alextroy wrote: Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.
I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.
Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.
It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.
I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :
Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)
make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"
New rules need to be free of charge. They will suck anyway and be outdated in a couple of years. Nobody wants to pay with their hard-earned cash for stuff of low value.
New rules need to be free of charge. They will suck anyway and be outdated in a couple of years. Nobody wants to pay with their hard-earned cash for stuff of low value.
pelicaniforce wrote: Transports are important in a scenario where units move on the board from the table edge during deployment, and when they effect reserves. Thats not at all normal in ninth edition.
Or in scenarios/games where you need to move longer distances quickly.
My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.
Their truck also serves to extend the threat(?) Range of thier grot blasters.
And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.
(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)
Ordana wrote: Having to get out before a transport moves really hurts them as a means of moving up the board. And vehicles are simply not survivable enough to rush forward and sit there for a turn.
You need to be able to get out after the transport moves forward.
Agreed.
Tau Devilfish are considered very good transports, largely because they have a strategem to disembark after moving. This means they can actually fulfill their role as mobility for the infantry in a manner that's actually useful to the 40k design space.
On the other hand, delivering 3 squads of plasma shotguns, with buffs, right in the enemy's face turn 1 has it's own problems for the play of the game. But you can't win everything
I would like to see this also.
It's easy to mitigate the downside of getting strong guns up close so quickly. Classify disembarking as a type of movement that includes a -1 To Hit penalty. The Assault Vehicle rule could then prevent the -1 To Hit. Land Raiders are back baby. WooHoo!
alextroy wrote: Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.
I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.
Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.
It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.
I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :
Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)
make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"
So for shooting like.... 3rd/4th edition. Rapid fire weapons only let you shoot at their max range if you didn't move. Or if you didn't move you could shoot twice at 12". If you moved, you could only shoot ONCE at 12". Most assault weapons were likewise 12", with a few occasionally at 18".
We often talk about the lethality of the game, and this topic is a subtle shift that often goes unacknowledged. For example:
- Rapid fire weapons in 3rd edition: If the unit moves (no running), one shot at 12". If it's stationary, one shot at max range or two at 12". Can't charge this turn.
- Rapid fire weapons in 5th edition: If the unit moves (no running), TWO shots at 12". If it's stationary, one shot at max range or two at 12". Can't charge this turn.
- Rapid fire weapons in 6th edition: If the unit moves (no running), two shots at "half" range (which can now be more than 12") OR one shot at max range. Being stationary is no different. Can't charge this turn.
- Rapids fire weapons in 9th edition: If the unit moves (no running), two shots at "half" range OR one shot at max range. Being stationary is no different. CAN still charge this turn.
You can see how the baseline lethality and combined damage + mobility has slowly crept up over the years. This is a perfect example of how units have lost differentiation at the same time as lethality ramping up.
Absolutely, this is a big part of why the board feels so much smaller now than it did some time ago.
I don't actually notice the fact that the edges of the board are a few inches closer in, really that's taken off the back of the deployment zones.
What you notice is that the mobility of firepower is so much increased. You didn't even mention the multitude of abilities and strategems that allow units to ignore even the restrictions still left on firepower.
My Space Marines for example can rapid fire at full range if they stay still, or even if they move with a strat! My Tau can advance and fire as if they were stationary as a passive ability.
Right - I didn't even mention how the game has gone from requiring a whole unit to shoot at the closest unit, to getting to shoot at whatever, to EACH MODEL getting to shoot at whatever it wants.
All of these little things compound and increase the lethality AND ALSO hurt the tactics of the game and reduces the need to make tough choices and think carefully about positioning.
ccs wrote: My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.
Not really though... if you drive your gretchin 12" and then disembark and move them you cover roughly 20", instead of 10+d6" you get from just moving and advancing. That is a bit quicker than just walking, but if your trukk got shot and has degraded or there is any kind of terrain blocking involved, your gretchin will be faster walking than driving.
On top of that, for almost all codices, there are much better and/or cheaper mobility options than transports for them to ever be relevant. Why would you ever use gretchin in a trukk when you can have two units of kommadoz for the same price?
And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.
That's fairly irrelevant for anyone not running crusade because all units are expendable in any other game mode. For cheap units bringing multiples is better protection than bringing transports, for expensive units transports are not only easier to kill, but also auto-kill expensive models when they do.
And even for crusade it's questionable to bring transports because vehicles are the target of many agendas and often cannot perform actions.
(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)
To your point it's irrelevant what you are transporting. It is worth noting though that a lot of infantry is faster than just 5", making the transport matter even less. If there was an actual support for a grot army, you wouldn't be caught dead driving gretchin around in a transport.
Bottom line, most transports neither provide sufficient speed nor protection to matter, especially since transport rules severely limit both speed (no disembark after moving) and protection (extra casualties when transport dies).
I think you've got to turn transports into light tanks, because that clearly works.
So Trukks for example should get a free upgrade in 10th of their Big Shoota to "Trukk mega kustom big-shoota", which is Dakka 20/12 or something like that.
The problem with things like higher movement or being able to charge out after the transport moves, is you hit the hard binary of "plausible 1st turn charge, yes/no". And you can push things to the point you hit "yes" - but I don't think 1st turn charges, making 40k faster and faster, is a good thing. Even if GW seems... confused on the subject.
And you can fish about in the ancient past (6th edition came out nearly 10 years ago guys) - but I feel the real reason damage in 9th up is massive internal synergy that's increased exponentially since the indexes. To my mind at least most of those older limitations were there to try (with... mixed success) to hold back gunlines versus often incredibly hindered assault units waddling across the table. While its a constant clash - I think it would be hard to say 40k today is especially assault unfriendly.
And range matters less because people are forced to move forward to claim Primary (and while I think there was some debate this might change in Nachmund I don't think its proven the case). You can't (typically anyway) camp in your corner for at least the first 2 turns (or more in older editions) while shooting everyone to death and then hope to grab all the points in the turns 4 and 5. If you did that now you're opponent will just run away with the points and use what remnants they have to deny you scoring as the game closes out. Which again, I think is a good thing.
ccs wrote: My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.
Not really though...
Look, MATH says you're just wrong on this.
The truck moves more than double the speed of its passengers. And that's before any advance roll.
Even on its last legs their truck is still 1" faster than the grots riding in it. (Mine would be 2" faster as it's an Evil Sunz.)
Saturday? My truck born grots hauled arse 17" across the board. That's 6" further than their best foot speed. They went from out of LoS, across an open area, & (mostly) back out of LoS. On foot? They'd have been hanging out in the open & would've surely caught some morale breaking fire.... At best? If nothing killed them? Or a few survived? They'd have been 2 turns away from where they needed to go.
Jidmah wrote: if you drive your gretchin 12" and then disembark and move them you cover roughly 20", instead of 10+d6" you get from just moving and advancing. That is a bit quicker than just walking, but if your trukk got shot and has degraded or there is any kind of terrain blocking involved, your gretchin will be faster walking than driving.
So there's a time to be in a truck, a time not to be, & the player needs to recognize the difference. I got it covered.
Jidmah wrote: Why would you ever use gretchin in a trukk when you can have two units of kommadoz for the same price?
Theme.
Physically there's only 1 ork in my list - the MA Warboss. Mechanically, because of the trucks, there's 5. There's a 6th (a Mek) on the overall roster that will never be on the table (I don't even own the model).
*Warboss - required because by the Crusade rules I cannot make either of the named Grots the boss.
*The Mek - in case I decide to do something with the scrap/kustom jobs rules. Has to be on the roster.
*The trucks x4 - because there's no way to add the Gretchin KY to it, yet there's no way to make a grot squad more effective than mounting it in something thats 3x as tough as they are & moves almost 3x as fast. And I love the look of a truck full of grots. So I guess I can live with 4 more orks being hypothetically present.
ccs wrote: And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.
That's fairly irrelevant for anyone not running crusade because all units are expendable in any other game mode. For cheap units bringing multiples is better protection than bringing transports, for expensive units transports are not only easier to kill, but also auto-kill expensive models when they do.
And even for crusade it's questionable to bring transports because vehicles are the target of many agendas and often cannot perform actions.
No, matched or narrative, the truck is still tougher & faster than its cargo. Sames true for many other units/transports, just not as dramatic a difference as grot/truck. And units are fully expendable in Crusade - the worst that'll happen is you might get a scar & have to spend pts buying it off. (in my case) Scarred Grotts? Pfft. As long as they can still perform actions if needed - you know, when they hop out of the truck.
And you of all people should know that more grots =/= better protection. Just more running away due to morale failure....
As for anti-vehicle agendas/secondaries wracking up pts vs my trucks? (meh) Believe me, against my force you'll take that agenda/secondary anyways. And I won't cry if do you target the trucks vs the grot tanks/gunz.
(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)
To your point it's irrelevant what you are transporting. It is worth noting though that a lot of infantry is faster than just 5", making the transport matter even less. If there was an actual support for a grot army, you wouldn't be caught dead driving gretchin around in a transport.
Bottom line, most transports neither provide sufficient speed nor protection to matter, especially since transport rules severely limit both speed (no disembark after moving) and protection (extra casualties when transport dies).
Oh I would definitely still drive my grots about in a transport. Ideally it'd just be one with the Gretchin keyword. Until then the truck will have to suffice.
And when I play the AdMech or Guard player? If I can down their 'Thopter or Valk? (I know both have the transport flyers in their rosters) My grots will get a kit-bashed Chinork!
Bottom line? There's lists & games & metas where transports work. And there're ones where they don't. You, the player need to know wich applies to you.
Since this is a 10e wish list thread?
I'd like to see ork vehicles have the option to add the Gretchin KeyWord. And if made Gretchin then change BS to 4+
alextroy wrote: Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.
I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.
Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.
It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.
I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :
Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)
make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"
Halving all ranges IMHO serves two goals: to spread the game across 5 turns and give transports a purpose. Those are all changes that I'd love to see somehow, not necessarily by halving ranges. But I do want games that actually last the whole 5 turns on average and transports (pure transports with little to no damage output) that really are useful.
Halving all ranges makes the first 1-2 turns much more dedicated into positioning and getting LOS (my Mek Gunz know that with their crappy 3''M) so units stay alive much longer and transports could become useful if they have 3x or 4x the infantry movement stat, are faster than jetpack dudes, and are on par with most of the fastest stuff.
alextroy wrote: Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.
I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.
Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.
It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.
I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :
Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)
make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"
Halving all ranges IMHO serves two goals: to spread the game across 5 turns and give transports a purpose. Those are all changes that I'd love to see somehow, not necessarily by halving ranges. But I do want games that actually last the whole 5 turns on average and transports (pure transports with little to no damage output) that really are useful.
Halving all ranges makes the first 1-2 turns much more dedicated into positioning and getting LOS (my Mek Gunz know that with their crappy 3''M) so units stay alive much longer and transports could become useful if they have 3x or 4x the infantry movement stat, are faster than jetpack dudes, and are on par with most of the fastest stuff.
I'd be all over a half ranged version of the game, I'd say round up. I'd image it would make sub 50PL (1,000 points) games have a really interesting feel.
Totally love the effect this gives on vehicles. It would really show the slow, implacable, brick that is the Monolith.
I'd be all over a half ranged version of the game, I'd say round up. I'd image it would make sub 50PL (1,000 points) games have a really interesting feel.
Totally love the effect this gives on vehicles. It would really show the slow, implacable, brick that is the Monolith.
Check out OnePageRules, its basically exactly that (smaller pts games with smaller ranges)
oni wrote: Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.
Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).
Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats
Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.
So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.
oni wrote: Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.
Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
While technically true, you do have to rejig the deployment maps unless you just want bigger deployment zones- all the distances on the map are drawn from the center out, so merely playing on a larger table doesn't change distances between units or objectives.
That said, the math is easy enough to do if you want playing on a larger table to actually make a difference.
Unfortunately, this is another "I only ever play in stores with strangers therefore I don't get to make any decisions" issue for many players.
In my heart I agree with those saying they don't want to see 10th for a long time.
If pushed though...
- Simplification/streamlined rules (I am thinking back to 8th indexes with a little extra seasoning - some faction rules - and sides - some customisation with units, say 3rd ed levels - but not what we have now). This includes returning to the days of saves being simple and lethality reduced without the need for massed FNP, DR, TH etc...
- USR that work the same for everyone
- All codexes written in advance and play tested together, even if they're released over a period of time.
- Introduce something a little more on the lines of IGYG some level lower than whole battleround. Maybe by bringing back initiative and doing it per phase like old Inquisitor.
oni wrote: Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.
Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).
Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats
Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.
So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.
All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.
oni wrote: Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.
Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).
Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats
Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.
So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.
All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak
I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak
I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.
and playing 40k on a pool table would look like gak
All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
I think you've rather missed the point there. It's not about the mat, it's not about you or me.
It's about deviating from the accepted norm in a social game. It's not my decision to make, it's mine to offer and my opponent's to shoot down. I don't even blame them, it's nicer to play on a mat, it's also easier to go with what's already there.
Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.
When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak
I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.
its only plywood if its a DIY pool table (also terrible choice of material for a pool table top). Mostly they are Either MDF on the cheap tables (do not recommend either, but its better than plywood for the function less bouncy and more stable) or a slab of slate (for any good table) under the felt.
personally my home game table is a 4x6 mat laid out over a ping pong table and that works fine for me. I still also have a roll of good old cut down green felt from the pre game mat days but that only comes out occationally.
I'm not sure going back to the old table sizes would help in the current game. Ranges and movement distances for some units are so huge that an extra few inches to cover isn't going to matter. The big problem is the overall range and speed. It used to be that nothing moved more than 12" and >24" was considered long range. Now every army has units that can move 14" or more as their base movement, with many being able to advance and charge, often with things like guaranteed 6" advance rolls.
60"x44" is fine if you reduce movement and range to more sane levels again.
A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.
People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.
The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... opps... I mean army list building.
Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.
There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
+1. The whole smaller tables to fit on kitchen tables deal was just an aftermarket spin that made people happy and it became an urban legend that was the explanation for why.
I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.
Id imagine its the other thing too though. Why does the internet make everything so binary
Dai wrote: I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.
If they wanted to bring more people in, I would think having the rules as freely-downloadable PDFs would do far more for that than reducing table size.
There are other problems with 9th edition that need to be addressed for sure. Until they stop trying to force a failed system to work, those issues won't even be looked at. Eliminate the separation of players, start holding 40k Tournaments again. When they start doing that, then we might finally see some improvements to the game. 9th will remain the worst edition released to date until 'Matched Play' gets removed. None of that crap should carry over to 10th in order for it to have a chance a being successful.
Other posters have some good Ideas as well here are mine included
- Eliminate the Terrain rules. I understand the intent here, but if players don't take the time to define each piece of terrain before the game starts, the interpretation of what they are assumed to be causes problems during the game.
- The current Command Point system is out of control. AoS is showing the beginning of a great system for CP/Stratagems, and I really hope they adopt that over.
- Too many 're-rolls' sources available. Lethality is an issue in 9th, but the amount of re-rolls available to skew the curve has overcorrected the problem.
- I'm okay with the current AP system, but would like to see it reworked somehow. We're seeing a repeat of the Invul save bloat from earlier editions. Even a -1AP reduction across the board would improve the game.
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
- Bring back all the missing rules that have been removed:
Infiltrate, Player Placed Objectives, Mysterious Objectives, Allies, Night Fight, Random Game Length, Maelstrom (The WD doesn't count), etc.
Dai wrote: I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.
Id imagine its the other thing too though. Why does the internet make everything so binary
Feel free to doubt. I was working very closely in another game (Conquest) that tried moving to the GW standard and they tried also pushing that it was to accommodate kitchen tables, but was told verbatim by the marketing / sales guy in North America that it was because of the box sizes. The kitchen table spin was just that. Spin that people enjoyed and made them feel better. The real reason had nothing to do with that though.
Not that it matters what the real reason is. GW could say the real reason is that their head of marketing took a bad crap that day and decided through peering at his aftermath in the toilet that it spoke to him that smaller tables were just something he liked, and the gw crowd would have nodded their collective heads as they worked to strip their LGS' full size tables and replace them with the smaller boards. The real reason doesn't matter.
I've worked in or around the game industry, both video game and tabletop, for many years and have seen marketing spins dozens of times. Mostly unless you just didn't get your product (failed kickstarters etc) people don't care and any side-effects that are good are easily touted as the intent because it makes people feel good.
For anyone who really believes that the change in board size was to accomodate smaller kitchen tables (and even the people here who tried to peddle the "The average kitchen table is ackchyually..." nonsense) and not just because of box size, may we remind you of another GW release from a few years back:
Games Workshop, the Porsche of Miniature Companies wrote:The Citadel Finecast miniatures are all made from a unique resin formula. For us as hobbyists, this is great news. The resin is easy to work with and quick to cut off the sprue, making assembling a miniature easier than it has ever been. Not only that, but it’s incredibly light too, which means pinning wings and other heavy components will be a thing of the past. So, quick and durable, that’s a good start. But of course, one of the main reasons for this change to resin was quality. One thing you’ll notice immediately when you pick them up is the exceptionally sharp detail on the model, which can only be described as staggering.
There was more than just that, but given how long ago it was I'm finding it hard to find the entire release.
But no. I'm sure it's because of kitchen table size.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
You're both wrong. But you're also both right.
Any corporation or entity that does anything for just ONE reason is doomed to die.
In order for anything to be worth doing, you need more than one reason.
The conversation probably went something like this:
Hey, our stuff is really expensive, and some people can't afford 2k armies. Maybe we should make different game sizes so that we can sell stuff to both poor nerds and rich nerds.
Yeah, that's a good idea, because it will also allow us to sell to people who don't live near stores, because smaller games will be easier to play at home.
Okay, so what should make the size of the boards for each size of game?
Well, what's the biggest board we can fit in a box?
22 X 30
Okay, so if we make the table sizes multiples of that, does that work?
(Much back and forth about why there are 4 sizes of game but only 3 sizes of boards)
What about people who have been playing on 6 x 4 tables for 30 years.
Well, if we just say it's a recommended size and not an actual rule, they can't complain, right?
Have you met the Internet?
Okay, so they're going to complain no matter what, but at least WE know we've explicitly given them permission to do whatever the hell they want- even in Matched Play. I'm sure most of them will be smart enough to figure it out.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
You're both wrong. But you're also both right.
Any corporation or entity that does anything for just ONE reason is doomed to die.
In order for anything to be worth doing, you need more than one reason.
The conversation probably went something like this:
Hey, our stuff is really expensive, and some people can't afford 2k armies. Maybe we should make different game sizes so that we can sell stuff to both poor nerds and rich nerds.
Yeah, that's a good idea, because it will also allow us to sell to people who don't live near stores, because smaller games will be easier to play at home.
Okay, so what should make the size of the boards for each size of game?
Well, what's the biggest board we can fit in a box?
22 X 30
Okay, so if we make the table sizes multiples of that, does that work?
(Much back and forth about why there are 4 sizes of game but only 3 sizes of boards)
What about people who have been playing on 6 x 4 tables for 30 years.
Well, if we just say it's a recommended size and not an actual rule, they can't complain, right?
Have you met the Internet?
Okay, so they're going to complain no matter what, but at least WE know we've explicitly given them permission to do whatever the hell they want- even in Matched Play. I'm sure most of them will be smart enough to figure it out.
I must ask again: Have you met the Internet?
That's the most likely situation though instead of "internet" I assume they said "Americans" based on how they reacted to the US tournament meta in the past.
Nothing of what Jake posted contradicts what I said. The boards are the way they are because of box size. Anything else related to them was done after that fact (ie. how many would make up the various size of games). If GW had stuck with their (super-fething-expensive) 4x4 mats, of which they sold 1-2 of them, then the "min size" would be 4x4, with the next one up being 8x4.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nothing of what Jake posted contradicts what I said. The boards are the way they are because of box size. Anything else related to them was done after that fact (ie. how many would make up the various size of games). If GW had stuck with their (super-fething-expensive) 4x4 mats, of which they sold 1-2 of them, then the "min size" would be 4x4, with the next one up being 8x4.
They didn't say you were wrong, just that it wasn't the only logic involved, same for me. It's almost as if multiple things can be involved in the decision making process.
But they didn't make the decision to use those boards because they wanted to reduce tables sizes or because of game size. Those boards already existed (again, due to box constraints) and then they worked out how to use them with the game.
Mezmorki wrote: A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.
People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.
The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... oops... I mean army list building.
Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.
There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.
So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?
H.B.M.C. wrote: But they didn't make the decision to use those boards because they wanted to reduce tables sizes or because of game size. Those boards already existed (again, due to box constraints) and then they worked out how to use them with the game.
Meh, believe what you want. Honestly I think it's more likely the dev team wanted to change the board size and then where saddled with using the boards by the higher ups later.
Mezmorki wrote: A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.
People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.
The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... oops... I mean army list building.
Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.
There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.
So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?
40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.
Yes, technically. A unit that failed a morale check would make an involuntary move toward its own board edge, and have to test to regroup. If enemy units were positioned nearby, it could not attempt to regroup, so it was possible to break a unit and escort it off the board by several successive failures to regroup. If there were an enemy unit directly in the path of this involuntarily move, the broken unit would be destroyed.
Sometimes this could be done to very tough units that would be hard to destroy by conventional means, and even marines were slightly susceptible. Due to circumstances of the actual units’ abilities, and to the turn and missions structures, this was not that common though.
pelicaniforce wrote: Yes, technically. A unit that failed a morale check would make an involuntary move toward its own board edge, and have to test to regroup. If enemy units were positioned nearby, it could not attempt to regroup, so it was possible to break a unit and escort it off the board by several successive failures to regroup. If there were an enemy unit directly in the path of this involuntarily move, the broken unit would be destroyed.
Sometimes this could be done to very tough units that would be hard to destroy by conventional means, and even marines were slightly susceptible. Due to circumstances of the actual units’ abilities, and to the turn and missions structures, this was not that common though.
Honestly I forgot about that mostly because units would often get cut down if they tried running from combat, or took extra wounds for being fearless. I can think of a couple of instances where I saw it matter, but the units were near the board edge so just left the game the moment they broke.
So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?
5th edition was really the beginning of the end for classic wargaming tropes. Once 5th edition expired into 6th, the whole push for the magic the gathering CCG style combo gaming that is 40k and AOS today began. 5th edition started seeing things like the nob biker army shennanigans or the infamous busted grey knights codex due to the paladin wound allocation garbage, but that was more bad mechanics than it was synergy / CCG combo spams. (they were horrifyingly bad negative play experiences if you weren't min/maxing - I think I'd put them in my top 3 worst 40k experiences of my 40k experience from 3rd edition on to 8th when I finally had to get off the GW train and throw my armies in the garbage)
Now 40k has always had the problem where positioning was largely not as important. Even back in 3rd edition days we had overcharged rhinos alpha striking Blood Angels down your throat on turn 1... and the whole "you can move wherever you want however you want with no facings" has been a thing since the early days which nullifies movement requirements somewhat. That being said vehicles had facings and some scenarios required you to position yourself better than others. Planet bowling ball was very popular though and cover and terrain were after thoughts, particularly because tournament standards didn't use a lot of terrain - and that bled over into casual games and pick up games as well. Not having a lot of terrain ... you didn't need to move as much as you just needed to be in a place where you could see to shoot and without a lot of terrain you could mostly see just fine for a good portion of your guys on the table.
It was roughly the beginning of the 2010s decade that saw both warhammer and 40k begin to move toward combo based CCG play, and in (roughly) 2015 the gates were thrown wide open to begin what we have today in both systems (and in 2015 warhammer was destroyed and replaced with Age of Combo Spam whose design traits largely also seep into 40k in many places... at least very very similar)
Don't have to. Auticus in this thread already confirmed it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I think it's more likely the dev team wanted to change the board size and then where saddled with using the boards by the higher ups later.
I don't think they wanted to change anything, but had to to make use of the products they were already making.
Personally, as I run Combat Patrol and Incursion games, explicitly due to the smaller board size. It fits my tiny apartment. While I'd love to play Strike Force games, and really use my collection,that would mean going to the FLGS as an immunocompromised person, so I'm stuck running solo games.
So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?
40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.
There were numerous ways in which positioning play was heightened, particularly in 3rd-4th.
1. Weapon ranges were altogether shorter, so ranged lethality of infantry was often just 12" (as opposed to the Bolt Rifle Rapid firing at 30" today). This lends itself to requiring force concentration.
2. In 4th, a Leadership test was required to shoot at not-the-closest target, therefore a rudimentary screening/distraction mechanic.
3. Blasts and templates were a thing. Tight clumps of models became a very risky situation, but this in turn played off the shorter range of lethality. Do you clump your troops together so everyone is in range? Or do you spread out to mitigate the potential damage from blasts and templates?
4. There actually was a Crossfire rule, where if you've surrounded an enemy unit that is attempting to fall back, essentially denying them their fall-back-corridor, they are wiped out.
5. Bigger boards, better terrain rules.
6. Charges were (generally) limited to 6", which meant a couple things. A: You could predictably position your self outside of an opposing units charge range (13"), which was very useful at times. B: You could maneuver your unit to engage in a sort of "half-charge", where you only reliably only throw a model or two of your unit into an assault in order to perform a sort of "holding action", ensuring (or dramatically increasing the probability) that combat took more than a single round to resolve. This was an excellent way of avoiding enemy fire during their turn, and hoping you cleared their unit in the opponents assault phase, opening up your own unit to act again in your turn.
7. Consolidation/Sweeping Advance from one assault to the next could occasionally be extremely dramatic, and there was no voluntary Fall Back. Spacing your units appropriately when expecting assaults could be critical at times. But again, this could interfere with your force concentration.
8. Dedicated anti-tank weapons were required to engage decent tanks armor. If you don't have the tools available to you where they're needed, then you're SOL.
There's probably some other stuff, but that's what I got off the top of my head.
...
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
...
I separated this out as it reminded me of something. In a different game (AT-43) the to wound chart was somewhat similar to the old wound chart.
If the attack S was +/-1 to target T it was 4+ to wound.
But there was a possibility to auto wound and no wound at all possible, if I remember correctly S 7+ higher then target T then auto wound, and other way around no wound possible.
If now GW would finally fully utilize the numeric values not only for S and W we could be in for something.
There will always be a break of point and with the significant no of MEQ type units the S3/4/5 will be the basic breaking point. And any change to the wound chart would need a detailed look at the S and T values.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.
I know what you mean, I hate this mentality too. In my case I constantly ask for playing 1500 points games, which IMHO is the best format, but most of the times I get the same :"no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard format" even when I ask people days before playing.
For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…
As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…
So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?
40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.
There were numerous ways in which positioning play was heightened, particularly in 3rd-4th.
.
.
..
I'd echo all of that. Morale and fall back moves, vehicle armor facings, reserves + outflanking, cover system, fixed charge distances, larger section, etc, all emphasized position and maneuver more.
We also (and still do) play with a lot of terrain I think by most peoples standards. Usually about half the board can be covered by area terrain and that makes a difference.
I also think the mission designs, especially 4th edition, created more varied situations where the tempo of the game would be different, which would prompt you to advance your forces differently from game to game. Now the matched play missions are just all rushing into objective points.
60"x44" is fine if you reduce movement and range to more sane levels again.
Well go back the Halycon days of 2nd ed and heavy weapons typically covered the entire table (exceptions for stuff like MM that is you were shot with turn 0 the oppo had cheated when setting up), but there were a lot of other restrictions. Shorter ranges in return for less rules to remember I guess is a fair trade.
There of course movement for typical infantry was 4" if shooting, 8" if charging or not shooting.
With the two sides starting 24" apart.
...
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
...
I separated this out as it reminded me of something. In a different game (AT-43) the to wound chart was somewhat similar to the old wound chart.
If the attack S was +/-1 to target T it was 4+ to wound.
But there was a possibility to auto wound and no wound at all possible, if I remember correctly S 7+ higher then target T then auto wound, and other way around no wound possible.
If now GW would finally fully utilize the numeric values not only for S and W we could be in for something.
There will always be a break of point and with the significant no of MEQ type units the S3/4/5 will be the basic breaking point. And any change to the wound chart would need a detailed look at the S and T values.
this is more or less the standard in wargames for comparative charts
X VS Y equal = 4+
+1 = 5+
+2 = 6+
+3 = not possible or 6+/halve the attacks/dice
+4 = not possible
-1 = 3+
-2 = 2+
-3 = auto success or re-rolled failed
the same chart can be used for Strength VS Toughness, Balistic Skill VS Dodge, Weapon Skill VS Weapon Skill etc.
the main problem was that GW changed the chart, therefore changing the breaking points, but not changing the stats for the units
if you limit the stats from 1-10, the "standard" unit, aka tactical marines, should have S5/T5, add in Initiative an as a dodge value (as opposing to WS/BS) and we would be on to something again with out needing special rules for the no toughness but hard to hit units etc.
I'd love to get rid of true LoS. It's silly that because you can see a tip of a banner the model is exposed to fire. GW should take a page from warmahordes and use base size = volume. If you have X base size then you can be seen if LoS can be drawn to a spot on Y volume. This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'd love to get rid of true LoS. It's silly that because you can see a tip of a banner the model is exposed to fire. GW should take a page from warmahordes and use base size = volume. If you have X base size then you can be seen if LoS can be drawn to a spot on Y volume. This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
WMH, Infinity, Malifaux and probably many more use some for of "volume LoS" and its soo much more enjoyable. lets modelers have more freedom and removes any concept of modeling for advantage
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
As much as I love a good tinfoil hatted GW bashing, this ain't it. GW never has enforced such a thing, nor has the community. The community lets you pose minis however you like unless it's quite far out of the norm.
They use TLoS because they want the game to be simple and easy. This is also why they say any part of a model is fair game. Older editions of 40k used to say discount extraneous parts like banners and weapons - but GW did away with that.
One problem with silhouettes is that 40k miniatures vary significantly in size and stature. Not helped that base sizes exist purely to hold up whatever dynamic base and scenic items the design studio comes up with - you have power armoured guys sat on everything from 32mm to 60mm bases, and that's not even counting legacy 25mm bases.
They also use a huge plethora of bases, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 90mm just off the top of my head, plus various ovals. Any template set accounting for the range of base diameters and heights would be an army in it's own right!
Ovals present yet another problem problem - how does your template account for the angle the mini is viewed from?
All the games that use templates are far more restrained. They might have maybe 6 different sizes across the different widths and heights. That's manageable. 40k would not be.
Star Wars Legion has a standard size template for infantry (which are all essentially human sized), but then says you're on your own when it comes to anything else, using the same "any part of the model is fair game to shoot" that GW does.
Killteam perhaps has a more appropriate system for LoS. In order to target someone you need LoS to any part of their miniature. But cover is determined by "top down/2D" lines drawn to the base of the target. If any intersect cover under certain conditions, they get cover. It's simple enough to manage (a laser-line really helps though) and you don't have to worry too much about hugely varying model sizes.
It'll require some robust terrain rules to account for height advantage and such though, that's easily done. Killteam's system works well, but is limited very much to the Killteam "environment" itself. But many historicals have a similar system that work well under the same principle. They normally say something like "models on elevated terrain ignore any terrain lower than themselves, provided it's not within 6 inches of the target" or something. Again, that concretely defines what you can see over without every needing to use TLoS.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
As much as I love a good tinfoil hatted GW bashing, this ain't it. GW never has enforced such a thing, nor has the community. The community lets you pose minis however you like unless it's quite far out of the norm.
They use TLoS because they want the game to be simple and easy. This is also why they say any part of a model is fair game. Older editions of 40k used to say discount extraneous parts like banners and weapons - but GW did away with that.
I challenge this statement. Have you never heard the phrase "modelling for advantage"? Many places that I have played will disqualify a model from play if the silhouette is radically different from the "official" model. You can not take, say, a Wraith Knight (normally standing) and model him in a prone position and not expect someone to say that that is modelling for advantage and ask that it be removed from the table.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
A lot of good and interesting stuff here, thought I didn't have time to read it all so I apologize if I'm repeating anything. My main thing would be a general restricting of how a match functions.
If the boards are not redesigned, then at the very least there should be no way to complete a charge on turn 1 (except perhaps with infiltrated units, but that can be more easily kept in check by carefully monitoring what units can do that and even then, you have to win the roll off or be charged yourself). If the boards aren't getting bigger, units need to be slower. To keep shooting and melee balanced, they'd also have to reduce the lethally of shooting and perhaps add the 6th turn back in. I currently have a melee unit that has a 7" pregame move and a 12" standard move. Most boards start players 24" apart so it's really easy to get off a turn one charge when you can re-roll if need be.
Re-work of secondary objectives. While I like the concept, it doesn't feel as adaptive as it should be. I know for me, I pick at least two of the same every time because they are what my army is good at, and only between a couple other for the third. I think removing the mission secondary was actually the wrong way to go, I think that each mission should have it's own secondary that would function more as a kind of tie breaker if the game is close (and it would be the only secondary). If it would have been somewhere near a tie, the secondary objective should be the deciding factor, that kind of thing.
This would perhaps only be more in "casual" play, but more effects for unique missions, similar to the Open Play twist cards, but more carefully balanced as currently some just really hamper certain armies. Perhaps a duel effect system? For example, if you have something like a swamp that reduced movement, it could also prevent fall backs so that when melee units finally do close, they are more effective. Something like that, both thematic and balanced.
If stratagems are here to stay, then some way to make you not just want to use only the best ones over and over. Maybe something like each strat can only be used once or something?
More Crusade support.
Some kind of height advantage system like in KT. There should be some kind of benefit for going up into tall buildings.
Leave 9th for a while before going into 10th and do a power scale reset. Things are getting pretty crazy with how strong some units are getting and it can only scale so high before the game system itself can't reasonable be cranked up any higher (some might argue that we've already passed the reasonable part). Give everyone some time with their shiny new codices for a year, handle updates with FAQ's and errata, then just downgrade everything for 10th and keep a better handle on the power creep going forward.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
Not sure about Tau, but there was a Catachan sniper that was prone like this. One of my favourite old school metal models TBH, when I was young I always wondered why they didn't do more of this. I know better now. XD
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
As much as I love a good tinfoil hatted GW bashing, this ain't it. GW never has enforced such a thing, nor has the community. The community lets you pose minis however you like unless it's quite far out of the norm.
They use TLoS because they want the game to be simple and easy. This is also why they say any part of a model is fair game. Older editions of 40k used to say discount extraneous parts like banners and weapons - but GW did away with that.
I challenge this statement. Have you never heard the phrase "modelling for advantage"? Many places that I have played will disqualify a model from play if the silhouette is radically different from the "official" model. You can not take, say, a Wraith Knight (normally standing) and model him in a prone position and not expect someone to say that that is modelling for advantage and ask that it be removed from the table.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
To be fair, I think there's a bit of a distinction between "no modelling for advantage" and "Only the most recent silhouette is legal". The former is something someone would likely go out of their way to do (remodelling/kitbashing, getting extras of the prone model in a unit from eBay/bits sellers/extra kits, etc.), whereas the latter would fall under more of a grandfathering in of a previously legal build.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
+1. The whole smaller tables to fit on kitchen tables deal was just an aftermarket spin that made people happy and it became an urban legend that was the explanation for why.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
+1. The whole smaller tables to fit on kitchen tables deal was just an aftermarket spin that made people happy and it became an urban legend that was the explanation for why.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
We've been over this.
I have six different reasons why I chose the shirt that I wore today.
If you want to pretend that any company anywhere makes any decision based on only one factor- especially a decision that involves a significant investment of company resources- fine; I can't help you.
The Internet is full of soundbites, oversimplifications, opinions and conspiracies.
Very rarely is anything ever as simple as we try and make it when we are posting in a forum. It confuses me that folks can't or won't accept a point of view that INCLUDES their opinion if it also includes other ideas. Not enough for some people to be right unless they can assert that everyone else is wrong.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.
As much as I love a good tinfoil hatted GW bashing, this ain't it. GW never has enforced such a thing, nor has the community. The community lets you pose minis however you like unless it's quite far out of the norm.
They use TLoS because they want the game to be simple and easy. This is also why they say any part of a model is fair game. Older editions of 40k used to say discount extraneous parts like banners and weapons - but GW did away with that.
One problem with silhouettes is that 40k miniatures vary significantly in size and stature. Not helped that base sizes exist purely to hold up whatever dynamic base and scenic items the design studio comes up with - you have power armoured guys sat on everything from 32mm to 60mm bases, and that's not even counting legacy 25mm bases.
They also use a huge plethora of bases, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 90mm just off the top of my head, plus various ovals. Any template set accounting for the range of base diameters and heights would be an army in it's own right!
Ovals present yet another problem problem - how does your template account for the angle the mini is viewed from?
All the games that use templates are far more restrained. They might have maybe 6 different sizes across the different widths and heights. That's manageable. 40k would not be.
Star Wars Legion has a standard size template for infantry (which are all essentially human sized), but then says you're on your own when it comes to anything else, using the same "any part of the model is fair game to shoot" that GW does.
Killteam perhaps has a more appropriate system for LoS. In order to target someone you need LoS to any part of their miniature. But cover is determined by "top down/2D" lines drawn to the base of the target. If any intersect cover under certain conditions, they get cover. It's simple enough to manage (a laser-line really helps though) and you don't have to worry too much about hugely varying model sizes.
It'll require some robust terrain rules to account for height advantage and such though, that's easily done. Killteam's system works well, but is limited very much to the Killteam "environment" itself. But many historicals have a similar system that work well under the same principle. They normally say something like "models on elevated terrain ignore any terrain lower than themselves, provided it's not within 6 inches of the target" or something. Again, that concretely defines what you can see over without every needing to use TLoS.
Whats wrong with the old system?
All infantry is size 2, tanks and monsters are size 3. A hill is size 2 so infantry can hide behind a hill but a tank can't.
Can you physically see the model without drawing a line over terrain of equal size or bigger? gz you can shoot.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
the original system had the problem that a size 3 model, on top of a size 2 hill, was still hidden behind another size 3 model not on the hill because there was a maximum size of 3
and you would need to put the size on the datasheet of the models because of how random keywords or base sizes are
Or just allow some catagories of bases to silhouettes. For example 20-25mm are S1, 28-32 S2, 40 S3, etc..For ovals and other shapes you can just make different outlines or volume cylinders. There's nothing to say that each base has to be a different size in terms of height and/or width.
ClockworkZion wrote: They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.
No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.
+1. The whole smaller tables to fit on kitchen tables deal was just an aftermarket spin that made people happy and it became an urban legend that was the explanation for why.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
We've been over this.
I have six different reasons why I chose the shirt that I wore today.
If you want to pretend that any company anywhere makes any decision based on only one factor- especially a decision that involves a significant investment of company resources- fine; I can't help you.
The Internet is full of soundbites, oversimplifications, opinions and conspiracies.
Very rarely is anything ever as simple as we try and make it when we are posting in a forum. It confuses me that folks can't or won't accept a point of view that INCLUDES their opinion if it also includes other ideas. Not enough for some people to be right unless they can assert that everyone else is wrong.
Are you intentionally chasing the irony here, or am I missing something?
I separated this out as it reminded me of something. In a different game (AT-43) the to wound chart was somewhat similar to the old wound chart.
If the attack S was +/-1 to target T it was 4+ to wound.
But there was a possibility to auto wound and no wound at all possible, if I remember correctly S 7+ higher then target T then auto wound, and other way around no wound possible.
If now GW would finally fully utilize the numeric values not only for S and W we could be in for something.
There will always be a break of point and with the significant no of MEQ type units the S3/4/5 will be the basic breaking point. And any change to the wound chart would need a detailed look at the S and T values.
Thank you for reading that. I didn't mean to debate which system was better although I prefer the older one. Each edition has had some variation of a 'Let's try this' rule. While I didn't see the need to even adjust the old wound table, they did try it. Before 10th comes out, I just feel they really need to look at this. It's easier in it's current state, but I feel it's one step away from AoS where there is a flat roll to Wound. I don't believe this mechanic is working in either game. I hope they find a replacement, or go back to something that works.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or use keywords. The tools already exist in the game to make this work.
Exactly. We don't need to worry about base sizes or adding a specific size stat to models. We already have keywords designating units as Infantry, Monsters, Titanic and so on. You can easily leverage that to have a functional LoS system based on rough model size.
tneva82 wrote: Well would still need new keywords being added to units for that.
Would we? Which units would need keywords added? I think the last major unit type that didn't have a keyword was Tau suits, and that's been fixed in the new Codex.
Infantry is a broad category covering everything from Gretchin to Raveners. That might require some further stratification/reclassification to make things a bit more organic.
But even so, why would needing to add a few extra keywords be a bad thing or a downside?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Infantry is a broad category covering everything from Gretchin to Raveners. That might require some further stratification/reclassification to make things a bit more organic.
But even so, why would needing to add a few extra keywords be a bad thing or a downside?
yeah, adding keywords that actually mean something would be useful IMO.
(more than gak like chariots that have zero rules associated with them)
The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
I think the easiest rule would be to use TLoS, with maybe 3 stipulations.
- anything outside the base/hull is not eligible for LoS.
- Anything above the head or turret top is not eligible for LoS - Some units may have special rules defining where the limits are if it's unclear.
- Suggest that where models are modelled crouching/prone, they be substituted for equivalent standing models if relevant.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
We kind of already do that with the way Obscuring and other keywords work. The only really relevant number for terrain is if it's 5" in height. You could easily key a lot of interaction off that existing standard without having to change anything.
Ultimately, if your complaint is you might have to spend a few minutes prior to a game going over some basic terrain rules in order to improve the way the game functions, I don't think that's too compelling a counter.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
I think the easiest rule would be to use TLoS, with maybe 3 stipulations.
- anything outside the base/hull is not eligible for LoS.
- Anything above the head or turret top is not eligible for LoS - Some units may have special rules defining where the limits are if it's unclear.
- Suggest that where models are modelled crouching/prone, they be substituted for equivalent standing models if relevant.
That's a pretty reasonable approach to TLOS that addresses my gripes with it. It's things like outstretched arms making a unit targetable, crouching heavy weapon teams unable to see over chest high walls, stuff where the posing has a substantial impact on what the unit can do in-game that really frustrate me.
And the idea of resolving ambiguity in the rules seems like a no-brainer. Same with stating base sizes on the datasheet. It's weird how GW seems to write rules as if they have no idea what the unit is actually going to look like- that makes sense for a company producing just rules, but with the lengths GW goes to in order to ensure their rules match building their kits exactly as instructed, there's really no excuse.
Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
Which is why having other companies that write rules that can use GW's models is a ncessity
Exactly. GW doesn't provide base restrictions in their rules to avoid being forced to restrict their model designers to specific base sizes. The modelers put them on whatever they think works best and the rules don't care what that is.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
... or you limit size (or type) keywords to models and define how a short list of terrain types affects them.
So you can have light cover that affects infantry but not tanks or monsters, heavy cover that affects both, ruins that adds impassable to certain unit types (though no magical-move-through walls for anything), maybe a few others. You don't need a lot of terrain rules (or hyper-detailed ones), just something to increase survivability/mitigate shooting and affect speed sometimes.
Part of the trouble with the current terrain rules is they're specifically for certain GW kits rather than terrain categories, and get too specific (or just plain weird where defensive terrains hurts you but is ignored by chargers), or are completely meaningless with things like hills (which currently isn't terrain for some insane reason)
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
Which is why having other companies that write rules that can use GW's models is a ncessity
with people rather buying 3rd party miniatures to play 40k, than going to use 40k minis to play something else, it looks like cheaper minis are more important than other rules
Company: I'd fire almost everyone. I'd hire more artistic talent and real rules writers/editors.
Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
The Game: Reduce all squad sizes. This in turn increases the value of kits to the gaming customer. Terminators are now 3 models, meaning you now get two "extra" models per kit. All ten man units instantly double their value.
Matched play is complicated chess. A troop is a troop, a monster is a monster, a tank is a tank. Let people buy models they like, not the models with the superior rules. Let a random kid use his new models instead of telling him they're equiped wrong and are from a different faction.
Ranged Weapon is 12 inches cause a single wound.
Special weapon is 24 and allows no save.
Heavy weapon is 36 deals 3 wounds and allows no save.
A squad of 5 marines is 4 ranged and one special or heavy.
Same applies to every single infantry model in the game. Let people paint what they want how they want.
Leave all the special rules and unique faction stuff for the Narrative Play.
I've never played Ad Mech. I've never seen a full army. I've never touched the codex. I have no interest in Ad Mech... But if I want to play 40k these days I'm gonna need a general knowledge of them or have an hour discussion about them before even agreeing to play, or have a few dozen things explained every turn.
The fact that there are more than one Bolt Gun profile is enough to keep me out of the game. I don't care enough to learn all that nonsense. I'll just paint a random squad every few years instead.
The Models: Dioramas. Non-game related models. Imperial citizens. A 40k car. A train. A boat ... You know ... Standard model kits for model hobbyists.
Xenos factions never before made in model form. No rules needed, just fun to build and paint... But they're on infantry bases so they can be a troop squad.
Just the tip of the iceberg but a decent summery of my ideal changes.
'Rules are insignificant' and 'fire everyone and hire 'real' rules writers' are incompatible statements and make no sense.
Same for 'models make money' and 'make squads smaller.'
The specific rule suggestions would, basically, hack people off and drive them completely away from the game. I can't see many, if any, seriously entertain those ideas, regardless of if they're inside GW or players
Uptonius wrote: Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
That's essentially how GW operates now. The model makers make a model, the fluff writers work out where it fits into the story, then the rules writers have to fit it into the game.
The Predator/Prey system is proof that GW looks around what other games are doing, copy&paste it without understanding why those games are using it and change it a little bit so it is not a 1:1 copy
Same with the movement tools in KT, or yearly balance updates, or tournament seasons
GW Design Team not understanding why something is used and thinking you just can take something put it on top and it will work like the original, with the proof that people like it because more and more people play 40k
Uptonius wrote: Models would become the focus. Rules are insignificant. The models make money.
That's essentially how GW operates now. The model makers make a model, the fluff writers work out where it fits into the story, then the rules writers have to fit it into the game.
Rules come last at GW.
Yes and it is for the love of the model that GK player bought 5 NDK, and now have one to spare. And all stormcasts scrambled to buy the dragon ridder boys. Sales are litterally driven by rules last. Specially if one looks at the GW site and the strange corelation between models being good or very good, and being out.
But rather than rules I think whats most important is the massive 40k community.
I think most people will play whatever as long as everyone else is too.
I think people would be okey with being big stuff, even at a higher price, if all they needed was one of it. One NDK, one Land Raider etc The moment and army requires 3 KoS or 4-5 NDKs the price of entry becomes painful. And the cost of infantry is just crazy, 6-7 boxs needed but the mark up on them has to be super high. But I guess it makes sense for GW. Bigger armies, means bigger investment, harder to quit, longer stay in game, more time spend painting. If w40k regular games were 20-30 infantry models and 1-3 big things for the avarge army, people would be dropping much faster and the secondary market would be too efficient to enter the game, comparing to buying from GW.
Core rules:
- Remove the matched play restriction for Aircraft models instead limit Flyer slots in detachments.
- Dedicated Transports gain obsec if they’re carrying Troop units inside.
- Blast. Make it work on every D3 and D6 for units between 6 - 10. Reduce D3 blast to 2 shots against 6 - 10 model units.
Detachments:
- Reduce the amount of Flyer slots in Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Battalion, and Spearhead detachments to 1.
- Brigade detachments gain 0-1 Fortification slots and 0-1 Lord of War slots.
- Auxiliary Support, Super-heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Detachments gain Detachment abilities if they’re the same faction as the Warlord.
Points:
- Stop making vehicles pay more for heavy weapons than infantry. If a heavy bolter is 10 points on an infantry model it should be 10 points on a vehicle. The fact it can shoot into close combat shouldn’t be charged on every individual weapon, it should be factored into the vehicles initial cost.
- We need another major point rebalance at the start of the next edition. If a Gretchin is supposed to represent the 5 point floor and an Intercssor is supposed to represent a 20 point model then we need a massive rebalance of point costs around them. Sure, this will probably reduce the overall army size but boards did get smaller and it’ll help new players build an army faster.
kirotheavenger wrote: In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.
That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.
I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.
Such a rule was present in 40K too back in the day. It encouraged fielding well- rounded armies and not atrocities like jetbike spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…
As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…
Apart from bikes and tanks Dreadnoughts were also restricted in their movement as they were only allowed to pivot once up to 90° in their turn. But honestly GW thinks that you can´t expect today´s gamers to adhere to such mechanics anymore. See also the problem with bikers being treated as cavalry in close combat.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
Barrier to entry? I would call it having standards. People who can´t or are unwilling to learn proper rules shouldn´t be in the tabletop hobby in the first place. GW just wants to have potential access to the wallets of a wider demographic by dumbing down the rules. So greed is the driving factor here.
I experienced this myself back in the day when I taught people Blood Bowl. Some of them couldn´t grasp the tackle zone rules EVEN after I had explained it to them for the tenth time with examples.
Voss wrote: 'Rules are insignificant' and 'fire everyone and hire 'real' rules writers' are incompatible statements and make no sense.
Same for 'models make money' and 'make squads smaller.'
The specific rule suggestions would, basically, hack people off and drive them completely away from the game. I can't see many, if any, seriously entertain those ideas, regardless of if they're inside GW or players
You missed a lot of my points. But to be fair I didn't go into much detail. It wouldn't be worth the time anyway. I mean, the topic was what would you like to see for 10th edition and it became pages of grenade discussion.
That's probably the reason I come to this site so rarely now. I was away so long I forgot my password and made this new account specifically to respond to this thread. My first draft was lost.
Btw, I have noticed the dumbing down of society generally from the front of lecture halls on three continents, with the USA a tragic dumpster fire, South Korea brilliant but selling itself out for greed US style, and Europe, well, the people I met here so far, being in the Netherlands for three years, better in the way of game play but way so proud to be normal and going with the flow… critical thinking in every environment was rare even and perhaps especially at the highest levels, as, not surprisingly, going along to get along gets people along, but taking for one’s self at the expense of others gets people ahead, and hardly ever is thinking three moves ahead about what is fair and best for all rewarded with anything but headaches. Yeah, call me jaded, but I do appreciate your observation re trying to teach Blood Bowl. Absolutely…
kirotheavenger wrote: In Horus Heresy only Troops can score, at all. Other units can deny the enemy scoring, but they cannot score that objective.
Some units - namely Terminators and Veterans, have a special rule allowing them to score anyway.
That really encourages people to take a core of scoring units, otherwise it's easy to go all-in on Dreadnoughts and fancy bodyguards and such.
I still think it's important that even troops represent a useful battlefield component though - they need to be more than objective scorers there to die.
Such a rule was present in 40K too back in the day. It encouraged fielding well- rounded armies and not atrocities like jetbike spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…
As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…
Apart from bikes and tanks Dreadnoughts were also restricted in their movement as they were only allowed to pivot once up to 90° in their turn. But honestly GW thinks that you can´t expect today´s gamers to adhere to such mechanics anymore. See also the problem with bikers being treated as cavalry in close combat.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
Barrier to entry? I would call it having standards. People who can´t or are unwilling to learn proper rules shouldn´t be in the tabletop hobby in the first place. GW just wants to have potential access to the wallets of a wider demographic by dumbing down the rules. So greed is the driving factor here.
I experienced this myself back in the day when I taught people Blood Bowl. Some of them couldn´t grasp the tackle zone rules EVEN after I had explained it to them for the tenth time with examples.
Jarms48 wrote: - Stop making vehicles pay more for heavy weapons than infantry. If a heavy bolter is 10 points on an infantry model it should be 10 points on a vehicle. The fact it can shoot into close combat shouldn’t be charged on every individual weapon, it should be factored into the vehicles initial cost.
I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
^^^^^^ Yes
When old-timers talk about increased lethality in the game, in my mind that isn't just because of increased damage output and numbers of shots. It's also stuff like the above that lets you still crank out lots of fire even while staying mobile, able to assault, etc. Older editions used to require you make tougher choices about what you actually did with your units. Now, you can just "do it all" and that plays a big part of increased lethality in my mind.
alextroy wrote: I think vehicles pay more for Heavy weapons because they can move without suffering the -1 to Hit penalty. Shooting into close combat is icing.
Icing... On the rotten cake.
Only infantry suffer -1 to Hit. Bikers, Cavalry, Beasts, Flyers, etc also don't. It's hardly exclusive to Vehicles.
You know the moving and shooting with Heavy Weapons is another example of unit differentiation being squashed along various axis, come to think of it.
Back in the day an infantry unit couldn't assault after firing a heavy weapon, and before that they couldn't move and fire a heavy weapon at all, either. Ork "Heavy Weapons" were all Assault, meaning they could move, fire, and charge, making them very different to, say, Marines or Guard.
Nowadays that's all gone and Ork Big Shootas aren't even Assault anymore.
^^^^^^ Yes
When old-timers talk about increased lethality in the game, in my mind that isn't just because of increased damage output and numbers of shots. It's also stuff like the above that lets you still crank out lots of fire even while staying mobile, able to assault, etc. Older editions used to require you make tougher choices about what you actually did with your units. Now, you can just "do it all" and that plays a big part of increased lethality in my mind.
I'd personally be fine with a regression of weapon ranges. In my ideal world with a consolidated Marine trooper, Assault Bolters would be 18", Rapid Fire 24", and Stalker 30"
And I won't cry if do you target the trucks vs the grot tanks/gunz.
