new Terminator datasheet was super streamlined?
Plus, in a new ruleset where modifiers are a thing compared to, especially so, 6th and 7th where everyone just got Twin Linked and rerolls to hit, it's important to experiment with statlines. For example, how many people have actually complained about Marines being W2? The Intercessor statline was the best thing that happened to Marines.
The problem with Marines is bloated datasheets when we need consolidation but that's a different topic.
The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.
And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .
I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.
I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.
Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p
I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.
Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p
Now I DO apologize if I am coming across as rude rather than blunt, but it isn't like there's some hidden rules for Flayed Ones I missed. As I recall, my main list in 4th was:
×1 Veillord with Orb
×1 Destroyer Lord w/ Scythe and Lightning Field
2×10 Warriors
×20 Warriors
2×5 Destroyers
×9 Scarabs
×10 Immortals
×1 Monolith
Though the details are hazy, that seems correct in my head.
You're only talking about the third-ed codex when you say Wraiths + Destroyer Lord was bad right? Wraiths + Destroyer Lord was meta from 5th to 7th AFAIK, but you mention a lack of AP so I assume the issues you had might have been fixed when they got rending and of course, they were insane with 4+++.
Phase attacks not being on the datasheet and doing nothing except granting rending to their basic attacks just shows how badly 5th edition codexes were written.
Switching gears to a topic we haven't touched on yet from the survey: Mission Design
Where did people land on Mission Design across the various editions? Based on the survey, this is an area where 9th edition in particular tended to out perform past editions. People strongly liked progressive scoring and having troops or other units count in a special way towards objectives. There was a also a preference for asymmetric mission designs - although that runs counter to the matched play missions in 9th, but could be a nod towards crusade/narrative missions? 4th Edition had the best asymmetric mission design of the prior era IMHO.
Secondary objectives were more neutral. Fixed secondary objectives, which presumably included the 6th - 8th era feats, warlord kills, etc. as well as the 9th ed pick your secondaries system was -0.0. Variable Secondary Objectives (e.g. tactical objective cards from Maelstrom) was a bit lower at -0.1.
People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.
Lethality needs to be really low for end-game scoring to be a fun mission mechanic. If most games end with one army being tabled the question of who controls more objectives at the end of the game is a foregone conclusion. There is also the problem of gunlines, which most people dislike playing against, gunlines do better with end-game scoring because it lets them sit in their deployment zone and do nothing, being forced to claim objectives further up the field necessitates a more versatile army that should be more fun to play against.
The old first blood secondary was awfully unfair, free VP to the player going second, unless the player going first played a wrong faction.
Pick your secondary system is a way to punish spam and reward foresight and game knowledge, if it gives too many CP the game can however turn into being all about that and not about anything else, which is bad.
Faction secondaries don't really add much flavour-wise, at the cost of a lot of words and are therefore not worth it IMO. I'm pretty sure I could copy paste 3 of them from different factions and unless you've read them you wouldn't be able to tell who they belong to. It's another lever GW can hammer balance-wise, but it is very broad and many of the secondaries are noob traps.
The old board size was too rough for melee, I think older editions would have had much greater balance on smaller tables. It makes good short-ranged weapons look OP and bad long-ranged weapons look UP, those things could be fixed with pts, the number of models you'd need to make melee effective in 8th without using magic boxes would be rather high. Of course the cost of horde models have skyrocketed because of power creep in 9th, so maybe they'd be better off being a bit weaker and cheaper due to larger tables.
Predicting these large kinds of trends is harder than I anticipated at the start of 9th, Ork Boys surviving the edition change despite the reduced engagement range surprised me, players that continued playing 6x4 at the start of 9th using Ork Boys might have had different experiences, but gathering non-anecdotal information about that would be impossible I am guessing.
Designing balanced asymmetrical missions is hard. Most people want games to feel like they can be won or lost turn 4 or 5, if the mission works in a way that it is decided before turn 1, as I have been told some of the newer ones have, then that is no good for most people.
I think asymmetrical missions belong in one-offs in campaign books instead of mission packs. If Wolflord Bjærke Icewulf and his Terminator Icewuelves have suffered a deepstrike mishap in the Saga of the Beast narrative then print a mission in that book explaining how to recreate something like that. And for Hemingway's sake don't tell players to not put terrain on a quarter of the table when you are writing your missions GW.
People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.
What do you all think?
This one I really wanted to touch on. GW constantly increased weapon ranges AND made the board smaller. This leads to super quick shooting and as well made certain weapons useless. At least on a bigger board an argument can be made to buy a Lascannon vs a Multi-Melta because it has twice the range. Now it doesn't even have that supporting factor.
I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.
Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p
Now I DO apologize if I am coming across as rude rather than blunt, but it isn't like there's some hidden rules for Flayed Ones I missed.
Well how do you think one interprets "you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though."? Did I "gush", really? Do you know the context/s in which they were played? I suppose it's just easier to make accusations of ignorance I guess. Where I come from that counts as rude.
As I recall, my main list in 4th was:
×1 Veillord with Orb 200
×1 Destroyer Lord w/ Scythe and Lightning Field 165
2×10 Warriors 360
×20 Warriors 360
2×5 Destroyers 500
×9 Scarabs 108/144 with Disruption Fields
×10 Immortals 280
×1 Monolith 235
Though the details are hazy, that seems correct in my head.
Now I don't know about YOUR meta, but that's a 2208 point army, 2244 If the Scarabs have the Distortion Fields you mentioned.
The utility I found with Flayed Ones is not that they were necessarily great at killing (although against many targets plenty adequate), but that they were good at tying up units in a shock-assault way that Scarabs couldn't accomplish because Scarabs couldn't teleport through the Monolith. The usual move was to Infiltrate the Flayed Ones forward and into cover, preferably in a way that draws out the opponent or can reinforce the general Necron advance. But then when the Monolith arrived in turn 2-3, drop it into a good vulnerable area of the opposition and throw the Flayed Ones into units in CC to tie them up while the rest of the Necrons engaged favorably. Because of the Teleportation I found I could get much better placement in the opposing army than I could ever get with Scarabs.
Big Warrior blobs could serve that purpose too, except it takes 20 Warriors to do the same number of Attacks as 10 Flayed Ones, and the Warriors couldn't fire and charge to get more damage out. 20 Warriors could Teleport and Rapid Fire for 40 S4 shots, but they could only fire at one unit, they couldn't tie anything down because they're not Assaulting, more expensive, and if things went really south, it's more Necron models to lose if the opposition commits to a good counterassault and Sweeping Advance. The Flayed Ones in Assault could tie down multiple units however, effectively removing them from player control for a bit. And if I was in a good position, Wraiths could either reinforce that Assault, or start a new one while the Flayed Ones pulled out and re-Assaulted a new target using the Monolith again.
I preferred the Wraiths over the Destroyer Lord for the same reason you say you like Scarabs: simple Weight of Attacks. Your Destroyer Lord above cost 165, while the 5 Wraiths I used cost 205 altogether, not a huge difference (actually about the difference of one Wraith). But that group together was 5 wounds at 3++, vs the Destroyer Lords 3 with 3+/4++. The Toughness was lower 4 vs. 6, and that made them more vulnerable to small arms, however imo they made up for that with 20 S6 I6 Attacks on the charge when Assaulting together. And working together with Flayed Ones they could do lovely things.
Here's my favorite Necron 1850 form 4th
Lord, Orb, Veil
Immortals x10
Flayed Ones x10
Warriors x10
Warriors x10
Wraiths x3
Wraiths x2
Heavy Destroyers x3
Heavy Destroyers x3
Monolith
1850
Heavy Destroyers is a whole different discussion. But the long and short of it is that Necrons struggled against 2+ armor, and the Heavy Destroyers solved that issue nicely. In addition, the HDs could more reliably kill vehicles. When I ran normal Destroyers I found that I was fishing for 6s and sometimes waiting along time before a target actually went down. Heavy D's provided AT and anti TEQs nicely.
Happy to continue via PM if you like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: Switching gears to a topic we haven't touched on yet from the survey: Mission Design
Where did people land on Mission Design across the various editions? Based on the survey, this is an area where 9th edition in particular tended to out perform past editions. People strongly liked progressive scoring and having troops or other units count in a special way towards objectives. There was a also a preference for asymmetric mission designs - although that runs counter to the matched play missions in 9th, but could be a nod towards crusade/narrative missions? 4th Edition had the best asymmetric mission design of the prior era IMHO.
Secondary objectives were more neutral. Fixed secondary objectives, which presumably included the 6th - 8th era feats, warlord kills, etc. as well as the 9th ed pick your secondaries system was -0.0. Variable Secondary Objectives (e.g. tactical objective cards from Maelstrom) was a bit lower at -0.1.
People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.
What do you all think?
6x4 is definitely superior. More room to move about, and more space to let little sub-battlefronts develop.
As for mission design, both 3rd and 4th had excellent mission sets, although I don't recall which I liked more. Another big issue with 5th ed is the move to Kill Points for Missions, which unfavorably punished armies which took more numerous, smaller units. That was a terrible move, imo.
Racerguy180 wrote: 6x4 is a tad undersized for the ranges & # of models on the board.
8x4 is really good(if you have room) but need a pretty healthy amount of terrain(differing types) to not be too advantageous to either side.
For a while we had one of those foldable ping pong tables (9x5) and it was awesome. Lots of room for a good game plus plenty of space for books/dice/casualties etc. Takes a big space though!
This one is a head scratcher. i mean 9th edition just flat out takes longer with players constantly digging through strats and re-rolls, relics auras etc.. so maybe speed play plays a part in this point of view.
But the idea the game can be over basically on turn 3 with no reason to play to the end is at odds with what i consider good game design. both the loss of a secondary win condition (destroying the enemy army and controlling the field) that basically every other single war game has in some way. and the removal of scoring at the end that encourages players to both play till the end with the victory being a good close thing that could swing either way especially with added random extra turns.
I just had a 5th ed game of crimson fist VS my salamanders at it came down to the wire with a lucky bit of last minute maneuvering to give me a narrow win on turn 7.
As for mission design, both 3rd and 4th had excellent mission sets,
The 4th ed main rulebook has the best collection of interesting mission layouts for my vote. including kill team, combat patrol etc...
A collection of maps with 4-8 objective markers in various configurations and you just get points for holding them as the game goes on.
The "variety" comes from the Secondary Objectives, things that have become so important that their title of "Secondary" is a complete misnomer.
8th had fun missions. Tempest of War/Open War makes for interesting missions.
Yup. And those "choose your own" secondaries just push the emphasis of the game even further towards the list building stage. Now people build towards the secondaries that they intend to use, instead of building an army that can deal with multiple possible mission types and goals. Dull is the correct word.
Yup. And those "choose your own" secondaries just push the emphasis of the game even further towards the list building stage. Now people build towards the secondaries that they intend to use, instead of building an army that can deal with multiple possible mission types and goals. Dull is the correct word.
Have you seen tournament lists recently? Compare them to 5th edition and they look completely fluffy, between players often taking 1-2 of a datasheet and the lack of spamming vehicles or overwhelmingly large hordes.
Tyran wrote: ... Tempest of War is a 9th edition mission system.
It's an alternate missions system that is far more interesting than the one from the rulebook.
Are you talking about the open play or narrative play missions in the rulebook? /sarcasm. Nephilim missions are not in the rulebook, what are you getting mad for? The trial version of Tempest in 9th was garbage as far as I've been told, shouldn't you be happy that they left it to simmer in the pot until you got Tempest which I believe you are happy with instead of the half-cooked garbage missions printed in the core rules because GW wanted to ship 9th ASAP so they could print another SM codex?
So far all you've done is babble incoherently about things none of us are talking about.
vict0988 wrote: The trial version of Tempest in 9th was garbage as far as I've been told, shouldn't you be happy that they left it to simmer in the pot until you got Tempest which I believe you are happy with instead of the half-cooked garbage missions printed in the core rules because GW wanted to ship 9th ASAP so they could print another SM codex?
I'm not talking about a "trail version" of anything either.
Do us a favour: When you have a point, get back to us, please.
There are no great missions in the core rules, whether you prefer Maelstrom-style, Nova-style or Eternal War, few are going to be satisfied with whatever GW includes in the core rules because it will have been unrefined, therefore it is largely irrelevant what is in the core rules. It is therefore pointless to point out that the Tempest mission set you are happy with isn't in the core rules while the matched play missions you are unhappy with are because if GW had attempted to include Tempest in the core rules it wouldn't have been the version that you actually like, it would have been something like the White Dwarf version of Maelstrom for 9th that nobody liked.
Yup. And those "choose your own" secondaries just push the emphasis of the game even further towards the list building stage. Now people build towards the secondaries that they intend to use, instead of building an army that can deal with multiple possible mission types and goals. Dull is the correct word.
Have you seen tournament lists recently? Compare them to 5th edition and they look completely fluffy, between players often taking 1-2 of a datasheet and the lack of spamming vehicles or overwhelmingly large hordes.
No, I don't pay attention to tournament lists. And I didn't mention "fluff". So what do those lists being "fluffy", in your opinion, have to do with what I said?
Weren't 5th ed list limited by its own special FoC, and the fact that troops were often horrible? I saw 5th ed list. They were often 2x5 tacticals and then the rest in stuff like dreadnoughts, speeders, GK run 3-6 dreadnoughts, some GK list spamed razorbacks with inquisition in it, other took one gigant blob of paladins. I think every SW army I saw had two runpriests and maxed out rocket launcher long fangs and a ton of razorbacks.Chaos list consisted of minimal troops, demon princes and obliterators etc.
So the 5th ed list didn't seem that different from what is played nowadays.
Karol wrote: Weren't 5th ed list limited by its own special FoC, and the fact that troops were often horrible? I saw 5th ed list. They were often 2x5 tacticals and then the rest in stuff like dreadnoughts, speeders, GK run 3-6 dreadnoughts, some GK list spamed razorbacks with inquisition in it, other took one gigant blob of paladins. I think every SW army I saw had two runpriests and maxed out rocket launcher long fangs and a ton of razorbacks.Chaos list consisted of minimal troops, demon princes and obliterators etc.
So the 5th ed list didn't seem that different from what is played nowadays.
really depends on the codex.
The core FOC for all armies in 5th was
1 HQ 2 troops required
max
2 HQs 6 troops
3 elite
3 fast
3 heavies
Certain codexes could move units around in the FOC to make them work a bit different most times to fit with established lore-
Blood angels for example could do a viable armored company list since all the rhino chassi's counted as "fast" vehicles and they could take baal predators as fast attack choices. leaving the heavy slots open for regular predators, vidicators and the like.
At the same time they could do an all jump list as assault marines counted as troops for them, or the sanguinary guard elite jump troops (artificer armor 2+ save, + power weapons and fancy wrist guns) could become troops if Dante was your HQ.
or a full death company list if Astorath was your HQ. death company could also take death company dreadnoughts as troops for every 3 death company tac marines in your list.
The same was true for many other factions, notable things like dark angels alternate terminator army (deathwing) and all bike army (ravenwing) as well as space wolves utilizing the wolf guard elites as troops if logan was your HQ and they were all kitted out individually and could be anything you wanted for the points-terminators, jump infantry, bikes, various combi weapons and CC weapons. they were hands down some of the best "troops" in the game.
You never really know what you will get with a 5th ed list as there were so many options and list builds.
When it comes to basic troops it really was up to you to decide what you wanted. tac marines were general all arounders who held up pretty good against most things. scouts tended to be good at the sneaking and sniping (and hugging cover) you go to other factions and the lowly fire warrior (espeicially with haywire grenades was pretty solid so long as they stayed clear of close combat.
Craftworld eldar were all over the place, you could take guardians if you wanted to go on the cheap, however they were general troops the craft worlds all specialized. dire avengers were shooting power houses, saim han was all about jet bikes and vehicles. altoc favored scouts, iyanden was the slow plodding super tough wraith army. and so on.
for GKs specifically (since i know that is what you play) the 5th ed codex (i prefer the 3rd ed demon hunters book myself) the basic troopers were high WS, carried various power weapon options and decent mid ranged guns the same as most of the elite and fast options in the list. the paladin terminators (a huge deal for being 2 wound terminators in 5th when everything save a character and a scant few non monstrous units ever had more than a single wound) along with the baby carrier were the tanky units.
to give you an idea of what some of those lists look like (since i still play 5th ed rules for 3rd-7th ed codexes) armies used in 5th ed-
My ravenwing
Spoiler:
night lords
Spoiler:
blood angels
Spoiler:
completely different blood angel style list
Spoiler:
A recent grey knights list from a brand new (to 40K) player-
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm going to claim a certain level of vindication on the support for an "overwatch" mechanic.
That was a hotly-debated topic back in the day, and proponents of it got constant grief.
Mostly, I think, because people either didn't understand the rule or simply found Rhino rushes easier than actual tactics.
I'm also a fan of overwatch mechanics, but it really depends on the specifics.
IMO there's a world of difference between having to specifically put a unit on overwatch so that it can shoot later, versus getting bonus shooting at no cost every time an enemy charges you. One's a tactical tradeoff that involves sacrificing the ability to act now for the potential to act when it's more useful; the other is just a freebie that makes melee less fun to play.
Part of the danger with these sorts of polls- and why I answered a little less enthusiastically about certain mechanics than I might otherwise- is because the execution matters so much.
Same deal with subfaction traits. I like the 3rd/4th Ed system where subfactions could pay points to get special traits, or rearrange the FOC, or get additional options on their units. I don't like the 8th/9th Ed system where your whole army gets a bonus that encourages you to Flanderize your force and makes balancing a nightmare. But both are described as 'subfaction traits'.
I'm also a fan of overwatch mechanics, but it really depends on the specifics.
IMO there's a world of difference between having to specifically put a unit on overwatch so that it can shoot later, versus getting bonus shooting at no cost every time an enemy charges you. One's a tactical tradeoff that involves sacrificing the ability to act now for the potential to act when it's more useful; the other is just a freebie that makes melee less fun to play.
Part of the danger with these sorts of polls- and why I answered a little less enthusiastically about certain mechanics than I might otherwise- is because the execution matters so much.
Same deal with subfaction traits. I like the 3rd/4th Ed system where subfactions could pay points to get special traits, or rearrange the FOC, or get additional options on their units. I don't like the 8th/9th Ed system where your whole army gets a bonus that encourages you to Flanderize your force and makes balancing a nightmare. But both are described as 'subfaction traits'.
I agree. Allowing designated units to "hold their action" to cover other ones is a good tradeoff. I think the way it worked in 2nd was great - it gave you some opportunities to hit units in the open, but at a -1 penalty.
The "auto-firing" thing is a bad mechanic and I think it came about because there was a need to prevent units from dashing 18" or more into assault without the defenders being able to do a thing about it. Overwatch was the obvious solution, but a weird tic of the 3/4 editions was GW's determined effort to smear their older edition in order to get people away from it - and that included villifying mechanics like overwatch.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The "auto-firing" thing is a bad mechanic and I think it came about because there was a need to prevent units from dashing 18" or more into assault without the defenders being able to do a thing about it. Overwatch was the obvious solution, but a weird tic of the 3/4 editions was GW's determined effort to smear their older edition in order to get people away from it - and that included villifying mechanics like overwatch.
This is where 6th edition sent 40k into a nosedive IMHO. It's a situation where one stupid design decision necessities the need for more stupid decisions.
In this case, having a random 2D6 charge is again a culprit in f'ing up the core rules. Because now you have the potential for crazy long distance charges that wreck the balance and can deny even a single window of shooting opportunity in certain situations, and so you allow the overwatch auto-fire system. Except that system wasn't very well implemented either (only hitting on snap fire was lame). So it ended up just dragging out the length of the game and adding more die rolling for no real tangible purpose. It got even more broken (aka pointless) in 8th, since casualties didn't automatically come from the front - and so it was mostly excised out of the core rule in 9th. Face palm.
Anyway, 2nd ed style overwatch was a great idea, but needed some refinement. But per usual, GW throws the baby out with bathwater.
In this case, having a random 2D6 charge is again a culprit in f'ing up the core rules. Because now you have the potential for crazy long distance charges that wreck the balance and can deny even a single window of shooting opportunity in certain situations, and so you allow the overwatch auto-fire system. Except that system wasn't very well implemented either (only hitting on snap fire was lame). So it ended up just dragging out the length of the game and adding more die rolling for no real tangible purpose. It got even more broken (aka pointless) in 8th, since casualties didn't automatically come from the front - and so it was mostly excised out of the core rule in 9th. Face palm.
Anyway, 2nd ed style overwatch was a great idea, but needed some refinement. But per usual, GW throws the baby out with bathwater.
GW consistently confuses "randomly distributed imbalance" with "balance." No, rolling a crap ton of dice does not make it far, it just makes it arbitrary.
In think 2nd ed Overwatch was generally misunderstood. It functioned in a vary narrow, specific way and when used in that way, added tension and realism without a great deal of complexity. A lot of people got it badly wrong, and that gave it something of a bad reputation.
Mezmorki wrote: Anyway, 2nd ed style overwatch was a great idea, but needed some refinement. But per usual, GW throws the baby out with bathwater.
I hated it. Brought games to a standstill.
The only time I ever thought it a good idea was in Necromunda, and only as a skill you had to get rather than a general rule.
This is probably the biggest complaint I've heard about overwatch, and the issue wasn't the mechanic but the inability of the players to comprehend it.
Under the closest/easiest target rule, the moving player (you) can control what the other guy sees and therefore what he's allows to shoot at.
At the same time, you also can move units into covering positions. The upshot is that you can push a unit forward and dare the opponent to pop out of hiding and fire on overwatch. If he does, his positions are exposed, and the incoming fire from your support units will wreck him.
If he doesn't, your forward units will simply use area-effect weapons to burn him out anyway.
Except you also have to consider melee armies in this balancing equation.
All of that kinda becomes meaningless if you don't have guns, aside that you have to endure an additional shooting phase in your own turn.
Tyran wrote: Except you also have to consider melee armies in this balancing equation.
All of that kinda becomes meaningless if you don't have guns, aside that you have to endure an additional shooting phase in your own turn.
I think GW should probably be designing melee army’s better to interact with a game that’s rather focused on shooting honestly.
Things like pining, smoke and other things that GW have seem to spend a lot of effort to remove would go a long way.
Tyran wrote: Except you also have to consider melee armies in this balancing equation.
All of that kinda becomes meaningless if you don't have guns, aside that you have to endure an additional shooting phase in your own turn.
I think GW should probably be designing melee army’s better to interact with a game that’s rather focused on shooting honestly.
Things like pining, smoke and other things that GW have seem to spend a lot of effort to remove would go a long way.
The strong concession GW made for close combat in the 3rd Ed paradigm was the resolution of CC, and the Sweeping Advance auto-wiping units. Assaulting was intended to be a challenging thing to do in universe populated with lots of firepower, but the result of actually winning an Assault was an abrupt slaughter. (GW notably f***ed the balance with the Blood Angels codex though). The Sweeping Advance mechanic killed so many models.
I agree that the ideal system would provide for some sort of cover-suppression play, right now the go-to is sorta just threat saturation. The two-and-fro between squads could be more interesting than it is, and it make smaller skirmishes more fun to play.
Tyran wrote: Except you also have to consider melee armies in this balancing equation.
All of that kinda becomes meaningless if you don't have guns, aside that you have to endure an additional shooting phase in your own turn.
On the other hand, anything that went on Overwatch wasn't shooting at you in your opponent's turn - less an additional shooting phase, as the number of shots didn't increase, more a shooting phase in two parts.
I think the trap people feel into was trying to avoid taking overwatch fire in order to entirely avoid taking shooting hits. At the same time, I think people put a lot of units into overwatch (instead of just moving and shooting normally) to try and squeeze out better opportunities from their shooting. The issue is that neither player got what they wanted really. One player risked missing out on shooting entirely, and the other risked not advancing into a better board position. When both players had this mentality, overwatch did cause fairly stagnant games.
As with much of 40K, I think a lot of it came down to the missions. I'm fuzzy on a lot of mission details from 2nd, but I think it was often the case of playing for VPs based on units killed in conjunction with each player having a primary mission that also awarded VPs. We wrote a lot of our own missions back in the day, which maybe helped, but if the mission relies too much on VPs from killing units then the overwatch gameplay described above is more incentivized.
Stagnant overwatch games have the same underlying issue as 9th ed alpha strikes- a mechanic that gives you the ability to do significant damage before the enemy can respond.
A lot of games have overwatch mechanics, but I usually see them balanced by penalties on the shooting unit's accuracy (since it is hasty fire), limiting what can trigger it (eg only on movement within a certain range), restricting it to a specific arc, and having status effects remove overwatch (like suppression). It also helps a lot if you have range modifiers and strong cover modifiers, so that taking overwatch fire from maximum range isn't the end of the world.
In a game that is trying to be any approximation of warfare, you shouldn't be forced to walk out in front of the 'overwatched' machine gun nest and get gunned down. Nor should you be free to stroll out at fifty yards and blast it off the face of the planet before it can shoot, either, which is what happens in IGOUGO. What it should do is force you to slow down and suppress it from a distance from a position that minimizes the number of casualties you take in the process- or better yet, approach from a covered angle and avoid defensive fire entirely. There are a number of mechanics that need to come together for that to work.
All that said, troops in prepared positions ought to have the advantage over ones making contact. Both sides sitting in cover and saying 'you first' is exactly what you would expect if neither has an objective that requires advancing on the enemy, and the expectation of higher casualties in the attack is why you typically wouldn't conduct such an attack without qualitative superiority. Give one side 50% higher points and an objective that forces them to walk into the enemy's guns and you won't see that sort of 'you first' stalemate.
^The observation about requiring heavy modifiers for Overwatch is interesting. During 2nd I relied on Dreadnoughts and Terminators for Overwatch because they started off with a high BS. The Dread in particular had a BS6 (effectively 1+), plus Targeter (bringing it to 0+). This often meant it was still plugging stuff on Overwatch on 2s and 3s. Was this a bad thing? I'm not sure.
One of the reasons I feel it's ok is because it means the design space is actually using lots of that space. Sure, modifiers could stack up (-4, -5 and beyond, even), but you also had statlines wich pushed well beyond the 2+ to 5+ that we've experienced in the editions since. On the idea of pushing heavier modifiers however, you could push for them in order to curb the effectiveness of high stats, but then you risk making Overwatch ineffective in the hands of "average" troops such as a GEQ type.
You could of course "6 always hits" it, I suppose, but it feels a bit like a cop out.
Mezmorki wrote: I think the trap people feel into was trying to avoid taking overwatch fire in order to entirely avoid taking shooting hits. At the same time, I think people put a lot of units into overwatch (instead of just moving and shooting normally) to try and squeeze out better opportunities from their shooting. The issue is that neither player got what they wanted really. One player risked missing out on shooting entirely, and the other risked not advancing into a better board position. When both players had this mentality, overwatch did cause fairly stagnant games.
As with much of 40K, I think a lot of it came down to the missions. I'm fuzzy on a lot of mission details from 2nd, but I think it was often the case of playing for VPs based on units killed in conjunction with each player having a primary mission that also awarded VPs. We wrote a lot of our own missions back in the day, which maybe helped, but if the mission relies too much on VPs from killing units then the overwatch gameplay described above is more incentivized.
What happened was that both armies would set up in cover (cover being a core requirement for a 2nd ed. battlefield) and be Hidden. Hidden units could not be shot at unless they were "detected", which meant either being within 2x the initiative range of an enemy model or some sort of sensor via wargear. A scanner (which any sergeant could carry) had a 24" range.
Detected units could be targeted with templates, but models under it were only hit on a 4+.
All of which is to say that the archetypal "fail" of 2nd was two armies in cover, hidden, on overwatch. Staring at each other.
The solution to this was to use the mission cards, which often required offensive action - taking an objective, scouting the enemy's deployment zone, killing characters, etc.
The overwatch mechanic was often badly misunderstood (even the Battle Bibles got it wrong). All it did was allow units to fire during the opponent's movement phase if units crossed their LOS. Once that happened, that unit was also no longer hidden. Units that firing on overwatch at models moving into our out of cover suffered a -1 to hit modifier. For most armies, this represented a significant loss in accuracy. As noted, some Space Marine equipment was ideal for this mission.
The way one overcame this paralysis was via maneuver, either shifting your forces to hit them on the flank or using special units to force the units to open fire, and then hammering them into oblivion during the subsequent shooting phase.
The units in 2nd ed were very mobile, capable of up to 30 inches movement, which meant that overwatch was necessary to prevent units being overrun without offering resistance. Some units could also "fly high" and then subsequently drop down onto the map. A common tactic was to hold a squad or weapons group with lots of shots on overwatch to serve as an anti-aircraft battery.
Upthread someone talked about melee combat, and while it did take some skill to achieve, armies like Tyranids were fully capable of getting into engagement thanks to their absurdly high movement rates.
Basically, overwatched worked if you did it right and understood its purpose.
I admit I was thinking it within the context of "you move 6" and charge 6", adding 6" or more here or there that if you have the proper rules (jump, beast, fleet) and considerable luck. 3rd-7th 40k was quite slow.
But yeah if we are talking about crossing half or more of the table in one turn, then overwatch does look quite different. But then again, crossing half or more of the table in one turn is a big deal, arguably far more than overwatch. Even the faster 9th edition rarely can do that outside of flyers which usually cannot charge.
To be fair the idea of two armies hiding across a field from each other and waiting for an opportunity to do something is pretty accurate to real life sometimes. I recall a tournament game that basically went like that. The thing with the missions is that points could be scored even without accomplishing specific objectives, so the game was won because I scored a point or two in the first round before the hiding-overwatch cycle started in earnest. At some point the other player HAD to do something to try and get points, so moves were made. But then my overwatch just pummeled him.
Bionic Eye had a Scanner in it too. My go to was using the Scanner/Eye to Detect models, and then lob Plasma Missiles into the lines. With luck I could break squad coherency using the Plasma, which forced models to move to regain coherency. But once they moved they weren't hidden, and it triggered overwatch fire for open season. And then it was a cycle of fire and overwatch using Blind grenades for protection.
Or of course you could do something stupid like take 10 Rhinos for 500 points and just bum rush using a wall of armor. Army building was very permissive . . .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: I admit I was thinking it within the context of "you move 6" and charge 6", adding 6" or more here or there that if you have the proper rules (jump, beast, fleet) and considerable luck. 3rd-7th 40k was quite slow.
But yeah if we are talking about crossing half or more of the table in one turn, then overwatch does look quite different. But then again, crossing half or more of the table in one turn is a big deal, arguably far more than overwatch. Even the faster 9th edition rarely can do that outside of flyers which usually cannot charge.
Crossing the table in one turn and Assaulting is why the Blood Angels codex in 3rd ed was so dumb. Gav Thorpe was the Matt Ward of 3rd
The key factor in this discussion is terrain. Are you fighting in a featureless desert, a dense forest, or something in between?
With 2nd, lots of terrain was absolutely necessary. Not only did it make the game visually interesting, it provided more tactical challenges.
Indeed, urban terrain is the most fun, and with all the angles and cover, there are many ways to get at people. Overwatch is essential and i remember observing how in 2nd the basic rules could cover city fights, but that 3/4th requires special rules to make it work.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The key factor in this discussion is terrain. Are you fighting in a featureless desert, a dense forest, or something in between?
With 2nd, lots of terrain was absolutely necessary. Not only did it make the game visually interesting, it provided more tactical challenges.
Indeed, urban terrain is the most fun, and with all the angles and cover, there are many ways to get at people. Overwatch is essential and i remember observing how in 2nd the basic rules could cover city fights, but that 3/4th requires special rules to make it work.
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
Insectum7 wrote: Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
Ooh, fightin' words.
Cityfight came about because it was needed. GW said so.
Insectum7 wrote: Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
Ooh, fightin' words.
Cityfight came about because it was needed. GW said so.
Surely you don't think GW was lying?
The primary desire behind Cityfight was to streamline things, which btw, would have been absolutely desireable to do for 2nd ed urban warfare too, unless of course you're the type of person who likes to keep track of individual model obstacle movement and 90 degree firing arcs inside multilevel buildings. In a game using 50+ models, I'm happy to do without.
And again, you choosing not to put terrain on your table for 3rd ed is a choice. It's not that the game didn't work.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So the only reason I didn't like it is because I didn't understand it?
No. I didn't like it because I didn't like how the rule worked.
"You only hate it cuz you is dumb!" is a bad argument.
Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you understood it or not.
What I do know is that a lot of people did not know how it was supposed to function and I know this from engaging them in discussion. Some people thought that it was applied during the shooting phase.
On another (sadly defunct) site, there was a very lengthy discussion of this and the amount of people who simply got the rule wrong was staggering. Indeed one could set up a FAQ on "Things you think you know about 2nd ed. rules that simply aren't so."
Stepping away from that particular edition, a mechanic for some sort of reaction fire is essential in any future/modern system. If you cross my front, I will take a shot, particularly if I'm sitting there waiting for you.
In some systems, this is solved via an integrated turn sequence. That is to say, both sides shoot during each shooting phase.
However it is done, either as reaction fire or overwatch, I think it's a necessary and useful mechanic. The survey results show that I'm not alone.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.
I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.
I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.
I want to say there was some mission where you had to control quarters on the table, but you were forced to bring in reinforcements from random table edges or quarter edges? It must not have been a standard mission. But damn it made for some scrappy and improvised engagements. A lot of the scenario design of that era was just top notch. I'll have to check my books and figure out what I'm remembering.
Insectum7 wrote: 3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.
Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.
Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.
2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.
The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).
It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.
I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.
I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.
I want to say there was some mission where you had to control quarters on the table, but you were forced to bring in reinforcements from random table edges or quarter edges? It must not have been a standard mission. But damn it made for some scrappy and improvised engagements. A lot of the scenario design of that era was just top notch. I'll have to check my books and figure out what I'm remembering.
I do remember a mission like that, we also see a lot of transport use. And had almost every week someone wanting to use the big table for a special mission.
I really think the proper city terrain ads so much to the game, even now it’s a table that’s very popular.
^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.
Upon a brief reviewing, I think my memory was combining the "Omega Level" Cleanse mission from 4th edition, with the Fire Sweep mission of Cityfight, but I could be wrong on that.
Insectum7 wrote: ^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.
So like a raised basement house? They're pretty common in New Orleans.
Insectum7 wrote: ^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.
So like a raised basement house? They're pretty common in New Orleans.
Sooorrt of. I was kind of thinking more like the concession craters use where it's intended to be lower then the table surface, so you just raise the walls. . . But I was also planning on making the exterior levels/stairs part of the architectural features? The idea works in my head, but since I haven't actually planned it out maybe I'm doing a poor job of envisioning it.
Really the idea is to provide troops lots of LOS cover from every angle if they want it, so they can really hunker down. I mean you could rule it, but I wanted to really 'feel' it on the table. Plus it would otherwise give the building a nice "foot". I'll put a little effort in and sketch it out.
On another (sadly defunct) site, there was a very lengthy discussion of this and the amount of people who simply got the rule wrong was staggering. Indeed one could set up a FAQ on "Things you think you know about 2nd ed. rules that simply aren't so."
That seems like a stretch. It's entirely plausible that people are simply misremembering a rule form over 20 years ago, and they were playing it correctly at the time. All they're left with now is the emotional response to the situation, rather than the finer details. That pretty much describes me. Overwatch in 2nd edition was a terrible mechanic for the most part, because of how it bogged the game down and led to so much analysis paralysis. It was the obvious default choice in almost every situation where a shooting unit couldn't see a good target, especially if it had heavy weapons.
FWIW, we've reincorporated 2nd ed style declared overwatch into ProHammer, with some tweaking, and we really like how it works.
Basically, you declare you're entering overwatch (can't have moved) during your shooting phase. You place a directional counter next to your unit that indicates the forward direction of fire for the unit.
You can take overwatch fire at the start of your opponent's shooting or assault phase. You are limited to only shooting targets within 24" and within the forward arc of the firing unit.
This mean that your opponent does have some counter play options. Rather than interrupting the movement of the target mid-stream (like in 2nd ed), our system technically allows you to move from cover-to-cover and if you can stay out of sight you can't be hit. Or you can move from being in LoS at the start of your movement and then get out of LoS and avoid cover. Such is the risk a player on overwatch would take (shoot now at available target or wait and hope for something better).
The forward arc requirement means you can also maneuver around an overwatching unit and avoid their fire, or deep strike behind them for example, avoiding their fire and lining up your own shot.
Another wrinkle is that overwatch shooting alternates with "first fire" shooting, which are the active players units that are shooting that didn't move. Depending on the numbers of overwatch vs. first fire unit, it's possible to shoot an overwatching unit first, and if you can hit it enough to cause a suppression* token to be added, then their overwatch is broken.
* Suppression is another ProHammer addition. Basically, if a unit suffers an unsaved wound from another units total shooting attacks AND the number of shots fired exceeds the number of models in the target, they get a suppression token. Suppression tokens stay until the end of the units turn and incur a -1 to the units leadership for all Ld test purposes. If you get 3 of these you're automatically pinned. Crossfire is also part of it, and if you have a successful crossfire attack the unit gains 2 suppression tokens instead of one. Works really well
All of this is to say that classic overwatch can be a great addition to the tactical toolkit and a fun element to play around - but it has to be implemented well.
Mezmorki, going to have to disagree with you on this one.
As i play so many different games i always see 40K as the "fast" "simple" tactical wargame that didn't need or want skirmish style mechanics. i have other games that are chunky for those types of layered rules effects like infinity, warmachine and BattleTech.
Suppression is a terrible mechanic in the 40K game setting especially in 3rd-7th ed as it slows the game down way too much. in fact, i refuse to use it in one of my favorite 28mm games- DUST 1947-where it is actually in the rules, for the same reason.
Similarly overwatch from 2nd ed 40K works just fine because the rules for that version of the game are a skirmish system where a leman russ has 2 full pages of rules to operate/damage. whereas in the 3rd-7th setting just using snap fire when charged is a meaningful and impactful mechanic as there are less shots overall in the game, models also have less wounds and a lucky hit could have a major effect in a game....like hitting with that melta on a 6+ as the dreadnought charges into to you. It is a last ditch effort. the second edition version leads to lots of "camping" on both sides waiting for the other person to make a move.
It is the reason when you see all my battle reports of our hybrid 5th ed rules where we can drop 2-3K level games on the table and get through 7 turns in less than 2 hours on average.
I will also address the claims made earlier about considering CC themed armies (like my tyranid list)- there is this incorrect summation from bad memory that somehow the 5th ed rules set punished CC centric armies. As somebody still playing 5th core rules almost every weekend, this simply is not true. it happens often and easily where the CC units are generally far superior to any shooting unit they run into. snap fire with non template weapons needing a 6+ to hit is a good mechanic that adds to the game does not detract from it and takes effectively no extra time that drags out the game.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm going to claim a certain level of vindication on the support for an "overwatch" mechanic.
That was a hotly-debated topic back in the day, and proponents of it got constant grief.
Mostly, I think, because people either didn't understand the rule or simply found Rhino rushes easier than actual tactics.
I'm also a fan of overwatch mechanics, but it really depends on the specifics.
IMO there's a world of difference between having to specifically put a unit on overwatch so that it can shoot later, versus getting bonus shooting at no cost every time an enemy charges you. One's a tactical tradeoff that involves sacrificing the ability to act now for the potential to act when it's more useful; the other is just a freebie that makes melee less fun to play.
Part of the danger with these sorts of polls- and why I answered a little less enthusiastically about certain mechanics than I might otherwise- is because the execution matters so much.
Same deal with subfaction traits. I like the 3rd/4th Ed system where subfactions could pay points to get special traits, or rearrange the FOC, or get additional options on their units. I don't like the 8th/9th Ed system where your whole army gets a bonus that encourages you to Flanderize your force and makes balancing a nightmare. But both are described as 'subfaction traits'.
aphyon wrote: Mezmorki, going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Making the game shorter was definitely not one of the driving criteria in our rules
Back when 3rd + 4th edition was current we made a series of "skirmish" rule additions that we played with, and many of these were ported over or inspired what eventually ended up in ProHammer. And so I actually don't think ProHammer is a great ruleset for playing larger games IF you're trying to keep the playtime down. Our group started playing 40K over Tabletop Simulator during the pandemic and so we can save and come back to our games easily, and the format works perfect for ProHammer since we'll usually finish a game in two sessions.
That said, playing smaller games (around 1,500 points) feel better paced under the ProHammer rules, where the greater rule details and fidelity doesn't seen like its bogging the game down as much.
That said (again), our suppression mechanic really doesn't slow the game down in terms of adding bloat to manage. It takes 5 seconds to drop a token for -1 leadership next to a unit.
The idea is basically a Ruin feature that clearly blocks LOS behind it, as well as gives occupying units the option to completely hide from external LOS should they desire. But it also allows them to fire out from the "1st floor" if they want to do that too. Ideally it would be more ornate/decorated, but drawing is simplified for clarity and laziness
Full size in case the mid size version isn't clear:
)
). It was a long time before Orks reclaimed their identity (and the various Klanz) in any serious fashion.
