Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: It isn't relevant at all, this is simple math. BS is multiplicative and multiplying two probabilities (AC and HB, for example) by the same number does not change their relative values. If a HB is 50% more effective than an AC against a given target at BS 2+ then it will be 50% more effective against that target at BS 6+. Obviously both weapons will be considerably less effective at the lower BS and the unit as a whole may be ineffective but the relative value of the two options remains constant.
Are you factoring in, at all, what's being shot at?
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: When comparing two weapons firing at the same BS the number of hits is determined by the number of shots fired, not by BS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Are you factoring in, at all, what's being shot at?
Yes, obviously. That's the whole point of why ACs suck, post-buff HBs are equal or better against virtually every target. But what does that have to do with your complaint about not accounting for BS?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Are you factoring in, at all, what's being shot at?
Yes, obviously. That's the whole point of why ACs suck, post-buff HBs are equal or better against virtually every target. But what does that have to do with your complaint about not accounting for BS?
Opportunity cost. If you have a 6 1 shot weapons your opportunities are severely limited. If you have a 4 shot weapon then you have a greater number of opportunities.
This factors in more at low BS, where only having 4 1 shot weapons will often result in 0 hits, whereas 4 4 shot weapons, even if less effective mean you have 2 hits per turn on average with a greater chance of punching above average.
The 1 shot weapon might be deadlier but that doesn't count for much if it never hits.
Add to that this entire debate is coming from a conversation about R&H in older editions, where a HB literally couldn't hurt the same things as an autocannon could.
Dudeface wrote: The 1 shot weapon might be deadlier but that doesn't count for much if it never hits.
And the high-shot weapon doesn't count for anything if it fails to wound. Scoring hits is not the goal, removing enemy models/units from the table is, and the happy feelings of "accomplishing something" by getting hits have no value. This whole "as long as I get to keep rolling dice something can always happen" mindset is exactly the kind of lack of understanding of the math that casinos love to profit from.
If you want to have a meaningful comparison between options the only thing that matters is the end result, and in that end result BS is irrelevant unless the two options have different BS (which is not the case here).
Add to that this entire debate is coming from a conversation about R&H in older editions, where a HB literally couldn't hurt the same things as an autocannon could.
This entire debate comes from someone posting about their current R&H army, not older editions.
Dudeface wrote: They mean you can have more of the R&H troops therefore more of the heavy weapon and yes the BS does factor in, a BS 2+ anti armour weapon is reliable on the hit rate for a 1 shot weapon, at BS 6+ having multiple opportunities increases odds of success, even if the total theoretical damage output is the same on paper.
Neither of these things matter.
AC and HB have the same cost, whether it's 6 HBs vs 6 ACs or 1 HB vs 1 AC or 10 HBs vs 10 ACs the relative value of HBs and ACs is exactly the same and HBs are the clear winner.
BS is only relevant if you don't understand statistics and/or value the good feelings of "accomplishing something" by hitting even if you fail to do any damage. Hitting is not the goal, dead models is, and the higher hit rate of ACs is more than offset by the lower wound rate, failed save rate, and inflicted damage.
Bold statement chief, that i don't understand statistics whilest i clearly pointed to that being the case in the past and in the past the hb most definetly didn't cost the same as the ac and struggled severly due to AV and toughness working far better
@G'V E
No, it was regards comments about their past edition usage. It came from someone using them now, but the point I was responding to was their past edition usage, much like several others.
But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.
Dudeface wrote: No, it was regards comments about their past edition usage. It came from someone using them now, but the point I was responding to was their past edition usage, much like several others.
Ok. I will agree that in past editions ACs were a viable option, if you want to limit the scope of the discussion to past editions and not the original claim. BS is still irrelevant to that comparison though, ACs just happen to have far better (relative) stats in previous editions.
Not really sure about this. To my mind napkin maths holds up.
I'm sort of confused what edition/rules we are using - but for simplicity lets say a melta gun kills a Marine 5/12s of the time. (1/2 hit, 5/6 wound, no save.)
An Autocannon shot kills a Marine 5/36 of the time. (1/2 hit, 5/6 wound, 2/3 save.)
So you can spin that round. If you have 3 meltas, the odds of doing nothing at all into marines is 7/12^3=19.85%. So about 1/5th of the time you shoot 3 meltas you'd do no damage.
By contrast with Autocannons the odds of doing nothing is 31/36. So 3 Autocannons is 31/36^6=40.77%. So you'd expect the three autocannons do nothing into marines double the time of the melta guns.
Does this change if you make the shooting unit BS6+? Well yes to an extent.
The melta goes to 1/6*5/6=5/36 to kill a Marine. The Autocannon round is 1/6*5/6*1/3=5/108.
So the odds of 3 meltas doing nothing becomes (31/36)^3=63.85%.
And 3 Autocannons becomes (103/108)^6=75.24%.
Whether the Autocannon is "relatively better" in this scenario is hard to say. The odds of the Melta doing some damage have fallen by a greater amount. But it's still more reliable. Tbh the odds of doing nothing in both is probably too high to be worth taking if its a common enough scenario.
But - and this is a factor that doesn't seem to have been covered, or I guess you are using special rules to get around it - the old autocannon (and heavy bolter) really suffered for being heavy. That's snapshots if you move - or indeed nothing at all (I think?) if we go back further. Less of a burden today perhaps - but still a potential consideration.
I guess its fine if the terrain is such you can deploy your guardsmen into cover with good view of the rest of the table, and they are going to stay there until turn 5 where you might try and sprint them on to an objective if everything else is dead. But I feel this sort of planet bowling ball set up went out with the ark(s of omen). Or you were asking to be immediately nuked because you'd be standing out of cover and guardsmen died to a stiff breeze.
Dudeface wrote: But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.
Life doesn't follow napkin maths.
That's not some sagely salt-of-the-earth wisdom that the math nerds never accounted for because they don't know anything beyond averages. It's called standard deviation. You can visualize it with a bell curve.
And it does not work out to poor stats being better if you can fire a lot of low-accuracy shots- instead, the chance of you doing nothing increases. If you roll ten dice and need 5+, you're more likely to get zero successes than if you roll five dice and need 3+. That remote possibility of them all coming up 6s is offset by a substantially greater likelihood of them underperforming. It doesn't matter whether you're hitting on 3s or 5s before you get there.
In fact, if you rely on large numbers of unlikely-to-succeed trials to 'create chances', you may get that blowout success every once in a while, but the typical result (mode, not mean) is that you will perform below-average. So you're right, averages don't tell the whole story- except that the real-world implications are worse for high-volume low-strength weapons and worse for inaccurate platforms, not better.
GW not understanding this stuff either and using gambler logic to write their rules is part of the problem.
Dudeface wrote: But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.
Life doesn't follow napkin maths.
That's not some sagely salt-of-the-earth wisdom that the math nerds never accounted for because they don't know anything beyond averages. It's called standard deviation. You can visualize it with a bell curve.
And it does not work out to poor stats being better if you can fire a lot of low-accuracy shots- instead, the chance of you doing nothing increases. If you roll ten dice and need 5+, you're more likely to get zero successes than if you roll five dice and need 3+. That remote possibility of them all coming up 6s is offset by a substantially greater likelihood of them underperforming. It doesn't matter whether you're hitting on 3s or 5s before you get there.
In fact, if you rely on large numbers of unlikely-to-succeed trials to 'create chances', you may get that blowout success every once in a while, but the typical result (mode, not mean) is that you will perform below-average. So you're right, averages don't tell the whole story- except that the real-world implications are worse for high-volume low-strength weapons and worse for inaccurate platforms, not better.
GW not understanding this stuff either and using gambler logic to write their rules is part of the problem.
Given we're displaying maths as the mathematical means, they should also be the modal here I would have thought? I know what standard deviation but I'm not a statistician by any measure. Regards the probabilities, you've got confused, the example at hand was 4 single shot high lethality weapons, vs 4 higher rate of fire lower lethality weapons, all hitting at BS 6+.
Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.
Also we should have two games - one for people who can do math and one for people who cannot/refuse too. That way the two groups need never meet and fight!
Dudeface wrote: Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.
Because, again, "accomplishing something" is defined by removing models and units from the table, not by scoring hits. The 8 shots are more likely to score one or more hits but far less likely to convert those hits into dead models, with the net result being that the low-volume weapon is more likely to remove one or more models from the table and will kill more models per game on average. And these facts remain true regardless of BS, unless the unit has different BS depending on the weapon selected (rapid fire vs. heavy on a unit that moved, etc).
What you're talking about is the fallacy casinos love to exploit with slot machines, where "almost winning" feels almost as good as an actual win. The casino has the slot machine make it look like the wheels were about to stop on a winning combination and makes a big show of how cool the near-win was and the gambling addict thinks "I almost won this time, I just need one more spin to get lucky!". Or, in the 40k version, you score a bunch of hits with a high-volume weapon and get the excitement of a near-win even if all those hits fail to wound and/or fail to get through saves. The low-volume weapon feels less effective because you don't get the exciting near-win on your failures, even if it has a higher overall chance of success.
(The exception, of course, is if GW makes a major balance mistake and creates a weapon that has both higher volume of fire and better strength/AP to convert hits into dead models. In that case the overpowered weapon becomes an auto-take regardless of BS.)
Just Tony wrote: What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?
Much like people discussing D&D. People cannot agree on what edition of 40k they prefer and thus it has evolved to math battles involving things because the alternative is people just shouting at each other that "4th is best!" "No, 5th!" "3rrrd!" In their own ways while someone does an eyeroll orkmoticon and snidely insults someone.
Just Tony wrote: What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?
Much like people discussing D&D. People cannot agree on what edition of 40k they prefer and thus it has evolved to math battles involving things because the alternative is people just shouting at each other that "4th is best!" "No, 5th!" "3rrrd!" In their own ways while someone does an eyeroll orkmoticon and snidely insults someone.
Oh it is rather easy to find out. The edition they had the most fun playing for longest time was the best and most fun. And if on top of that their army had options for different type of lists or game play, they will call it the best edition GW ever created. Especialy if they play just one faction and maybe with expetion of eldar, where every edition, where they got a codex, was a good edition.
Dudeface wrote: Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.
I followed fine. You're not comparing two weapons that are identical except one gets twice as many shots; you're comparing a weapon that gets more shots to a weapon that is more likely to inflict damage on any given shot. If it's 8 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 5+ versus 4 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 3+, the second one is more reliable, even though the average is the same. It can't inflict 5+ wounds, but it's less likely to inflict 0.
The exact ballistic skill of the firing platform changes the delta between the two but not the basic principle. The low-volume, high-power weapon is more reliable at inflicting damage regardless of whether you're hitting on 2s or 6s.
Here's an extreme example: Gun #1 gets 6 shots, hitting on 6s, wounding on 6s. Each shot has a 1/36 chance to successfully wound, so a 35/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six failing at the same time is (35/36)^6, which comes to about 0.84 or 84%. Gun #2 gets 1 shot, hitting on 6s, and autowounds. It has a 1/6 chance of success, so a 5/6 chance to fail. Roughly 83%. Minutely lower chance of doing nothing, but doesn't have the minute chance of doing 2 or more wounds, either.
Now change the hit rate to 2+. The first gun is now successfully hitting and wounding 5/36 of the time, so has a 31/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six shots failing is (31/36)^6 or 41%. The single-shot auto-wound gun has a 5/6 chance of success, so a 1/6 chance to fail. That's a 17% failure rate. There's now substantially more of a difference (because the high-volume gun is now much more likely to get 2 or more wounds), but the same principle.
By the same token, two shots at BS5+ are less reliable (44% chance of doing nothing, 55% chance of 1 hit, 11% chance of 2 hits) than one shot at BS3+ (33% chance of doing nothing, 67% chance of 1 hit). The mathematical reason is exactly the same.
It just isn't true that a higher volume of fire at the cost of individual lethality makes low BS more reliable. Low BS is going to be unreliable regardless, but the way to make it most reliable is to use fewer, more lethal attacks. And if an autocannon is better than a heavy bolter at BS3+, then it's still better at BS5+; at no point does being inaccurate make a higher-volume but overall less effective weapon suddenly more viable. The fewer dice you roll, the more consistent and closer to average the outcome, regardless of how likely or unlikely those individual rolls are.
Players don't seem to get this. GW certainly doesn't. It is what it is.
This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.
Ya know, a D12 system would be able to help differentiate those differences a little better
The difference in ploin measurements, or Ballistic Skill? Because I'm still on the fence about changing the dice. I feel something intrinsic needs to change, but I think the dice is a red herring. I'd much prefer they bring back the wounding chart and make somethings incapable of wounding other things.
But I also think Custodes are a foolish faction to keep in the game, and that if you have "Sly Marbo" on your list you should auto-win the match.
This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.
If you go back to the previous page, the original argument was that weapon balance was poor in older editions. Someone else responded by essentially saying 'no, those weapons that seem bad were actually better than the alternatives when inaccurate troops use them', which is not how that works.
So I guess my position is less of a specific suggestion and more of a general hope that someone at GW is required to learn probability before writing 10th so they stop writing bad rules based on these sorts of fallacies. We may not have 3rd Ed unkillable Falcons anymore, but we still get things like Iron Hands in SM2.0, or more commonly units like Tyranid Warriors where there's a clear best option among a couple of bad ones.
Dudeface wrote: Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.
I followed fine. You're not comparing two weapons that are identical except one gets twice as many shots; you're comparing a weapon that gets more shots to a weapon that is more likely to inflict damage on any given shot. If it's 8 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 5+ versus 4 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 3+, the second one is more reliable, even though the average is the same. It can't inflict 5+ wounds, but it's less likely to inflict 0.
The exact ballistic skill of the firing platform changes the delta between the two but not the basic principle. The low-volume, high-power weapon is more reliable at inflicting damage regardless of whether you're hitting on 2s or 6s.
Here's an extreme example: Gun #1 gets 6 shots, hitting on 6s, wounding on 6s. Each shot has a 1/36 chance to successfully wound, so a 35/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six failing at the same time is (35/36)^6, which comes to about 0.84 or 84%. Gun #2 gets 1 shot, hitting on 6s, and autowounds. It has a 1/6 chance of success, so a 5/6 chance to fail. Roughly 83%. Minutely lower chance of doing nothing, but doesn't have the minute chance of doing 2 or more wounds, either.
Now change the hit rate to 2+. The first gun is now successfully hitting and wounding 5/36 of the time, so has a 31/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six shots failing is (31/36)^6 or 41%. The single-shot auto-wound gun has a 5/6 chance of success, so a 1/6 chance to fail. That's a 17% failure rate. There's now substantially more of a difference (because the high-volume gun is now much more likely to get 2 or more wounds), but the same principle.
By the same token, two shots at BS5+ are less reliable (44% chance of doing nothing, 55% chance of 1 hit, 11% chance of 2 hits) than one shot at BS3+ (33% chance of doing nothing, 67% chance of 1 hit). The mathematical reason is exactly the same.
It just isn't true that a higher volume of fire at the cost of individual lethality makes low BS more reliable. Low BS is going to be unreliable regardless, but the way to make it most reliable is to use fewer, more lethal attacks. And if an autocannon is better than a heavy bolter at BS3+, then it's still better at BS5+; at no point does being inaccurate make a higher-volume but overall less effective weapon suddenly more viable. The fewer dice you roll, the more consistent and closer to average the outcome, regardless of how likely or unlikely those individual rolls are.
Players don't seem to get this. GW certainly doesn't. It is what it is.
Thank you very much for the lesson, I understand now.
I just don't understand these constant rules changes in warhammer. If Battletech can maintain the same system for over 35 years, why does GW have to change theirs ever 2.5 years.
Togusa wrote: I just don't understand these constant rules changes in warhammer. If Battletech can maintain the same system for over 35 years, why does GW have to change theirs ever 2.5 years.
Because we enable them by buying those rules. Empirical "we", as I refuse to buy another ruleset from them until they come up with something actually good. W:TOW is tentative...
This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.
Ya know, a D12 system would be able to help differentiate those differences a little better
You don't need D12 for that. A simple opposed check to hit (firer's BS vs target's Evasion or whatever) would add even more variance. But that would require players to memorize the chart for the opposing attributes, and we all know it is a no-go.
Tyel wrote: Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?
Because some units are more adept at hitting their targets in the fluff than others and will thus achieve better results using the same firearm. I still haven't seen two units that are fluff-wise have very different abilities to hit that it is impossible to assign via the current system. In absence of a good reason to change and with the presence of the current system being simple it shouldn't be changed. Destroyers do not hit better than an Immortal because of fluff, they hit better because the 3rd edition codex writer used the name of the ability to say something and the 9th edition codex writer just kept it in the datasheet because it's always been in the datasheet. If they did need to hit better their BS could be raised to 2+. Do Custodes Captains need a better BS than the 2+ of their compatriots? No, it's really not important and you can only hit so accurately. If you're going beyond just "almost always hits the target" to "often gets critical hits" a D20 determining whether you hit wouldn't help. The rules being 100 pages long was terrible for new or returning players, in the same way that Stratagems are today.
Tyel wrote: Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?
Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?
Why not have every unit move 6"?
Why not have everything have T4?
Can you honestly say that this hypothetical game would have meaningfully less strategic depth than the current bloated mess of "oops I just won in the list building phase"?
Tyel wrote: Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?
Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?
Why not have every unit move 6"?
Why not have everything have T4?
Can you honestly say that this hypothetical game would have meaningfully less strategic depth than the current bloated mess of "oops I just won in the list building phase"?
Yes. Games being accidentally won in the list building phase is going to be part of any game where players have to pick between different things. This is a desired outcome, an army with as many meltas as possible should beat a vehicle list and lose to a horde list.
vict0988 wrote: Yes. Games being accidentally won in the list building phase is going to be part of any game where players have to pick between different things. This is a desired outcome, an army with as many meltas as possible should beat a vehicle list and lose to a horde list.
There's an immense difference between skew lists playing rock/paper/scissors with other skew lists and current 40k, where 99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist with the obvious best options and playing "competitive" missions that create a nice predictable environment where the analysis that generated the netlist is guaranteed to be true. Despite the impressive word count of its rules 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: ...99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist...
Why don't you say something like "I feel like building a competitive list is too easy and has too big an impact on the outcome of the game" instead?
"competitive" missions that create a nice predictable environment where the analysis that generated the netlist is guaranteed to be true.
As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?
Despite the impressive word count of its rules 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle
40k doesn't have an impressive word count compared to previously. The codexes are very wide, but Stratagems do add a lot of depth to the game. If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player. Chess achieves it's depth without as many words (width) and that's good game design, but just because the ratio between 40k's width and depth is worse than that of Chess does not make 40k shallow. Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true, while they sometimes have first-mover advantage there is also a tonne of skill. Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?
tneva82 wrote: Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?
Why not have every unit move 6"?
Why not have everything have T4?
Well if it was good enough for 3rd edition...
I guess my point was more that GW seem to realise now they have to try for a balanced game. Clearly they fail at that by degree - but its closer than it was.
But this just results in ever more complicated equations due to the need to stick things on both sides of the equation.
So if say Ork Shooting units are stuck at BS5+, then they need to carry buckets of dice so they can be as good as units which are say BS3+ with full rerolls.
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way? Is the game really getting much out of looking for 5s from a bucket of dice? Or assault units that need to kill Marines to be worth taking. But since they don't have S5 AP-3 etc (although we are chucking that out for free too) they need 4~ attacks a model.
Clearly a melta gun should be better into a tank than into a horde. But I'm not sure BS effects that very much.
I mean you could write the rules such that all attacks automatically hit, and balance accordingly. I guess that removes the scope of +1/-1 to hit, rerolls, exploding 6s etc - but I'm not sure those are the height of tactical genius/rules design/fun anyway.
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way?
Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.
tneva82 wrote: Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?
Why not have every unit move 6"?
Why not have everything have T4?
Well if it was good enough for 3rd edition...
I guess my point was more that GW seem to realise now they have to try for a balanced game. Clearly they fail at that by degree - but its closer than it was.
But this just results in ever more complicated equations due to the need to stick things on both sides of the equation.
So if say Ork Shooting units are stuck at BS5+, then they need to carry buckets of dice so they can be as good as units which are say BS3+ with full rerolls.
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way? Is the game really getting much out of looking for 5s from a bucket of dice? Or assault units that need to kill Marines to be worth taking. But since they don't have S5 AP-3 etc (although we are chucking that out for free too) they need 4~ attacks a model.
Clearly a melta gun should be better into a tank than into a horde. But I'm not sure BS effects that very much.
I mean you could write the rules such that all attacks automatically hit, and balance accordingly. I guess that removes the scope of +1/-1 to hit, rerolls, exploding 6s etc - but I'm not sure those are the height of tactical genius/rules design/fun anyway.
I bang on the drum about the BS thing pretty often, we're at the stage it's pretty easy to make even generally rubbish units hit on 3+ regularly, it's only really Orks being an outlier at this point and even then 4+ is considered "bad" widely and a common community opinion is "unit A was designed to be a specialist at Z so should hit on a 3+". Mathematically yes, a loota firing fewer shots at 3+ is easier to manage in the game, but it's not flavourful, orks are about being obnoxious, loud and doing things in a backwards way often. Rolling a bucket of dice shows that flavour imo more than "oh my loota is the same as a autocannon havoc now by stats/output".
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way?
Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.
Could just have equal or beat the EV to hit.
Then can even give ork a 2BS, Everyone can aim if they don’t move.
But orks get a Dakka skill that gives +2 to aiming instead.
They not great shots, but they lay down firepower when they set there mind to it.
As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?
nah, that would simply force you to bring a list that can do multiple missions.
GW could make a GT pack that has like X very distinct missions that reward different playstyles and unit types and then make the TO roll for them at the beginning of every round, that way players would need to bring lists that cover multiple strats instead of knowing that every missions is gonna be "hold 1-2-more" with a choice of secondaries that is mostly decided before getting to the table
40k doesn't have an impressive word count compared to previously. The codexes are very wide, but Stratagems do add a lot of depth to the game. If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player. Chess achieves it's depth without as many words (width) and that's good game design, but just because the ratio between 40k's width and depth is worse than that of Chess does not make 40k shallow. Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true, while they sometimes have first-mover advantage there is also a tonne of skill. Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?
The difference is that with Chess everything is in your face, and the only thing that matters is your strategy.
Needing to memorize countless stratagems to make optimal moves is nowhere near Chess.
Oh and strats don't add depth, they add the illusion of depth.
As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?
nah, that would simply force you to bring a list that can do multiple missions.
GW could make a GT pack that has like X very distinct missions that reward different playstyles and unit types and then make the TO roll for them at the beginning of every round, that way players would need to bring lists that cover multiple strats instead of knowing that every missions is gonna be "hold 1-2-more" with a choice of secondaries that is mostly decided before getting to the table
If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B. You have not forced me to bring a list that can do multiple missions, not that most GT winning lists can't do multiple missions. Edit: Removed
...strats don't add depth, they add the illusion of depth.
Give me a definition for game design depth that excludes Strats.
If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B. You have not forced me to bring a list that can do multiple missions, not that most GT winning lists can't do multiple missions. You're probably not a competitive player and you don't know what a competitive list looked like if it hit you in the face, just like the casuals that have whined about me bringing competitive lists when they were the ones bringing more competitive lists because fluffy can still be competitive and fluffy is not necessarily casual.
I was about to actually engage with you but then i reached this
You're probably not a competitive player and you don't know what a competitive list looked like if it hit you in the face, just like the casuals that have whined about me bringing competitive lists when they were the ones bringing more competitive lists because fluffy can still be competitive and fluffy is not necessarily casual.
AtoMaki wrote: Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.
Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?
vict0988 wrote: If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B.
If list A has an average 50% chance of winning every mission, while list B has 60% in one mission, 50% in three missions, 40% in two missions, and 10% in the last, you're better off taking the well-rounded one and considerably more likely to go 5/0.
If the mission pack is set up such that going heavy skew wins you 5 out of 6 missions and auto-loses the last, that's a bad mission pack. That doesn't mean the only alternative is the current cookie-cutter symmetrical experience where every mission is functionally the same.
AtoMaki wrote: Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.
Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?
Of course it does! It adds more variance and thus increases the number of different situations you encounter during game and thus makes the game less of a borefest. Because that's the real thing you want to avoid: generalization leads to dullness and dullness leads to boredom, and when players get bored they stop playing (at best) or get pissed and start gaking all over the game (at worst). You might know this phenomenon from video game design where it is called "replayability".
It would mostly allow a better representation of being hard (or easier) to hit.
GW has the issue that they are very inconsistent when it comes to that, sometimes using invulnerable saves, sometimes using cover saves, sometimes using modifiers and other rarer rules. An evasion table would allow to standardize all of that.
Moreover it could also be used as another lever to further differentiate anti-tank weaponry from anti-infantry. We could return to more granular wound table in which tanks cannot be wounded by small arms but with the downside of being easier to hit and thus more vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry, which in turn could be adjusted to be less effective against infantry.
AtoMaki wrote: Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.
Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?
Of course it does! It adds more variance and thus increases the number of different situations you encounter during game and thus makes the game less of a borefest. Because that's the real thing you want to avoid: generalization leads to dullness and dullness leads to boredom, and when players get bored they stop playing (at best) or get pissed and start gaking all over the game (at worst). You might know this phenomenon from video game design where it is called "replayability".
Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though? Fast Moving = -1 to hit, Large Target = +1 to hit, etc. I feel like that's an easier mechanic that can achieve similar results.
Insectum7 wrote: Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though?
Optimally, you should be using both because opposed checks allow a greater variety of modifiers too so there is a lot more to do. The big drawback of the whole deal is, as you said, it gets really friggin' complex when done well, and the large number of variables make gaming a really challenging experience. And when you are sweating over variables you are not having fun.
Insectum7 wrote: Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though?
Optimally, you should be using both because opposed checks allow a greater variety of modifiers too so there is a lot more to do. The big drawback of the whole deal is, as you said, it gets really friggin' complex when done well, and the large number of variables make gaming a really challenging experience. And when you are sweating over variables you are not having fun.
I'm not totally opposed to the idea of opposed checks, as traditionally CC worked that way. I'm just not sure making shooting work the same way is worthwhile for 40K. The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily. I wonder if just starting everybody at a point lower (better) would be enough. If a Marine starts a 2+, Guardsman 3+ and Ork 4+, for example. Firing at Genestealers moving fast (-1) in cover (-1).
To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost. Here's the thing:
Basing any unit in this game off what they CAN do is completely backwards. It's much more important to look at it as what they might do, for the cost. Right now, a Custodian Captain with a spear/axe will shoot twice, likely hit, but fail to wound most everything except IG. Even if the SC does wound, it's likely reduced to 1dam. So pointless to use them for shooting at all.
But a single Palatine for 50 points will get at least 1 or 2 wounds on a target in their shooting phase, and very easily to boot.
The point's system in this game completely invalidates any stupid dice mechanic. Because for 50 points a unit with a plasma pistol will outperform a Leader of the Emperor's personally created Guardians.
D12-20 will not fix this. Removal of broken gak like easy access plasma and melta weapons will.
I actually do support the suggestion of everyone back to basics. We all shoot 24" S4 AP0 D1 unless we take the extra gear to do differently. We are all T3 infantry unless you are a monster, or a vehicle.
Wipe the slate clean, pour clorox all over it, and flush it.
Insectum7 wrote: The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily.
That's supposed to be a feature. You are not supposed to just brainlessly roll up on the field and expect that your unit will do just fine. You have to think about positioning, target selection, and squeezing out those positive modifiers from the situation to make your units work. Hence the aforementioned sweaty gaming experience.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost.
Don't Custodes Captains hit on 2s and reroll 1s? (did that change and I missed it?) They're basically not missing anyways.
Sure, make them 1+ just so I don't have to sit through the rolling.
Insectum7 wrote: The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily.
That's supposed to be a feature. You are not supposed to just brainlessly roll up on the field and expect that your unit will do just fine. You have to think about positioning, target selection, and squeezing out those positive modifiers from the situation to make your units work. Hence the aforementioned sweaty gaming experience.
I agree, but I wouldn't want a ranged shootout to be totally uneventful because everyone's missing either.
A big part of GW's main design mechanic is to relay on fistfuls of dice. 40k is still mechanically a skirmish game, where each model shoots individually. That makes switching to d10s or 12s harder (but not impossible) simply because d6s can stack easier.
GW is finally at least playing with what they can with their core rules, for example, lifting the Stat cap at 10. That said, while I love things like wider dice ranges, opposed rolls, alternate activations, and all that other stuff, it's just not likely to happen since it won't merge well with the core of 40k.
I think that the core rules are actually quite good, GW just needs to ignore it's impulse to make codexes that are like RPG supplements. the IG book is a good step in the right direction, stripping out a lot of false choice.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought DUST had an interesting mechanic where base chance to hit and damage depended on weapon type and target as well as shooter/fighter
Waaaay back on 2nd ed weapons carried modifiers to hit too. I suppose Necromunda does now.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought DUST had an interesting mechanic where base chance to hit and damage depended on weapon type and target as well as shooter/fighter
Waaaay back on 2nd ed weapons carried modifiers to hit too. I suppose Necromunda does now.
yeah it does - I recall old school 40k : 0 but DUST has to hit number for each unit to hit "infantry" "tanks" and "Aircraft"
Hecaton wrote: Bull, don't try and claim there'd be fluff problems. If a Melta gun is beaming radio waves it'd be incredibly efficient at energizing metal, hence the bonus against vehicles.
So why doesn't it get a bonus against power armor, crisis suits, etc? Those are all made of metal too.
Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.
Tyel wrote: Hmmm. I kind of remember them being bad. I guess respectable enough for popping rhinos (AV 11) but that's about it. Once you hit AV12 they dropped off considerably - and sufficient bolters could pop AV10 light vehicles (most of which were bad anyway from memory).
How many Guard armies had "sufficient bolters"?
As I said, the Autocannon was the best weapon for the Guard. It would take out incoming Rhinos, and eliminate all the various speedy AV10 vehicles out there, and because Guard squads were so cheap weight of firepower could help you with AV12 Eldar units. And, because they fired 2 shots, and Guard hit 50% of the time, they were remarkably consistent.
You have to factor in the context of the weapon. Autocannons were rare in Marine armies, but also not especially useful. In a Guard army? Absolutely wonderful. Paired with a Plasma Gun for when things got closer, you could rip incoming forces apart, leaving them exposed for your bigger guns.
I do remember that Space Marines/CSM with the "Tank Hunters" ability (+1 AP against vehicles) made Autocannons pretty sexy.
Hecaton wrote: Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.
Then why does it work against an Eldar wraithbone tank?
Hecaton wrote: Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.
Then why does it work against an Eldar wraithbone tank?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Is that for just Unit but not Weapon? Like, weapon X has a to-hit for aircraft?
A unit has various weapons, targets and ranges for each:
so say a Konigsluther tank hunter mech can use its dual 128mm guns on Tanks and Infantry but not aircraft - and the effectiveness is also related to armour rating of the unit (if any) - some armour ratings are impervious to some weapons
but a Lothar Panzer II-D Mech, although its twin nebelwerfers can only attack Tanks and Infantry - its MG44 can fire at anything but only effect aircraft, infantry and light vehciles but not most tanks.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: ...99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist...
Why don't you say something like "I feel like building a competitive list is too easy and has too big an impact on the outcome of the game" instead?
"competitive" missions that create a nice predictable environment where the analysis that generated the netlist is guaranteed to be true.
As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?
Despite the impressive word count of its rules 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle
40k doesn't have an impressive word count compared to previously. The codexes are very wide, but Stratagems do add a lot of depth to the game. If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player. Chess achieves it's depth without as many words (width) and that's good game design, but just because the ratio between 40k's width and depth is worse than that of Chess does not make 40k shallow. Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true, while they sometimes have first-mover advantage there is also a tonne of skill. Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?
Us players who make few mistakes are off playing Infinity ;-)
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: ...99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist...
Why don't you say something like "I feel like building a competitive list is too easy and has too big an impact on the outcome of the game" instead?
Because that is not what I mean. Making list building harder would not change the fact that the on-table game is incredibly shallow, it would only slightly delay the time it takes for the obvious netlist to be found and adopted.
As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?
That's a very nice false dilemma fallacy you've got there.
If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player.
That is word count, not depth. Having to memorize a lot of material is not the same thing as having complex and interesting decision trees.
Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true
Not really. 40k has major issues with small sample size as there are only a handful of people who play "professionally". It's not surprising to see the same 5-10 people winning events when only 10-15 people are attending multiple major events per year and most of the people in a given event are casual players with sub-optimal lists who just want to get in 5+ games in a weekend.
Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?
Having such a high word count that even the best players can't avoid making mistakes is not the same thing as depth.
Hecaton wrote: Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.
Then why does it work against an Eldar wraithbone tank?
Eldar tanks aren't entirely wraithbone, just the chassis frame.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Is that for just Unit but not Weapon? Like, weapon X has a to-hit for aircraft?
A unit has various weapons, targets and ranges for each:
so say a Konigsluther tank hunter mech can use its dual 128mm guns on Tanks and Infantry but not aircraft - and the effectiveness is also related to armour rating of the unit (if any) - some armour ratings are impervious to some weapons
but a Lothar Panzer II-D Mech, although its twin nebelwerfers can only attack Tanks and Infantry - its MG44 can fire at anything but only effect aircraft, infantry and light vehciles but not most tanks.
Lol no, the old AV system led to clearly anti light infantry guns like scatter lasers and brain leech devourers being absurdly good at wrecking light and even medium armor.
And of course the eternal issue of vehicles vs monsters.
Tyran wrote: Lol no, the old AV system led to clearly anti light infantry guns like scatter lasers and brain leech devourers being absurdly good at wrecking light and even medium armor.
And of course the eternal issue of vehicles vs monsters.
Sure, but the same system could be used with different values applied and you'results might be more desireable. Personally I was ok with S6 being decent against lighter vehicles though. If HBs are S5 and those are armor piercing grenades, seemed ok.
Tyran wrote: Lol no, the old AV system led to clearly anti light infantry guns like scatter lasers and brain leech devourers being absurdly good at wrecking light and even medium armor.
And of course the eternal issue of vehicles vs monsters.
Then make scatter lasers S4 if they're supposed to be purely infantry killers. Or accept them as mid-range autocannon equivalents and address the problem of spamming undercosted bikes armed with them. There's nothing inherently impossible to balance about the scatter laser profile, they were just too cheap and on platforms that were too good.
Or IMHO just reverting to the old wound table pretty much does the same thing without having to deal with all the design issues of having an entirely different wounding and damage mechanics in the same game.
I can't believe we had someone argue that Strats add depth to the game. 40k has no depth. It has width, but it's as deep as a paddling pool.
But yeah, the old wounding chart (or moreso the old ratios of what caused 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/cannot wound, given we can go above 10 now), would go a long way toward fixing this game.
Grimnyr [4 PL, 90pts, -1CP]: Fortify, Interface Echo, Null Vortex, Stratagem: In the Right Hands, The Murmuring Stave
. 2x CORV: 2x Autoch-pattern bolter
High Kâhl [6 PL, 130pts]: Volkanite Desintegrator, High Kâhl, Mass gauntlet, Stratagem: In the Right Hands, Stratagem: Legend of the League, Teleport crest, The First Knife, Warrior Lord
+ Flyer +
Harpy [10 PL, 215pts]: 2x Heavy Venom Cannon, Adaptive Physiology: Synaptic Enhancement
++ Total: [99 PL, 2,000pts] ++
The definition of game design depth is the amount of possible choices you can make in a game. If you can choose to go left or right you have 2 possible choices, if you can also go up, forward or backwards as well you have 5 possible choices. If I can either shoot my lascannon or shoot my lascannon and use 1 Strat or shoot my lascannon and use 2 Strats the game is deeper. That depth is achieved by adding a lot of unnecessary complexity (width) to the game, so it's bad game design because it makes the game unnecessarily hard to get into or keep up with.
vict0988 wrote: If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B.
If list C has an average 50% chance of winning every mission, while list D has 60% in one mission, 50% in three missions, 40% in two missions, and 10% in the last, you're better off taking the well-rounded one and considerably more likely to go 5/0.
I changed the names of your lists because you're giving a different scenario. You might use list C instead of list D, but list A is still better than list B. But you cannot guarantee that most factions would end up in the situation of choosing between C and D instead of A and B.
That doesn't mean the only alternative is the current cookie-cutter symmetrical experience where every mission is functionally the same.
I agree, but would you agree that the chance of the situation we agree is bad is higher in a system with more different missions? Would it make sense to you if I said that I think games being decided before the first turn is the most important factor to me and I therefore want to ensure that is never the case. I think missions being different is fine in a casual format, but I think the missions should add additional late-game randomness to keep the winner in the air until the last moment.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost.
Yes, they all hit almost all the time. Whether you hit almost all the time or a little better than almost all the time is irrelevant. Who would win in a fight between a US Marine and Jeet Kun Do expert Bruce Lee in his prime? US Marine with a shotgun wins. If Custodians in the fluff don't take much damage from plasma they need better invulns.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I can't believe we had someone argue that Strats add depth to the game. 40k has no depth. It has width, but it's as deep as a paddling pool.
How often did you decide to use a CP re-roll in 5th edition?
vict0988 wrote: The definition of game design depth is the amount of possible choices you can make in a game.
No. Depth is defined by the number of meaningful choices you can make. If going left vs. going right has no meaningful impact because the board is completely symmetrical then that decision does not add depth. If there's a "choice" of whether or not you use the obvious overpowered buff stratagem that is not depth, it's word count creating the illusion of depth. If the on-table decisions are largely meaningless because the outcome of the game is decided by who took the most overpowered list then all of those on-table decisions no longer count towards depth.
The reality is that 40k has all of these things. Once you strip away the illusion of depth created by fake choices you're left with a game that has an impressive word count but the depth of a puddle.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: If there's a "choice" of whether or not you use the obvious overpowered buff stratagem that is not depth...
How are you going to determine when a choice is too obvious to be counted as depth? Because I have seen Stratagems used badly dozens of times, I have personally misallocated CP dozens of times. If I can choose to shoot your the guns or the feet of your Knight with my weapon that hits and wounds on 4+ to either get +1 to hit or +1 to wound then that choice will have no impact on the statistical average damage I do and is therefore irrelevant. There have to be superior and inferior choices of when and which Stratagems to use before it actually adds depth.
I am not defending 8th edition's Endless Cacophony + Veterans of the Long War combo, but I am not going to say that their existince is proof Stratagems are a bad concept, just like pts are not a bad concept just because tesla carbines cost 2 pts for Necron Immortals instead of 0 pts at the start of 9th. Or 7th edition's nested special rules hidden away in the core rules as evidence of USRs being bad. Veterans of the Long War could be fixed by having it apply against Infantry and Bikes for one attack instead of a phase and against any target. Endless Cacophony would have been balanced at 3CP or if it had a 1-time use or another downside like the unit using it not benefitting from cover.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost. Here's the thing:
BS is only thing that matters? Points are determined just by BS?
vict0988 wrote: How often did you decide to use a CP re-roll in 5th edition?
What you've described is a tactical choice, and not something that adds any real depth to the game beyond any other type of tactical choice.
What depth did GW add to the game when they made smoke launchers on vehicles a one vehicle per turn use item that requires the expenditure of a limited-but-regenerating abstracted strategic resource?
Most strats fall into four categories:
1. Things that should just be part of the core rules. 2. Things that should just be unit special rules. 3. Things that should just be wargear. 4. "Gotcha" things for combos that shouldn't be part of the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But yeah, the old wounding chart (or moreso the old ratios of what caused 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/cannot wound, given we can go above 10 now), would go a long way toward fixing this game.
Nah, people would still find something to complain about.
People want to reclaim the game of their youth not realizing that they can never reclaim their youth. A tale as old as fandom itself.
vict0988 wrote: How often did you decide to use a CP re-roll in 5th edition?
What you've described is a tactical choice, and not something that adds any real depth to the game beyond any other type of tactical choice.
All tactical choices add depth, a game with a lot of tactical choices is deep. Chess has a lot of tactical choices, therefore it is deep. Tic-tac-toe has very few tactical choices, therefore it is shallow. If you have 10 different colours of X and O but ultimately it only matters whether you place an X or an O you have Tic-tac-toe with the illusion of depth.
What depth did GW add to the game when they made smoke launchers on vehicles a one vehicle per turn use item that requires the expenditure of a limited-but-regenerating abstracted strategic resource?
They removed some depth by removing the once-per game ability and added some when they added the Stratagem. By what logic would you assume I approve of the change?
Most strats fall into four categories:
1. Things that should just be part of the core rules.
2. Things that should just be unit special rules.
3. Things that should just be wargear.
4. "Gotcha" things for combos that shouldn't be part of the game.
I don't think factions should have their own Stratagems. I think there are some benefits to units having individual Stratagems to incentivize highlander-like lists, but I think the downsides outweigh the upside in most circumstances. Every faction needing 20+ Stratagems was a bad design requirement, but that's not a knock against Stratagems as a concept. I might come to think that Stratagems are wholly unsalvageable in the future but I'd need to test some things of my own to see if it could work.
vict0988 wrote: How are you going to determine when a choice is too obvious to be counted as depth?
You use common sense. It's not like there's some kind of mathematical formula assigning an objectively correct number for depth, it's all just opinions. But if you apply common sense to the "obvious" criteria most stratagems fit into that. Yes, you are going to use the too-cheap 1 CP stratagem to let your crisis squad move after shooting, and it's such an obvious auto-take thing that you're going to use 5-model units specifically to hit the 1 CP breakpoint on it. Yes, if you play Farsight Tau you are going to use the stratagem that gives you full hit and wound re-rolls on a deep striking unit, and you are going to put at least one unit in your list to use it. No, you are never going to use the orbital ion beam stratagem that costs 2 CP and is trivial to dodge because it doesn't hit until your next turn. These are not meaningful choices unless you're a newbie who hasn't learned the game yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: All tactical choices add depth, a game with a lot of tactical choices is deep.
This is not true at all. Let's say I give tactical marines the following special rules:
Bolters are cool: when attacking you may choose to make all of your bolters inflict mortal wounds instead of normal damage.
Power armor is awesome: you may choose to automatically pass any saves you have to make.
Marines are the best: when building your list you may choose to pay the normal point cost or make this unit cost zero points.
Do you honestly think that these "choices" add depth to the game when there is no reason you would ever choose not to activate those abilities? Obviously this is an extreme example but most of 40k's "choices" are little better. Most of the time the correct answer is extremely obvious to anyone who understands the rules and it's just a matter of memorizing the endless pages of rule text.
The definition of game design depth is the amount of possible choices you can make in a game.
For someone making insulting comments about the competitiveness of other players, this quote is just dripping with unintended irony. This is what GW would love you to believe, but it's simply incorrect.
Depth is about meaningful choices. According to you, just adding 100 more useless strats to an army immediately increases the depth of the game. That's not the case, because those strats will never see use. Similarly, adding a bunch of really powerful, cheap strats to the game doesn't improve depth because there are no meaningful choices to be made in employing them.
As an example from the previous CSM Codex, you used to be able to take IW Slaanesh Obliterators. Using a variety of strats you could have them re-roll the random dice for their weapons, get +1 to wound and shoot twice. Technically there were dozens of other things you could do with them, and countless other ways of spending your CP, but this was very obviously the optimal play, pretty much literally every single turn. There's no decision to be made here.
Depth comes from decision making processes where choices are not so obviously good and bad. This is not an exact science and the amount of depth varies from game to game. Often things like incomplete knowledge are part of what creates depth, either through hidden information or the possibility of enemy reaction to your moves. For example, in a game like X-Wing, you have to decide on your ships' movement before knowing what your opponent is going to do, so you're relying on incomplete information, intuition and probability to decide what to do, all while your opponent is doing the same. In a game like Epic, with alternating activation, every move you make potentially changes the order of moves your opponent takes, and vice versa. The inability to just blindly do everything you want, uninterrupted, creates depth that a game like 40k can't match regardless of how many strats or other rules it contains.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But yeah, the old wounding chart (or moreso the old ratios of what caused 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/cannot wound, given we can go above 10 now), would go a long way toward fixing this game.
Nah, people would still find something to complain about.
People want to reclaim the game of their youth not realizing that they can never reclaim their youth. A tale as old as fandom itself.
I believe the phrase here is "Do not let perfect become the enemy of good" - an incremental improvement is worth doing, even if we won't have reached the Nirvana of a "Perfect Game".
I don't think 40k is that simple a game, and whenever people say it is I am left thinking they just don't think that deeply about it. When people start saying "its just about the netlists" you know its just a whinge. If you go to a tournament where 50%~ of people are running "cookie cutter netlists", you need a little more to reliably place. What is currently the best list winning every tournament anyway?
I think however the main divide is that people enjoy different things. So for some using a stratagem is a shallow choice with no tactical significance. Partly perhaps because they can't imagine what else they'd use the CP for and, as per the above, don't want to spend time thinking about it. But somehow deepstriking melta into the rear of a tank (or side, assuming that tank is backed into a terrain piece to avoid precisely this play) is the height of tactical genius. Even though to my mind it was always the inevitable play you were going to try.
To a degree the depth of 40k is limited because you've only got 5 (or up to 7 etc) turns. (In practice, some limiter like this is true for almost any miniatures game I can think of.) There are order of operation optimisation concerns in those turns - but more importantly what you do on turn 1 determines what your opponent can do which then determines your available options in turn 2 etc. Getting that right - so the game flows where you want it to - while adapting to your opponent's decisions, the vagaries of dice results etc, isn't obviously "shallow" - or at least its not half as straightforward as forumers often claim. Certainly right now if you are running a toolbox style list and not something like "haha, 90 point Voidweavers, lets go".
But that turn limit (combined with IGOUGO) gives limited scope for some lengthy game of feints and counters. So I kind of think people who want some complicated interplay of fire and maneuver - where the probabilities of damage are all a function of who is shooting what, where and how, are always going to be disappointed. It needs a more fundamental re-write of the rules, than "I put my guys in cover, and shot your guys in the open, I am a tactical mastermind."
vict0988 wrote: I changed the names of your lists because you're giving a different scenario. You might use list C instead of list D, but list A is still better than list B. But you cannot guarantee that most factions would end up in the situation of choosing between C and D instead of A and B.
Ideally, I'm not giving a different scenario. If the game is designed well, list A (the one that always underperforms) should not exist outside of a new player making big mistakes with their army composition, and list B (the one that typically overperforms) should not exist either.
The dichotomy you describe- all-rounder that sucks versus a specialist that usually performs better- is a game design issue, but not something inherent to varied mission design.
vict0988 wrote: I agree, but would you agree that the chance of the situation we agree is bad is higher in a system with more different missions? Would it make sense to you if I said that I think games being decided before the first turn is the most important factor to me and I therefore want to ensure that is never the case. I think missions being different is fine in a casual format, but I think the missions should add additional late-game randomness to keep the winner in the air until the last moment.
In a game where units have points costs assigned in abstract and wildly varying actual value depending on the matchup, there's always going to be an element of good matchups and bad matchups even if there is exactly one scenario with no variety. We can't get away from that. No good competitive list will cripplingly overspecialize to the point where going up against any particular faction is an auto-lose, and then just hope that doesn't happen; they're going to ensure they have tools to deal with all the hot meta threats and gatekeeper lists.
The objective of having varied missions for competitive play (as well as casual) is to apply the same complexity to missions. Having to factor in the mission drastically increases the number of permutations of matchup, reducing the degree to which players can optimize. It increases the complexity of board state, requiring players to adopt different strategies depending on the mission rather than pre-planning.
I also agree that listbuilding shouldn't drive the game. But I strongly believe that in order to avoid the game being driven by listbuilding optimization, you need to avoid having a single target that players can optimize towards. From what I've encountered, the players who complain the loudest about auto-losing because they rolled a 'bad' mission are the ones that chose to take a one-trick-pony netlist without consideration for what it couldn't do, and for them I play the saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. There will still be good lists and bad lists in a competitive environment with varied missions- in large part because internal balance is never great in 40K- but the harder it is to look at a list and immediately know if it's good or bad, and the less you can script out before hitting the table, the better.
Not sure how familiar you are with Infinity, but tournament play there has a considerable variety of missions, ranging from kill-em-all to progressive scoring to board control at the end, and I have never had a game where I thought the game was a foregone conclusion just based on lists and mission. In my experience the scenario you describe of players choosing to optimize for certain missions and accept auto-loss in others is not how it plays out.
Not sure how familiar you are with Infinity, but tournament play there has a considerable variety of missions, ranging from kill-em-all to progressive scoring to board control at the end, and I have never had a game where I thought the game was a foregone conclusion just based on lists and mission. In my experience the scenario you describe of players choosing to optimize for certain missions and accept auto-loss in others is not how it plays out.
Every infinity mission is Anihilation with extra steps :p (jk but not 100% jk) and we're up to season 14 now
to "port" that kind of mission to 40k we could have :
Mission A : secure the payload, vehicles/monsters can do an action to move an objective X" (starts on the centerline), player with the objective in their DZ at the end of turn gets points
Mission B : Retrieve STC data, elites can do an action on an objective in No man's land to identify which objective in their opponent's DZ contains STC data, control that objective at the end of a turn to get points
Mission C : Scout ahead, Fast Attack can do an action in a table quarter they havnt done already, they get points based on how many enemy points are in that table quarter
Mission D : Pound them to dust, Heavy support give x points for every model they kill
Now, all of those are off the top of my head and zero% playtested but if i had to show up to a tournament that rolled randomly within that spread of missions, i know my army would need elites,fast,vehicles/monster and heavy supports. By forcing you to take actions, i reduce the overall lethality too (in a perfect world, no unit could to action+shoot like some can right now). Sure i *could* bring a list with only vehicles that are fast/heavy supports and have 3 missions "covered" but as i said, these were off the top of my head, an ideal pack would have like 12 missions.
vict0988 wrote: How often did you decide to use a CP re-roll in 5th edition?
What you've described is a tactical choice, and not something that adds any real depth to the game beyond any other type of tactical choice.
All tactical choices add depth, a game with a lot of tactical choices is deep. Chess has a lot of tactical choices, therefore it is deep. Tic-tac-toe has very few tactical choices, therefore it is shallow. If you have 10 different colours of X and O but ultimately it only matters whether you place an X or an O you have Tic-tac-toe with the illusion of depth.
What depth did GW add to the game when they made smoke launchers on vehicles a one vehicle per turn use item that requires the expenditure of a limited-but-regenerating abstracted strategic resource?
They removed some depth by removing the once-per game ability and added some when they added the Stratagem. By what logic would you assume I approve of the change?
Most strats fall into four categories:
1. Things that should just be part of the core rules.
2. Things that should just be unit special rules.
3. Things that should just be wargear.
4. "Gotcha" things for combos that shouldn't be part of the game.
I don't think factions should have their own Stratagems. I think there are some benefits to units having individual Stratagems to incentivize highlander-like lists, but I think the downsides outweigh the upside in most circumstances. Every faction needing 20+ Stratagems was a bad design requirement, but that's not a knock against Stratagems as a concept. I might come to think that Stratagems are wholly unsalvageable in the future but I'd need to test some things of my own to see if it could work.
Strats aren't the problem so much as certain strats that just straight up buff offense and defense are.
I don't want a new edition, at least not for now. Every 3 years a new edition is madness. But between the choices I want more of the same. I don't think 40k needs a hard reset, the core rules are solid, just need some ironing. What I would like:
- less rule bloat. What do I mean: I don't mind big, chunky codexes full of rules and stuff. What I DO mind is the supplements, updates, faqs, extra rules scattered in campaign books and whatnot. I don't like that for ex. next month when I'm playing there's a new rule for my army - now I have -1 AP (armor of contempt) what? since when?. Or that now CPs are received on every turn. I hate that whenever I play I have to track down the rules for my army in so many places. If it wasn't for Wahapedia and battlescribe, I don't think I would keep up with this game. What's the point in paying for an expensive codex that is already outdated in 2 months?
- less frequent updates: I appreciate that GW is interested in keeping the game balanced, this is great, but rebalancing every 3 months is too much. I get that highly competitive players likes it, but it's not good for the game. I think a thorough rebalance patch at 6 months should be enough. And limit the changing/adding new rules.
- leave stratagems alone. I know, it won't happen, people hate them, and will go, which is a shame. They add a lot of depth to the game, because they add meaningful decisions. Do I use my cps to buy relics/traits or leave them for strats? Do I use them offensively or keep them for defense? Lots of cool stuff, even for those who are not that good, at least have flavor. Another aspect that makes stratagems great is the fact that they engage both players during both turns. Strats reduce the "now it's your turn so you do your stuff while I watch my dues being blown up", which is great.
Now, I get it. strats brings a lot of bloat. There are too many, and trying to keep up with both yours and your opponent is hard. But instead of scrapping them altogether, my suggestion is: Before the game, players have to choose a certain number of strats that they can bring to the battle - like 5, or ~10.
emanuelb wrote: They add a lot of depth to the game, because they add meaningful decisions.
They really don't. Most of the time you have a handful of obvious buffs on obvious units that you will use the same way every game and a whole bunch of filler content you'll only very occasionally use when you remember that a particular stratagem exists to cover that once every ten games edge case (but will use every time it happens because it's an obvious buff).
Do I use my cps to buy relics/traits or leave them for strats?
That's list optimization, not genuine depth. Most of the time you will evaluate which relics//WLTs are worth the CP and those will be your permanent choices. It's no more depth than recognizing that plasma is the best and flamers suck so you always take plasma.
Another aspect that makes stratagems great is the fact that they engage both players during both turns. Strats reduce the "now it's your turn so you do your stuff while I watch my dues being blown up", which is great.
So does removing IGOUGO. We don't need an entire layer of rules bloat to make up for the fact that GW is using a terrible turn structure that virtually every modern game has abandoned.
So does removing IGOUGO. We don't need an entire layer of rules bloat to make up for the fact that GW is using a terrible turn structure that virtually every modern game has abandoned.
Except they haven't though? Most computer games use IGOUGO. Most board games too. It's almost as if GW's application of IGOUGO is what's terrible, not the system itself. There was no issue with IGOUGO in earlier editions. It was only after 6th ed when GW started ramping up the bloat and giving units stupid amounts of firepower and alpha strike potential that it became an issue.
Agree on stratagems though, and it's barely something that gives both players "engagement". It gives no more engagement than armour saves, as they're still something reactive and honestly it actually just ruins the pacing and pads out the game's length as you now have to interrupt whatever you're doing to resolve whatever effect the stratagem has.
So does removing IGOUGO. We don't need an entire layer of rules bloat to make up for the fact that GW is using a terrible turn structure that virtually every modern game has abandoned.
Except they haven't though? Most computer games use IGOUGO. Most board games too.
It's almost as if GW's application of IGOUGO is what's terrible, not the system itself.
There was no issue with IGOUGO in earlier editions.
1. Those computer games usually have you facing a computer, not a person.
2. Board games have more player interaction. Even Monpoly lets you do more than 40k does on an opponent's turn.
3. Yes, IGOUGO was bad even back in the day. Take off the rose tinted glasses.
Except they haven't though? Most computer games use IGOUGO. Most board games too.
I don't know about board games, but most computer games with IGOUGO also have far more turns, and for obvious reasons each turn tends to be far faster to play.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Except they haven't though? Most computer games use IGOUGO. Most board games too.
Board games, maybe, but PC games? No. Most PC games have simultaneous play, with the handful of turn-based games largely being nostalgia games aiming to copy an old game. And if you narrow the scope to miniature wargames like 40k, where the structure of the game is at all comparable, IGOUGO disappears. Even GW's own games have abandoned it when they're free of the baggage of previous editions and fans who can't cope with change. AI and AT are both alternating activation games with much better turn structures.
There was no issue with IGOUGO in earlier editions. It was only after 6th ed when GW started ramping up the bloat and giving units stupid amounts of firepower and alpha strike potential that it became an issue.
There absolutely was. It may have been less of a balance issue but it was still a problem for keeping both players engaged and having interesting decision trees. The only thing "better" about IGOUGO in old editions is that back then we hadn't seen as much progress in game design yet and it wasn't as clear that IGOUGO was an obsolete relic with far superior alternatives available.
GW's structure of I go you go has been an issue for years. The reason its more of an issue now than before is that armies are a lot bigger which means you've more units to concentrate fire and also because GW has steadily made the game more and more lethal and more and more fast paced. The result of which units can get into close combat super-fast which means little manoeuvring around; meanwhile shooting units got more and more powerful to obliterate close combat ones.
The result is a game of alpha-strikes where whoever gets the best one during the game tends to come out on top. It also can mean the most damage is done during the early first few turns instead of the middle to end of the game
At its most insane extreme is AoS which has the double turn trick where you can end up with two whole turns of play for one player before the other gets a go.
That said turn based video games are doing very well right now and are a subset of games all to themselve;s they are certainly not all just copying "one old game". That said they are often WAY less lethal but also often offer WAY more turns. Instead of 6-7 they might have 100 or 200 or more turns to play out.
That said they can still have issues of their own - doomstack armies being a notorious one for many turnbased games which can mean that the entire multihours of game can come down to just one conflict of who brings the bigger fleet/army.
But lets not get sidetracked into a comparison too much.
IGOUGO has been a point of criticism since the 90s. Andy Chambers wanted 4th Ed to have a reaction system (that eventually wound up in his Starship Troopers ruleset), and the 2000s were when wargaming really started to move beyond completely non-interactive pure IGOUGO. Nowadays if you find a tabletop game with IGOUGO, it usually has some flavor of reaction system to give the otherwise inactive player something to do. Even GW has done this in modern games.
40K's turn structure is a relic of 80s wargame design that has been carried forward by momentum alone. It's not appropriate to this scale of game, and is a source of a lot of issues that have plagued the game over the years. There are better alternatives.
vict0988 wrote: I changed the names of your lists because you're giving a different scenario. You might use list C instead of list D, but list A is still better than list B. But you cannot guarantee that most factions would end up in the situation of choosing between C and D instead of A and B.
Ideally, I'm not giving a different scenario. If the game is designed well, list A (the one that always underperforms) should not exist outside of a new player making big mistakes with their army composition, and list B (the one that typically overperforms) should not exist either.
The dichotomy you describe- all-rounder that sucks versus a specialist that usually performs better- is a game design issue, but not something inherent to varied mission design.
I think my scenario didn't describe what I wanted it to. I imagine between 20 factions, there are going to be around 10 that will choose between 50/50/50/50/50/50 or 45/45/45/45/70/70 for their most efficient list and a lot of people I imagine will pick the one with the 45s because on average you'll win more games and tournaments with it.
Not sure how familiar you are with Infinity, but tournament play there has a considerable variety of missions, ranging from kill-em-all to progressive scoring to board control at the end, and I have never had a game where I thought the game was a foregone conclusion just based on lists and mission. In my experience the scenario you describe of players choosing to optimize for certain missions and accept auto-loss in others is not how it plays out.
Almost no idea, I think there are more strict list-building rules right? From my memory playing missions like the Relic was really unfair when some factions got to start next to the relic, pick it up and get out of there. A lot of factions don't have the tools to deal with that, which is the 70% I'm talking about. Herzog's idea of how it'd transfer to 40k fills me with dread and I can't wrap my head around how you cannot get the feeling that you have no chance if you go into a mission where your specialist dudes lose their specialistness and your opponent's specialists get more specialisty. Is winning by annihilation a relatively easy alternative that keeps it fair or what? Are the list building restrictions so strict that everyone has some specialists that lose something and some that gain something? I am not good at mission design and I have not played enough different games to say. I'm just theorising and speaking from my 40k experience.
From what I heard when GW made rules for a planet-strike or siege defence Crusade mission they made it horribly imbalanced. I am not saying that it's impossible to create a mission set that feels varied and balanced. You can't tell me the 4th edition missions were balanced (apparently GW's best missions yet), I've read them when I tried to update them for 9th. If you're playing meat-grinder with a more vehicle-based list then you get no benefit as the attacker and you have to destroy the entire enemy army or lose. So that's both roulette and coin-flip in one. You cannot tell me that because of one mission the most efficient list in every faction in the game are going to have enough Troops to where being defender or attacker is balanced and some armies don't do a lot worse than others in the mission.
Slipspace wrote: According to you, just adding 100 more useless strats to an army immediately increases the depth of the game.
vict0988 wrote: All tactical choices add depth, a game with a lot of tactical choices is deep.
This is not true at all. Let's say I give tactical marines the following special rules...
Read the rest of the post before you start spouting gak. "Tic-tac-toe has very few tactical choices, therefore it is shallow. If you have 10 different colours of X and O but ultimately it only matters whether you place an X or an O you have Tic-tac-toe with the illusion of depth."
Or the post I made above that. "If I can choose to shoot your the guns or the feet of your Knight with my weapon that hits and wounds on 4+ to either get +1 to hit or +1 to wound then that choice will have no impact on the statistical average damage I do and is therefore irrelevant." Stratagems need to meet some minimum level of balance before adding additional ones adds depth. Whether you have 100 CP re-roll Strats or 200 CP re-roll Strats is irrelevant because you can't use more than 100 CP so the last 100 identical CP re-rolls are 100% pointless. Whether you have 1 1CP Strats that say "You lose all your CP" or 2 1CP Strats that they "You lose all your CP" is irrelevant. But you can break any system with a lack of balance. If I can have any number of Basilisks in my list for 0 pts I won't have to think about how I play because your army will be gone in two turns anyway. So now Movement, Toughness, Strength and Sv characteristics are irrelevant, let's just remove them and set up a diorama instead. We'll make a roll-off each turn to see who wins the turn and the person who won the most roll-offs wins.
Even with design as silly as the old Cacophony + VotLW combo you still had to choose which turn your Obliterators came down, whether you kept an additional unit in reserve in case the first one died and you had a back-up or if you sent the back-up straight down to perform a more powerful beta strike. Whether you deepstruck in a more or less risky position depending on whether your opponent could take out your Obliterators and whether you had other units that could make efficient use of CP or whether your game plan revolved around one key unit. Without that combo your decision tree is a lot less complex. Now, this is worst case scenario, but you're all ignoring the best-case scenario where every CP spent is a hard choice because you have a lot of more or less valuable effects, some of which are contingent on some dice rolls and saving CP for them is risky because it might not pay off, but you'll be slightly more CP-efficient if it does. A system where using some Strats people think you made a reasonable mistake instead of just goofing around using Stratagems you and everyone else knows is way overcosted.
IGOUGO has been a point of criticism since the 90s. Andy Chambers wanted 4th Ed to have a reaction system (that eventually wound up in his Starship Troopers ruleset), and the 2000s were when wargaming really started to move beyond completely non-interactive pure IGOUGO. Nowadays if you find a tabletop game with IGOUGO, it usually has some flavor of reaction system to give the otherwise inactive player something to do. Even GW has done this in modern games.
well, Any Chambers system still was IGoUGo and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it
Starship Troopers has a very clear mechanic here without any interrupts, but alternating player turns and reactions that only ever happen after an action is resolved (as an example, Overwatch in SST would happen after the attacking unit made their melee attacks, if the there are still model models left)
by now 40k has no clear system any more, 3rd was IGoUGo with alternating player turns with a clear phase structure, and over time rules that sound cool on paper were added to make the game more interactive but at the same time slowed it down without adding much to it
people (and GW) call 40kIGoUGo and say that this is the main problem, yet it already stopped being pure IGoUGo long time ago and the problem players have with the game is that it uses alternating player turns combined with the possibility to wipe the opponent's army out in one turn and they cannot do anything about it (and this is the problem since the beginning)
change the game to alternating phases or alternating activations, combine this with the possibility to wipe out the opponent's army in one phase/activation (one "go") and we have the same problem again (that the player has to sit there and just remove models without doing anything)
the reason why most shooting heavy games use some form of alternating activation is to remove the possibility to win in one go without having an "unrealistic" damage output or range
while some games made the "win in one go" a key part of their game but also make sure that you need some afford to set that one "go" up and not have a "whoever has the first turn wins" setting
PS: but in the end it does not matter what the game is, GW is not interested to have a good or balanced game as bad games make much more publicity as the internet is built around negativity (how many topics to we have that say a game is good and you can play whatever you like compared to "game is bad and need to change" and "what options are bad/good and what needs to be taken to have a chance"
and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it
That's not what IGOUGO means in a wargame context. IGOUGO refers specifically to acting with your entire force followed by your opponent acting with their entire force, not that single units doing an action can't be interrupted.
change the game to alternating phases or alternating activations, combine this with the possibility to wipe out the opponent's army in one phase/activation (one "go")
Why would you combine alternating activation with the possibility of wiping out your opponent's entire army with a single unit? That's an absolutely absurd thing to do.
PS: but in the end it does not matter what the game is, GW is not interested to have a good or balanced game as bad games make much more publicity as the internet is built around negativity (how many topics to we have that say a game is good and you can play whatever you like compared to "game is bad and need to change" and "what options are bad/good and what needs to be taken to have a chance"
And this is just plain ridiculous. GW doesn't make a bad game because of some weird idea that bad games get more publicity, they make a bad game because they're incompetent at game design and management won't fire their friends.
emanuelb wrote: They add a lot of depth to the game, because they add meaningful decisions.
They really don't. Most of the time you have a handful of obvious buffs on obvious units that you will use the same way every game and a whole bunch of filler content you'll only very occasionally use when you remember that a particular stratagem exists to cover that once every ten games edge case (but will use every time it happens because it's an obvious buff).
Do I use my cps to buy relics/traits or leave them for strats?
That's list optimization, not genuine depth. Most of the time you will evaluate which relics//WLTs are worth the CP and those will be your permanent choices. It's no more depth than recognizing that plasma is the best and flamers suck so you always take plasma.
Another aspect that makes stratagems great is the fact that they engage both players during both turns. Strats reduce the "now it's your turn so you do your stuff while I watch my dues being blown up", which is great.
So does removing IGOUGO. We don't need an entire layer of rules bloat to make up for the fact that GW is using a terrible turn structure that virtually every modern game has abandoned.
I'm curious, why do you play 40k if you think is such a terrible game?
Anyway, i disagree with you on strats. Yes, like half of them are situational at best, and a couple are very powerful, but even then you still have a couple of meaningful options that, together with the CP resource system, makes the game way more interesting. It adds an additional layer to the game. And yes, in a specific situation, a certain stratagem will be the optimal choice. But the same applies in life in general, too. In chess you have a ton of opening moves, but in any given situation, there's probably 1 optimal choice. That doesn't mean this is obvious and the rest of the options are trash and we should remove them.
As for igougo, true, but this was a staple for 40k since the begining, so it is very unlikely to change. Same with caster killing in Warmachine - some people hate it, but is very unlikely to go. Also, in computer games TBS is still a thing and imo Civilization and Heroes of might and magic are some of the best strategy games ever made, far superior to most RTS.
And even in tabletop, Kings of War has IGOUGO, and it's a popular mass battle game developed in 2012.
vict0988 wrote: Almost no idea, I think there are more strict list-building rules right? From my memory playing missions like the Relic was really unfair when some factions got to start next to the relic, pick it up and get out of there. A lot of factions don't have the tools to deal with that, which is the 70% I'm talking about. Herzog's idea of how it'd transfer to 40k fills me with dread and I can't wrap my head around how you cannot get the feeling that you have no chance if you go into a mission where your specialist dudes lose their specialistness and your opponent's specialists get more specialisty. Is winning by annihilation a relatively easy alternative that keeps it fair or what? Are the list building restrictions so strict that everyone has some specialists that lose something and some that gain something? I am not good at mission design and I have not played enough different games to say. I'm just theorising and speaking from my 40k experience.
From what I heard when GW made rules for a planet-strike or siege defence Crusade mission they made it horribly imbalanced. I am not saying that it's impossible to create a mission set that feels varied and balanced. You can't tell me the 4th edition missions were balanced (apparently GW's best missions yet), I've read them when I tried to update them for 9th. If you're playing meat-grinder with a more vehicle-based list then you get no benefit as the attacker and you have to destroy the entire enemy army or lose. So that's both roulette and coin-flip in one. You cannot tell me that because of one mission the most efficient list in every faction in the game are going to have enough Troops to where being defender or attacker is balanced and some armies don't do a lot worse than others in the mission.
Its been a few years, so the game may have changed radically, but I think the issue partly is that Infinity is much smaller. It's more like Necromunda than modern 40k. You don't really design lists to be TAC but to the missions. I think in tournaments its standard to know the pool of missions in advance, have 2 lists and then pick which one would be more appropriate for that particular case. This is obviously "physically" easier when a list is say 15~ guys (and there may be some crossover between them). No one wants to cart around 4k points.
As a result if you showed up with no appropriate specialists that's kind of on you.
40k is designed completely differently, and so "missions" tend to be more random - with inevitable consequences for balance. I tend to agree with you, an awful lot of scenarios GW have put out over the years are obviously imbalanced to the attacker or defender. Or do not work unless you have a vast collection from which to build a suitable list. (And that doesn't work if you have to write a list then roll up a mission.)
More generally, you can have a toolbox list in 40k - see Siegler's Ad Mech at the LVO nearly a year ago for instance. But you can also have lists which are point and click.
When I was writing my update of 4th ed missions I actually included having three lists to accommodate the randomness of missions. You'd need to bring 3k pts to a tournament, but a 50% increase doesn't seem so bad.
Create 3 Battle-forged armies with a points limit of 2000 each, labelled list A, B and C, all three must share the same Honour Guard units. The Honour Guard must be 1500+ points. The number and variety of Detachments does not need to be the same in all three lists and Honour Guard units do not have to be in the same type of Detachment in all three lists. For example, if you have 3 units of Flayed Ones (Necrons Elites) as part of your Honour Guard units you could have all 3 in a Vanguard Detachment list A and 2 in a Patrol and the last one in an Auxiliary Support Detachment in list B, but any Novokh dynasty Flayed Ones in your Honour Guard must be Novokh in list A, B and C. Upgrades, equipment and number of models in all Honour Guard units must be the same in all three lists. The units in list A, B and C which are not Honour Guard are labelled Ancillary A, B and C respectively.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: That's not what IGOUGO means in a wargame context. IGOUGO refers specifically to acting with your entire force followed by your opponent acting with their entire force, not that single units doing an action can't be interrupted..
Warhammer context, not Wargaming
in the Wargaming world IGoUGo" means you finish your "go" before your opponent makes his "go" (no one would describe Chess as Alternating Activations but always as IGoUGo)
if this one "go" is a single activation, a phase, or a turn depends on the game in the wider context and its structure
because in Warhammer you have alternating player turns, one "go" is one turn so people playing Warhammer use this to describe the turn structure
but then it is still not true anymore, because the active player does not make a full turn without the opponent doing anything, the opponent acts during your "go" hence it is not IGoUGo any more but a mix of alternating phases with alternating activations, interrupts and RPG elements
and this is one reason that causes the game to slow down, having long waiting times and rules bloat because it is a random mix of rules without a clear structure (and the other reason is that you play with Model-2-Model Skirmish scale rules but army level amount of models)
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: And this is just plain ridiculous. GW doesn't make a bad game because of some weird idea that bad games get more publicity, they make a bad game because they're incompetent at game design and management won't fire their friends.
given that the 40k design team changes on a regular bases and people play the game out of the box although it is just crap, it does not matter if it happen by accident for 20 years now or is intentional, the outcome is the same
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: Why would you combine alternating activation with the possibility of wiping out your opponent's entire army with a single unit? That's an absolutely absurd thing to do.
why would you combine this with alternating player turns and give the player the option to win before the other player even had his turn
it is a design choice by GW because they think this is fun and what people want
no reason this would change just because you change the turn structure
At its most insane extreme is AoS which has the double turn trick where you can end up with two whole turns of play for one player before the other gets a go.
Oh yeah, that. That mechanic is why I don't bother with AoS. Well, among other things. GW really doesn't know how to properly use IGOUGO. It might have had issues in earlier editions, but 4th ed was not as egregious as it is now. I wouldn't call 40k fast paced though. For me it takes like 5 hours to resolve a 2k point game. In earlier editions it would just take something like an hour and a half. That's not fast paced, that's bloody slow. In my experience, the whole trap card stratagem thing and special abilities you have to resolve slow the game down.
It's as if the designers forgot that 40k isn't a computer game and tried to shove in computer-game like abilities that would have been resolved by an AI. It feels really clunky to me.
I don't think changing the structure to AA will change anything really. Bad designers making a clunky game will not suddenly become good designers after changing the turn structure. They'll just find a new way to feth it up, and then have the audacity to make you pay money for their incompetence, the product of which would then be rendered obsolete in less than a month through a "patch."
It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
1. Things that should just be part of the core rules.
2. Things that should just be unit special rules.
3. Things that should just be wargear.
4. "Gotcha" things for combos that shouldn't be part of the game.
5. Wastes of ink.
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
And units can only do a certain amount of things per turn.
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
And units can only do a certain amount of things per turn.
i mean, yes?
OPR has it where you can
Move + Shoot
Move + Move
Move + Move (if you end up in base contact, fight)
and special abilities/psychic can be done at any point before attacking
kodos wrote: a very standard action based system
each unit get a certain amount of actions during its activation and resolves them before another unit is activated
nothing special or new, and nothing that is dedicated to alternating activation, as other games used the same system for alternating player turns
yet you can still have alternating activations in a different way, as 40k is doing it with close combat phase
And melee was the absolute worst place to insert any AA. Why is one unit waiting around to hit? I'd rather have Initiative back because at least that makes more sense than "I need to wait to fight". Unless a unit charged, units should hit each other at the same time.
kodos wrote: a very standard action based system
each unit get a certain amount of actions during its activation and resolves them before another unit is activated
nothing special or new, and nothing that is dedicated to alternating activation, as other games used the same system for alternating player turns
yet you can still have alternating activations in a different way, as 40k is doing it with close combat phase
And melee was the absolute worst place to insert any AA. Why is one unit waiting around to hit? I'd rather have Initiative back because at least that makes more sense than "I need to wait to fight". Unless a unit charged, units should hit each other at the same time.
yeah, just like we shoot each other at the same time really -.- .....
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
Played my first OPR game last night and it was pretty gratifying, I have to say.
Also my favorite bit so far is their totally legal alternate name for a Starcannon, which is "Star Cannon" with a space, lol.
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Any of the above. Virtually any system is better than IGOUGO.
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
Played my first OPR game last night and it was pretty gratifying, I have to say.
Also my favorite bit so far is their totally legal alternate name for a Starcannon, which is "Star Cannon" with a space, lol.
Man, you're lucky. Nobody in my area will even give it a thought.
Tyel wrote: It is interesting because these terms can all mean different things.
I.E. when people say "Alternate Activations are better" - what is meant? Is it you move a unit, I move a unit, then you shoot a unit, I shoot a unit etc?
Or do you effectively play out a full 40k turn but for one unit - then your opponent does the same, then on to the next etc? Both systems produce quite different games.
Should there be a full reaction system like Infinity - which I guess is more IGOUGO but doesn't play out like that as a result?
Do it like OPR where you activate a unit for its whole turn. Simple , fast and easy
Played my first OPR game last night and it was pretty gratifying, I have to say.
Also my favorite bit so far is their totally legal alternate name for a Starcannon, which is "Star Cannon" with a space, lol.
Man, you're lucky. Nobody in my area will even give it a thought.
yeah, the GW kool-aid is hard to deviate from sadly. I've got a few people playing and its slowly growing locally
yeah, the GW kool-aid is hard to deviate from sadly. I've got a few people playing and its slowly growing locally
Yeah I'm going to try and work my local area a bit too, I think. For starters just to play more with it to evaluate the rules. But otherwise because it's fast and cheap and so far at least, quite fun.
I think one thing that's important when trying to get people to try a new game or a new rules set with their current models is to not insult the game they are currently playing.
I see a lot of people go "40K Xed is trash, rubbish horrible, only idiots would play. Come play Y rules set instead".
Now the problem with that kind of approach is its hostile. You're talking to someone (or several people) who are enjoying what they play and telling them that they are fools, idiots or such for enjoying it and that your way is superior and better.
It sets you up for a fail in getting them to join and sets you up to build wall between you. At which point the game qualities go out the window and it becomes a case of egos and then you've lost all chance.
The key isn't to insult or such; the key is to simply show the fun you're having with your system and encourage them to experiment and try it out. To give positive reinforcement not negative.
kodos wrote: and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it
You're missing the forest for the trees.
People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.
They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.
There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.
kodos wrote: change the game to alternating phases or alternating activations, combine this with the possibility to wipe out the opponent's army in one phase/activation (one "go") and we have the same problem again (that the player has to sit there and just remove models without doing anything)
Yeah, if you changed 40K to alternating activation, and then also changed it so that one unit could kill the entire enemy army in one activation on its own, then you'd have the same problem.
kodos wrote: and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it
You're missing the forest for the trees.
People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.
They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.
There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.
It's also bad when, right now, in one turn you can decimate an opposing force. So not only can one player end up doing nothing save rolling for, well, saves whilst waiting. They are also often left with whatever battleplan they had being torn to bits because their opponent just blasted a huge chunk of their forces off the table. Full army alternating activations in a system with high lethality can easily create situations where the game is over in one turn and that one turn is early in the game. Which creates a negative play experience for the side that loses and can even create a negative one for the winner because they've won so early that the rest of the game is a boring, time consuming, mop-up.
kodos wrote: and no, IGoUGo is not an issue by itself and nearly all games that have a reaction mechanic or break down from alternate turns or phases to alternate activations still use IGoUGo as they don't interrupt a players "go" but let the opponent react to it
You're missing the forest for the trees.
People don't complain about 40K's IGOUGO because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once.
They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing.
There are mere wisps of alternating activation in the melee system, and there are stratagems to act as gotchas, but by and large the opponent is a passive player taking hits while waiting for their turn to come around. That is what people complain about. Using an IGOUGO system is not inherently bad; using an IGOUGO system where each player has a whopping total of 5 major decision points (turns) and can go make a sandwich and eat it while their opponent takes their movement phase is bad.
Decimate means to reduce by 1/10th. I think you mean obliterate? Decimation per turn would actually be a worthy balance of the Meta. If any player ONLY loses 200pts per turn after an entire army is done shooting and fighting, they've done well. That like, 2 vehicles or a max troops unit.
It's also bad when, right now, in one turn you can decimate an opposing force. So not only can one player end up doing nothing save rolling for, well, saves whilst waiting. They are also often left with whatever battleplan they had being torn to bits because their opponent just blasted a huge chunk of their forces off the table. Full army alternating activations in a system with high lethality can easily create situations where the game is over in one turn and that one turn is early in the game. Which creates a negative play experience for the side that loses and can even create a negative one for the winner because they've won so early that the rest of the game is a boring, time consuming, mop-up.
ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system
if they would see it as a problem that one "go" wipes out an army, they could already change that without altering the phase/turn sequence but they are doing the exact opposite and make it even easier over time
but they don't want to do it because either they are that bad at writing rules, or they don't want to do it and in both cases, it would not change by changing the turn sequence
I am sure they will find a cool way to do it (like a Stratagem that lets you activate multiple units at once or let multiple units shoot several times instead of moving) so that people would not complain about bad design or the game but other players or "competitive" being the issue
catbarf wrote: They complain because it is a turn-based game where an entire army activates at once and the opponent does next to nothing
which is what I wrote above, that people use a "fancy term" to complain about the game that has nothing to do with the problem they have with the game
but also the "I do nothing" is not the case for 40k any more, Kings of War or Warmachine playes that way and by suprise it works for them because a turn is done fast
40k already changes the system in the past to have more interaction and let the opponent do a lot of stuff but the main problem is "Alpha Strike" and this did not get any better (well, because people complain about "IGoUGo" and GW changing that did not solve the actual problem) and in addition all the cool sounding interactions (like alternate activation in melee) just slowed the game down
40k mains problem:
- long range/first turn lethality
- taking too long to do something (the game using model2model skirmish/RPG style rules for a mass battle game)
- "bloat", not necessary layers of rules that give the illusion of interaction and tactical depth
- you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")
and switching from alternate turns to alternate activation solves non of those but some are made worse (e.g. alternating turns are chosen because it plays faster than activations which benefits army level games so for 40k expect that you activate a unit once every 2-3 hours)
PS: yes even Alpha Strike is not solved by that as just because the opponent has the chance to move some of his models does not remove the possibility to kill his army in the first turn, it just gives the illusion that they have done something before the game is over, the same as all the gimmicks are doing now
Apparently the people with the WE leaks suggest that there isn't a big reset coming. Nothing more than that, just that they're not invalidating everything.
so because Codices are not replaced by an Index does not mean there are no major changes in the core rules
(something simple like a different "to wound" table would be a big reset for the game without being obvious)
kodos wrote: - you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")
Could you give an example? I use gamey to mean the opposite of fluffy or simulationist, but a mechanic can be gamey while being inflicted by the opponent. I consider tri-pointing gamey, but that's not the game doing it is it, that's your opponent choosing to tri-point to prevent you from falling back until the tri-pointed model has been destroyed or you use the Stratagem that lets you fly while falling back. I'd consider the mechanics of previous editions like being forced to pile in and fall back in specific directions more to be something where you are playing against the game rather than your opponent.
kodos wrote: ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system
No, I'm asking you why you assume that if GW switched to alternating activation, they would also make the game so hyper-lethal that a SINGLE UNIT can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY like you implied.
That makes no sense.
kodos wrote: 40k mains problem:
- long range/first turn lethality
- taking too long to do something (the game using model2model skirmish/RPG style rules for a mass battle game)
- "bloat", not necessary layers of rules that give the illusion of interaction and tactical depth
- you play against the game not the opponent ("gamey")
and switching from alternate turns to alternate activation solves non of those but some are made worse (e.g. alternating turns are chosen because it plays faster than activations which benefits army level games so for 40k expect that you activate a unit once every 2-3 hours)
PS: yes even Alpha Strike is not solved by that as just because the opponent has the chance to move some of his models does not remove the possibility to kill his army in the first turn, it just gives the illusion that they have done something before the game is over, the same as all the gimmicks are doing now
I have to ask, have you played games besides 40K? Grimdark Future is pretty much as lethal as 9th Ed, but it's way less oppressive when each time your opponent does something, you get to react in kind. A unit killing a third of its own value in one activation is a problem when your whole army can do it at once and take a third of your opponent's army off the board; it's way less of a problem when you kill a third of a unit and then your opponent immediately does it back to one of your units. It doesn't 'give the illusion that they have done something before the game is over', it actually successfully neuters alpha strike as a mechanic altogether. Getting the first turn with a high-lethality glass hammer army is not an auto-win, because you are taking damage as quickly as you are dishing it out. And the game avoids taking longer to play out by going to just 4 turns, while having considerably more on-the-fly decision-making in that time.
I don't think I or anyone else said that all of 40K's problems are IGOUGO or that some flavor of alternate activation system would fix everything, but it does have problems from the non-interactive IGOUGO structure, and others (like lethality) that might not be a problem on their own but are grossly exacerbated by the turn structure. And even if a different activation system takes longer to play out, if it substantially improves the interactivity of the game, it's worth it. Nix the bloat and rolling to see if you can roll and you could keep current play times with a better experience.
kodos wrote: ask GW why they thjink it is a good idea
and I ask you what make you think GW would change this part if the game with a different activation system
No, I'm asking you why you assume that if GW switched to alternating activation, they would also make the game so hyper-lethal that a SINGLE UNIT can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY like you implied.
That makes no sense.
why would GW chose alternating turns and make it so hyper lethal that you can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY in a SINGLE turn
that makes no sense either
at the same time, you ask how I think GW would be that stupid after what happened from 5th to 9th?
and I never said a single unit, I said a single activation, there is a difference, same as in an hypothetical game with different phases every unit would move once and shoot once, it would make no sense to have a unit moving in the shooting phase or shooting twice
GW will find a way to make you kill the opponents army in one go and people will defend it because it is fluffy or impossible to balance, simply because the want to do it or hire idiots as designers
there is no good reason to have this now outside of someone at the studio think this is needed to have "fun", so I don't see how GW would remove the core element of "fun" if they ever switch to AA
I have to ask, have you played games besides 40K?
well, OPR is an interesting example because it was different in the days when it first came up and it is also very different depending on the factions you play
there are not only the 40k factions, but also from other games/settings and if I play the 40k ones against each other I get into the same troubles I have with 40k it needs some experience and tweaking of not taking certain units against some factions and not power game by accident but the game is a more fun version of 40k and I would say it is the game 8th Edition wanted to be
I don't think I or anyone else said that all of 40K's problems are IGOUGO or that some flavor of alternate activation system would fix everything
yet I might think you either don't read much on dakka or are new here
but this is pretty much what is going on for years now on almost all channels, be it dakka, reddit, etc. IGoUGo (or what some 40k players think IGoUGo is) as the source of all problems and all the problems are solved by AA people arguing that AA by default won't solve anything because GW writing bad rules is not solved by writing more bad rules are a minority and usually someone comes up talking about that perfect balance is impossible and/or that 40k is too big to write good rules
And even if a different activation system takes longer to play out, if it substantially improves the interactivity of the game, it's worth it.
that simply depends on what you want from the game
of course you can use activations in all scales, but to get the game done within a reasonable time other things need to be cut, usually dice rolling and how detailed movement/attacks are resolved
another example of an activation based mass battle game would be LaSalle, but again there are not many detailed mechanics or dice rolled to speed things up (a full unit attacking rolling 4 dice for their attacks)
now assuming that because OPR works, it would work for 40k as well, than there would have been no need for 9th Edition and now people would not want to have a reset with 10th, as the game would already work well
Star Wars Legion or Warpath Firefight also work well and are better games than 40k, but not because of their basic mechanics, but the designers actually wanted to make a fun and balanced game
GW does not want that hence it won't happen unless they change their mind
to keep it short and simple in 40k you don't write lists to bring the right tools to handle all possibilities your opponent might have, you write a list that reduces the RNG or make units more reliable and add gimmicks to change the odds
or some stupid rules like that close combat range in 8th, making units immune to melee by placing them higher (it was changed bit this is still a good example)
kodos wrote: and I never said a single unit, I said a single activation, there is a difference
If a single activation consists of a single unit activating which is how alternating activation usually works then the only way a single activation can result in the same lethality problem is if a single unit can kill half the enemy's army in a single activation.
How, in your mind, does AAnot resolve the problem of killing half the other army before they can do anything back to you?
kodos wrote: but this is pretty much what is going on for years now on almost all channels, be it dakka, reddit, etc. IGoUGo (or what some 40k players think IGoUGo is) as the source of all problems and all the problems are solved by AA
I think you are inventing straw men, because I have never seen anyone say IGOUGO is the source of all problems and everything would be fixed by AA.
I have seen a lot of people say IGOUGO is one of the things they dislike most.
kodos wrote: of course you can use activations in all scales, but to get the game done within a reasonable time other things need to be cut, usually dice rolling and how detailed movement/attacks are resolved
Yeah, but 40K isn't exactly fast-play, so there's plenty of room for improvement there.
Like, say, not having a mechanic that involves someone saying 'hang on, I think I have a stratagem for this' and then burning two minutes poring over their rulebook. Or having basic shooting attacks that require 60+ dice rolls on average for a 50-100pt unit. Or having units able to move, cast, shoot, charge, and fight all in the same turn, all mechanics that take time to resolve.
This isn't uncharted territory. Lots of games make it work.
catbarf wrote: If a single activation consists of a single unit activating which is how alternating activation usually works.
alternating activation means alternating activation, how many units are possible activated at once depends on the game and yes group activations are a thing and common as is a pass on activations
and with a setting like 40k were you have elite VS hordes, an opponent ending with multiple units to activate at once is there by default as you can only alternate until 1 player runs out
unless you limit the amount of activations to be equal but than again group activations are a thing to get all units activated
but put it simple, "phases" usually means that you do a certain thing only on the according phase, than compare this to 40k and tell me again that if GW will use a system how it is "usually" used
Yeah, but 40K isn't exactly fast-play, so there's plenty of room for improvement there.
hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing
This isn't uncharted territory. Lots of games make it work.
lot of games make alternate turns work, others have strict IGoUGo and they work
thing is, if people want such a game that works, they need to play those games as waiting for GW do to it is wasted time, it will never happen
Yeah AA does seem to be the current fashionable solve all ills buzzword, that and bigger dice. There has been one and they have always changed (and occasionally been implemented) throughout the history of the game.
Dai wrote: Yeah AA does seem to be the current fashionable solve all ills buzzword, that and bigger dice. There has been one and they have always changed (and occasionally been implemented) throughout the history of the game.
To be fair, AA solves the bigger problems of lethality, alpha strike, and the non-game problem of sitting around for half an hour doing nothing. Those alone make it a fix-all.
Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.
Karol wrote: Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.
As compared to all three squads blowing up everything?
Overtuned units are overtuned either way. IGOUGO doesn’t make them better to deal with.
hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing
i've played 40k as-is but by adding AA (by phase) and the games actually went much faster. IDK where this misconception that AA = longer to play comes from
Karol wrote: Ah yes. Turn one a squadron of Voidweavers blows up one of the three units in your army that can hurt voidweavers. Your single guy can't kill a squadron of them, neither the one in range or the two other behind cover. Next move the second unit from your army that can hurt tanks gets blown up by the second squadron of void. etc So much balance, such drop in lethality and alpha strike ability.
As compared to all three squads blowing up everything?
Overtuned units are overtuned either way. IGOUGO doesn’t make them better to deal with.
yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them
hence adding another layer to slow things down won't help but make it worse
first of all there need to be someone in the higher ups who think they need a well written game, than a lot of things are an option, until that AA solves nothing
i've played 40k as-is but by adding AA (by phase) and the games actually went much faster. IDK where this misconception that AA = longer to play comes from
Makes sense I suppose. Instead of resolve a block of actions you resolve them one at a time.
Sort of like the difference between eating a bit of cake and trying to eat the whole cake at once.
If the new system doesn't make the situation better, then changing for changing sake is a moot enterprise. And the idea that GW is not going to make over tuned units or even armies, is as probable as thinking that next month you will win in Lotto.
yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them
So what, another 3-5 editions waiting as GW fine tunes the rules around releases, hoping that this time they will get them good or at least get them good for ones army? No thank you. I had the expiriance of 8th full reset, it sucks.
Karol wrote: If the new system doesn't make the situation better, then changing for changing sake is a moot enterprise. And the idea that GW is not going to make over tuned units or even armies, is as probable as thinking that next month you will win in Lotto.
yeah, thats another thing people get confused, if we add AA, other things should be changed around it obviously, and AA won't magically fix all 40k's problems, but it will alleviate many of them
So what, another 3-5 editions waiting as GW fine tunes the rules around releases, hoping that this time they will get them good or at least get them good for ones army? No thank you. I had the expiriance of 8th full reset, it sucks.
If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.
Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?
GW would find a way to mess up alternating activations (horde armies dominating seems the obvious way they'd trip up over their shoe laces) but at least the game would be a lot more interesting at the current scale than phone-browsing for fifteen minutes and occasionally pulling a stratagem out.
Alternating activations indeed comes with its own slew of problems.
One of which is indeed how you handle out activations per full turn. One per unit can run the risk that an elite army can end up with a major disadvantage because they've far fewer individual units to activate than a hoard army.
Meanwhile if you go with a "You get X number of activations to spread over your army per turn" you can end up punishing armies that might use more individual units which are weaker in stats - so a hoard army that isn't running just huge blocks.
That system can also run the risk of super units dominating the game. Even if you restrict a unit to 2 or 3 activations per turn the players are going to favour those units above all others.
No game system is without its faults and issues. The core problem with GW is two fold
1) They have a casual attitude toward rules writing in the first place. This isn't just the writers, but the time, budget, resources and such that get assigned to them
2) They have a desire to shake things up, right now every 3 years, by releasing a new edition. Each edition is a reworking and hence every time we get one all the work on the previous is mostly thrown out the window. As a result even when GW are using the right tools and taking the right approach, it gets stalled because after 3 years it has to start again.
they have a desire to shake things up after a year
hence we see a design shift mid-edition and it is not possible to get a whole 3 year cycle with all books following the same guideline
and they are proud of it and even stated in interviews that they see it as an advantage to publish all the crazy ideas they have every 2 minutes
Arbitrator wrote: GW would find a way to mess up alternating activations (horde armies dominating seems the obvious way they'd trip up over their shoe laces) but at least the game would be a lot more interesting at the current scale than phone-browsing for fifteen minutes and occasionally pulling a stratagem out.
like playing elite VS horde, you alternate activate your 5 units and than the opponent activates his remaining 15 in a row while you watch him and roll some saves once in a while?
If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.
Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?
AA skews in favour of horde and msu armies. You are not going to find many people who play elite ones, who are fond of the idea. If the end result is the same under both systems, and I have to over lay it with GW quality and favouritism over it, a whole system change is not going to help. Change for change sake is stupid.
Plus we would be talking about stuff that would happen in 11th or 12th edition. 10th core rules are already write as are the initial codex. Ton of people that started in 9th or 8th, are not going to be playing by then.
If it's not perfect, don't bother, then?
It's possible to improve without fixing everything.
Because, again-would you rather have three Voidweavers shoot before you can respond, or nine Voidweavers and the rest of the Harlequin army shoot and melee before you can respond?
AA skews in favour of horde and msu armies. You are not going to find many people who play elite ones, who are fond of the idea. If the end result is the same under both systems, and I have to over lay it with GW quality and favouritism over it, a whole system change is not going to help. Change for change sake is stupid.
Plus we would be talking about stuff that would happen in 11th or 12th edition. 10th core rules are already write as are the initial codex. Ton of people that started in 9th or 8th, are not going to be playing by then.
Which is better-20 weak activations or 10 strong ones?
20 weak activations let you control the flow of battle more.
10 strong activations let you have more impact with a single activation.
You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.
Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.
I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.
Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.
I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.
I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.
Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.
Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team
Flow of what, elite armies most of the time, and especialy in the case of marines do not trade 1 to 2. Most of the time they don't even trade one to one. The resiliance and offensive power of marine units would have to go through the roof, for a 1 for 2 trades to be possible. And I am avarging stuf out here. Vs the really good armies or marine hard counters playing marines, feels like giving up points to the opponent.
Right now if an AA system got implemented. The elite killer armies would be wiping out marines without any chance of counter play. While horde armies would be just overloading the marine player to do anything . AND on top of that the marine player would have to buy two armies, because an army which would try to do something vs elite killers would do nothing vs horde armies. At the same time the horde and elite killer armies would just be playing the same things they play now. Ah and the marine player better be a lucky "good" faction marine player. If he isn't BA, then his 11-12th ed expiriance would start really bad, worse then it is right now.
And by the way I am from the country where Kurwa comp was invented for Infinity. The way we played it, was considered so toxic and core game rule breaking that corvus belli changed their rules of an entire edition, just to accomdate our list building. Because in an AA system I could tell you what I would do with something like custodes. I would took all the dreads and tanks I could get. minimal troops and then max out on allarus termintors and then as first move on my first turn, I would turn a unit of 5-10 allarus in to 10 units of single allarus.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.
Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.
I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.
I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.
Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.
Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team
I do agree that GW would have a hard time making it fun and balanced, but I disagree that it's easier to gang up on than the current system, but it would feel that way, which is more important. I think I just get annoyed when people talk about AA like it's impossible to do right, and it will always be worse than IGOUGO.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: You could also have more activations with elite units. But, people are acting like the difference is huge, and that it would be worse than current 40k.
Current 40k, the horde player gets just as many activations. The elite player has to wait their turn to even do anything.
I do not see how AA makes this worse in any way. Especially since I've played 40k with AA, modifying nothing but turn structure.
I think the issue is with how its spread out. With alternating turns you each take your full turn at once. With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point. So it can feel more unfair and be harder to balance because they do get a block of units at the end which take a single series of actions all in one go. It means that they can more easily gang up on a target in the latter part of the turn without the opponent being able to manoeuvre, counter, protect that ganged up target.
Now granted you can make elite armies stronger and swarm armies weaker so that can somewhat balance things out. However it might be that with such a system GW might have to lower the relative power of some things so that you don't have hero characters that can take up the best part of 1K points (ergo half an army); because that starts to introduce some really powerful swings in number of activations and relative powers.
Of course no system is perfect and the biggest barrier we have isn't the activation sequence structure, but rather the attitude, focus, skills, direction, budget and all of the balance team
That tbh doesn't seem like an issue. The "horde" player might get a block of activations, but the "elite" player alternatively can have a single activation which has a lot of power. Both players ought to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of either build.
Having just dipped into AA40k using One Page Rules, I'm starting to get hands-on with the potential gaming of the system. But so far it's not clear to me where it could be abused. The lethality is high enough that little units can be killed pretty easily, so any advantage from spamming activations seems like it could be short lived. I could also dump resources into making one powerful unit, but then it would be prone to being outmaneuvered.
It also just feels natural that a much more numerically superior force would be able to just "do more stuff".
There's also things like Maelstrom's Edge's ability to hold an activation.
If you're the non-priority player (so you activate second) you can choose to hold an activation until the very end-so even if you have 3 units to your opponent's 9, you can always get the last one.
Overread wrote: With alternating activations it alternates, but whoever has the most units will tend to "end" each activation sequence with a block of just them going over and over again until the limit point.
If it's pure 'I pick a unit, you pick a unit, keep going until only one player has units left' AA, then sure. It isn't necessarily an advantage, since at that point your opponent has already activated their whole army and you're playing catch-up.
If it's (functionally) chit-draw like Bolt Action or Fireball Forward, then the chances of each player getting the next activation is directly proportional to how many unactivated units they have remaining.
If it's based on a formation system like Apocalypse, then if a horde army and an elite army each have three formations, both have the same number of activations independent of actual model count.
If it's a command system like Epic or Warmaster, your ability to activate is impacted by troop quality and friction, and a horde army can easily become unwieldy.
Again. Not uncharted territory. Not like there's only one way to do it.
I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).
At any rate, making a note in regards to the poll here, I feel that when nearly 70% of the votes are for a reset that says quite a lot about the state of the game. This is a 40k forum, so there is a bias towards people who are playing and/or care about 40k, but two thirds of them want a complete rehash rather than adjustments to the existing system. That's pretty damming.
I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).
My first impression of that method is that you'll still wind up with a major alpha-strike advantage as one army fires before the other. I don't have experience with AoS, but I'd guess shooting there is overall less lethal than 40k, and therefore the effect is mitigated?
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I was thinking about bringing Kill Team up, but they tend to treat specialist games differently to 40k itself.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I still believe there is a solution that splits the margin and gets the best of both worlds; alternate by phase. Your move phase, my move, your shooting, my shooting, etc. I have abundant experience doing that for AoS and it has worked very well (though subjective, obviously).
Eh, kinda, sorta. It works great for games less shooting-dominated than 40K, such as GW's own LotR. I certainly wouldn't call it a 'best of both worlds'; it's a different approach with its own quirks. It changes the dynamic to be very positioning-heavy; either putting your troops where your opponent can't break range/LOS if you're moving first, or minimizing exposure while maximizing your own shot opportunities if you're moving second.
It can still result in alpha strike blowouts, but at least it gives you a chance to reposition to weather the storm.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.
I have often gotten this impression when people insist AA wouldn't work for 40K, yeah.
Even Grimdark Future's incredibly basic, simplistic AA- far from my favorite approach- works fine, makes for a more interactive experience, and adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
You think it's weird that we don't have faith in GW's ability to write rules?
I think it's weird that you do, especially given we've seen them write good rules - as you just pointed out - and yet we still have the mess that is modern 40k.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.
Even the turn structure of Apocalypse (removing units at the end of both players turns that died, avtivate by detachment, etc.) would be more reasonable than what we have now.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I suspect that most of the skepticism, as usual, comes from people who aren't familiar with games other than 40k/AoS and aren't aware of the ways that other games have already addressed the supposed "fatal flaws" they keep claiming.
and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are
other games manage to get alternating turns to work well, other games get alternating phases/activations or even an interrupt based system to work without having issues on the basic level
so if GW does not manage to the get the basic system done, which they are doing for 9 Editions now, what makes you think that it will work better with any other system?
just because other games got it done? well, other games work no matter what the basic system is
the same reason why they cannot handle a turn based game for 40k apply to alternate activation for 40k as well and don't magically disappear
kodos wrote: so if GW does not manage to the get the basic system done, which they are doing for 9 Editions now, what makes you think that it will work better with any other system?
If the premise you insist on is that GW is incompetent (which I'll grant is a true statement) then there is no point in any discussion of making the game better. If GW keeps it the same the game will suck. If GW adds alternating activation the game will suck. If GW does literally any other change you can name it will still suck. There is no path to any conclusion other than "and then 40k sucks". So why bother trying to talk about it if you are going to insist that the entire topic is pointless?
The only way this discussion has any purpose is if you assume that whatever changes are made will be handled at least reasonably competently, and under that assumption what matters is that IGOUGO is an inherently bad system and some form of alternating activation would be vastly superior.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
I find it funny that people think GW wouldn't screw up AA just as hard as they screw up igougo
and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are
This!
Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.
I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.
There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.
and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are
This!
Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.
I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.
There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.
Of all the bad takes I've seen, that was one of them...
I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."
But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.
There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.
nah, 3d printing isnt about the rules, it's about GW models being too expensive. 40k is the biggest game because of its inertia, not because its the best game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I think it depends on what you want from a game.
I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."
But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.
Thats.... exactly how Grimdark Future plays... and thats exactly what makes it interesting. This kind of gameplay actually bring real depth to the choices, unlike current 40k where you just spray and pray
I just want a decent core ruleset, usr that take up a few pages to individually explain if neccesary, more creative but less common unique special rules.
But i am happy playing older or alt games if they cannot provide that.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote: The only way this discussion has any purpose is if you assume that whatever changes are made will be handled at least reasonably competently, and under that assumption what matters is that IGOUGO is an inherently bad system and some form of alternating activation would be vastly superior.
and this is wrong, as other games show that alternating player turns work very well, if your goal is to design a good game
the statement that alternating player turns are a bad system is based on "40k is a bad game", but 40k is not a bad game because of the turn system but because GW sucks at writing rules
Starship Troopers uses alternating player turns and is a superior game to 40k
so saying GW sucks at writing rules, taking the simplest of all systems that was used in many games and were GW alone has massive information of what works well and what does not, and it still comes out as bad game
how could they possible handle a more complex system that is even harder to balance and make a better game system?
like if you say some sucks at driving a VW Beetle, it does not help that a Ferrari F4 is the superior car and therefore expect the same person to become a good driver if they buy one
the discussion always is going around the point which racing car is better, while the problem the actual problem is that they never learned to drive in the first place
so the point should be to force them to learn to drive and not suggesting them different cars
Jarms48 wrote:I feel like if there's a reset GW will only do a point reset and streamline the core rules even more.
Probably, if the current 40k rules team sticks around. They do seem to be oddly proud of the current mess......
H.B.M.C. wrote:
alextroy wrote: I find it funny to think people can't image how GW could handle AA with different numbers units in armies when Kill Team is sitting right there with two different mechanics (Group Activation and Overwatch) built into the Core Rules.
You think it's weird that we don't have faith in GW's ability to write rules?
I think it's weird that you do, especially given we've seen them write good rules - as you just pointed out - and yet we still have the mess that is modern 40k.
We've seen "GW" write good rules. But not the current 9th edition 40k team. And they don't seem to take notes from the other rules writing teams, or don't seem to understand the ones that they do take. They need to change the teams. Or, alternatively, just hire the OPR guys.
and I guess those that think AA would do wonders for 40k never played a game other than 40k/AoS and just hear when other people talk how good other games are
This!
Played Infinity, Bolt Action and all the other crap for years. 40K, even it it's worst in 7th or whatver, is just an infinitely better game.
I'd prefer Infinity-style background/visuals, but rules-wise, 40K is just leagues ahead (despite it's flaws).
AA is a dead end with no actual game-play virtues or advantages. It's mostly just a projection of people unhappy with 40K that turn it into some magical fugazi panacea, which it is not.
There's a reason 3D printing is so popular, seeing how it helps people enjoy the 40K rules without being dragged down by 40K lore or aesthetics, if they don't enjoy those.
This is one of the posts of all time.
Also people 3D print 40k aesthetics because they don't want to pay $60 for 5 models. AoS doesn't have that problem.
Playing Conquest a bit recently has really opened my eyes to Action Economy based systems.
Every unit has a set of actions it can take, and it can only perform 2 actions per activation, other than move, it cannot perform the same action twice.
If 40k were to go to an AA system, then it needs to completely scrap the "phase" structure in favor of action economy based system.
For those that have played it, the 8th edition Apocalypse rules did this as well, and was a great game.
As for a method to get rid of Alpha strike. Wound counters and resolve all damage in the end of a turn.
Tyel wrote: I think it depends on what you want from a game.
I get the feeling people want some complex game of manoeuvre. You move a piece left, I move a piece to counter. You move a piece right, I move a piece to counter. Now I've left a gap in the middle, you move through and win the game. As opposed to 40k's "I hide behind L-shaped ruins, then I jump out and either kill you or bounce and die."
But in practice I'm not sure they play out that way.
In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate:
1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't,
2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective,
3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or
4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?
This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.
I've said before that I don't think IGOUGO is necessarily awful, or that pure I-pick-you-pick AA is ideal, but even the most bare-bones implementations of AA add a level of purely-player-driven depth that I miss when I go back to IGOUGO games. It's an elegant way to add those elements of friction and simulated simultaneity that pure IGOUGO completely lacks.
I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.
That said I still enjoy Conquest. There are fun dynamics to be exploited in an AA structure and coming from Warhammer the sheer novelty has value to me. Conquest is also built from its very fundamentals to accommodate AA, they have done a great job with that and that is very much why it works well.
So to restate--when AA works well it is because the writers put a lot of time, effort, and skill in to MAKE it work well. The same is true of igougo.
I think the key is that an army does things in unison, but never in isolation. What your army does depends on what the opposing forces do.
AA lets you move your army as one unit, but through that moment you have to work with the fact that your opponent is also moving. Do you stick to your guns and your initial plan; or do you react to their recent choices. Indeed if you play AA purely reactionary to your opponent you like as not have handed them the game. You have to balance pushing your own objectives and agenda with reacting to how they are trying to counter you whilst also adapting your plan to countering theirs.
My view is its a more reactive system that simulates the push and pull of two forces engaging each other.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.
I suppose that makes some sense in a WHFB-style game of infantry blocks, where formations are rigid and facings are extremely important. It doesn't make sense in a game like 40k, which represents much more fluid modern-style combat where units move in loose groups and facing is irrelevant (at least for infantry). An alternating activation system is necessary for a game like 40k because it best represents the fact that, while you might want your army to act as a unified whole, your enemy is constantly acting at the same time and your units have to rely on their own decisions in combat.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I'm not a fan of AA in wargames, because it no longer feels like I am playing an army. Armies do things simultaneously; moving in formation, firing lines, etc. I see it as the height of stupidity when I can move a front unit forward then have them be charged in the flank simply because the unit next to them has not yet activated to move up. Of course that unit can now charge the flanker, which results in these flank-chains of death that aren't much fun and don't feel like a wargame.
That's why genre/setting is important, because the purpose of activation systems is fundamentally to model command and control, and the impact friction has. Other genres where pure IGOUGO is often appropriate include naval wargames and grand strategy.
You're describing pure AA, but that's far from the only way to do it. In something like a Napoleonic or Renaissance wargame, you can have activation by sub-commander, allowing formations in your army to activate as one but representing the command and control siloing that pre-modern armies faced. You won't have one unit get caught out on its own for no good reason, but maybe your right flank advancing will get hit by heavy cavalry before the centerline can advance to support- and that was exactly the sort of thing that happened in real life.
Or, particularly if you're modeling ancient or medieval warfare where a single commander had only limited control over his entire army (and things were not guaranteed to be simultaneous), maybe you'll get to activate a certain number of units at a time but not the entire army. You can focus your attention to where you want things to get done, but you cannot guarantee your entire army will be in position before the enemy reacts.
Or, if the designer really wants to emphasize the significance of friction in pre-modern warfare, maybe you'll start with perfect move-your-whole-army-at-once coordination, but as units start taking damage and getting engaged in combat, the coordination dwindles to the point where your units are acting individually and reactively/opportunistically while you struggle to exert increasingly limited control over the chaos.
It all depends on what effect the designer is going for- but an activation/C&C mechanic designed around infantry squads in WW2 isn't going to directly translate to Agincourt any more than the combat mechanics will.
Overread wrote:Indeed if you play AA purely reactionary to your opponent you like as not have handed them the game.
And this is a concept that is vital to modern warfare. It's called 'getting inside the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Loop', and if you can reduce an adversary to just reacting to what you're doing, you have an enormous upper hand. Games that successfully model this concept, be it through AA, reactions, or even a robust command structure layered onto an otherwise IGOUGO system, play very differently from ones where you have 100% control over every unit and they all act in perfect synchronization all at once.
as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits
In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate:
1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't,
2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective,
3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or
4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?
This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.
I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?"
I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc.
But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.
Because eventually, by trial and error if nothing else, you'd know which of those choices was better. Is it worth moving up that aura-buffing character - or is it not? And in turn your opponent would know which of their choices was better. And so the "tactics" will sort of get bleached out to the maths - and how the dice fall in any given game.
I guess it's harder to see the best outcomes - because optimising an order of operations with say 30 "turns" is harder than 5. But I'm not sure there would be dramatically more depth or interaction than in regular 40k as it stands. But maybe the illusion would be enough. After all, if you only play a few games a year, the optimal decision wouldn't be obvious, and you wouldn't learn it. But then I'd argue that already applies - because I don't think 40k is an especially shallow game where the correct move is obvious.
I think Infinity's system of reactions is better. As it tries (however limited) to simulate both player units doing something simultaneously. Rather than the system of a unit (or whole army) acting, then being frozen in place while the opponent does whatever, then acting again etc.
In practice the decision points are things like, do I activate: 1. The infantry unit on my right flank to move up to the objective that I suspect my opponent's infantry are going to grab if I don't, 2. The anti-tank unit on my right flank to shoot the infantry, which even though it's suboptimal might suppress them enough to keep them from getting the objective, 3. The melee unit on my left flank to charge the enemy's star shooting unit before it has a chance to shoot, so it can't hurt my infantry by the objective, or 4. My aura-buffing commander to move up so that all of the above will be more effective, even though it'll give my opponent the opportunity to grab the objective or shoot me before I get to use it?
This adds a whole tactical layer that just doesn't exist in IGOUGO. It keeps both players engaged, looking for the next opening, sometimes making decisions that are mathematically suboptimal because suboptimal now is better than optimal later, and the same board setup can play out totally differently depending on what order units are activated in.
I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?" I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc. But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.
Experience obviously helps by providing mental shortcuts in the decision making process, so it is a factor.
However, I think the key thing that makes AA different is that you lack full information about your opponent's intentions, and you have to take those into account. In 40k now, you basically get handed a game state with pretty much perfect information and you can just work through your entire turn with all your units from that point, with minimal interference from your opponent. With most AA systems your move may well change your opponent's next move, and vice versa. Each activation has a knock-on effect on what your opponent may do next, which makes planning out the whole turn for all of your units much more difficult.
The key difference for me is that the optimal choice is often contextual and the context changes much more rapidly in an AA system than an IGOUGO system.
kodos wrote: as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits
If the tangible outcome of a different activation sequence or reaction system or command and control mechanic or whatever is that an army responds in at least some fashion to the enemy as they act rather than sitting completely static until the enemy says 'your turn', then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world even if it isn't a perfect representation of simultaneity.
This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics.
Tyel wrote: I guess at the danger of being a devils advocate - I'm sort of left going "does it though?"
I don't want to sound like those people who say 40k is a shallow game, it's all a function of lists because the best move is obvious etc.
But I feel a lot of how AA is described - as per the above - is a function of choices made up of just not having played enough games.
Because eventually, by trial and error if nothing else, you'd know which of those choices was better. Is it worth moving up that aura-buffing character - or is it not? And in turn your opponent would know which of their choices was better. And so the "tactics" will sort of get bleached out to the maths - and how the dice fall in any given game.
I guess it's harder to see the best outcomes - because optimising an order of operations with say 30 "turns" is harder than 5. But I'm not sure there would be dramatically more depth or interaction than in regular 40k as it stands. But maybe the illusion would be enough. After all, if you only play a few games a year, the optimal decision wouldn't be obvious, and you wouldn't learn it. But then I'd argue that already applies - because I don't think 40k is an especially shallow game where the correct move is obvious.
Is Go any deeper than tic-tac-toe, or is it just harder to see the best outcomes? Six of one, half dozen of the other.
'You can just learn in AA whether it's worth moving up that aura-buffing character or not' is along the same lines as 'you can just learn in chess whether it's worth using your rook to take a pawn or not'. Maybe for a very specific scenario, but as some sort of general rule it's a nonsensical statement- you have to weigh the total board state and make a decision about what the optimal answer is right now under the given circumstances, and if the game has enough emergent complexity, then a spreadsheet or flowchart is of minimal utility.
Obviously 40K already has that to a degree, and I also disagree with people who say that 40K is totally brainless and netlists win every time, because it's clearly not true. However, adding a layer of timing/sequencing, more interaction points with your opponent, and an element of psychology to the mix further makes it harder to solve, and adds more emergent complexity to those interaction points. Maybe moving up the aura-buffing character is objectively ideal so it can support your troops, and in IGOUGO you'd just keep them close and that's that. But under AA, you also need to consider when it's best to bring the commander up; whether now's the right activation or if there's a more pressing concern elsewhere, or if the unit you want to buff will still be alive if you delay too long. You have to weigh the board state, consider what your opponent is likely to do, and make a decision that has no analogue in pure IGOUGO.
So I mean, if a game having more decision points, more opportunity for player skill to matter, and being harder to solve doesn't make it deeper because you could still theoretically optimize it, then I don't agree with whatever definition of 'depth' is being used. It's tantamount to saying chess isn't deep because if you play as many games as Garry Kasparov you can work out what the ideal choices are.
This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics
no one talked about good or bad but it was about realism, and no Alternate Activation is not more realistic than a turn based sequence
if you would like a more realistic approach, removing casualties at the end of a turn combined with a reaction system would be the way to go
my unit stops moving in front if your unit, it can react either by moving away, charge or shoot, you finish your reaction another not yet activated unit from me close by can react to your reaction etc.
then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world
no, not at all
it might be closer to how squads or single soldiers fight, but for "armies" or even brigades, not at all. For an Army or Division level game, a turn based system is much closer to how those fight
so it very much depends what you want, if you think of 40k as an "army" game, alternating activations instead of alternating turns is the worst you can do
it might be closer to how squads or single soldiers fight, but for "armies" or even brigades, not at all. For an Army or Division level game, a turn based system is much closer to how those fight
So you agree it's more realistic for a game where a 'horde army' is barely a company and we are explicitly modeling how squads fight- but if 40K were a totally different game at 10-100x the scale, then it wouldn't be more realistic.
Sure dude, whatever. We're not talking about Epic.
catbarf wrote: Sure dude, whatever. We're not talking about Epic.
you started talking about that it is more realistic for "armies" which is just bs, and if you think 40k is about armies I guess you are playing 28mm Epic
(given that 40k now is what Epic or Apocalypse was back than there is a point to that but) whatever
AA on a model basis works well for model based skirmish games, AA for units works in squad/platoon level games and for higher ups it is alternating turns
40k tries to be everything, PRG character mechanics mixed with single models rules and brigade level numbers of models, of course it cannot work, and never will no matter which system is used unless someone decides which game it wants to be
a quit after 7th but i while i dont like the 8th/9th rules i hope 10th is still compatible with previous codexes. that way people who have fun with modern 40k can play with their old stuff/investments.
*looks sadly at traitor legions and khorne daemonkin on my shelf*
catbarf wrote: Is Go any deeper than tic-tac-toe, or is it just harder to see the best outcomes? Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is true - but also not.
So for example - when I think about top level 40k play, it tends to be about trading. Now this occurs in turns - but it happens all the same.
I.E. turn 1 I move a unit to take the objective. In your turn you move some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill it - and take the objective for your own. But that means I bring some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill them and take the objective back etc. Hopefully I'm doing this more efficiently than you are so will come out ahead.
As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality. So I throw a unit on to the objective. You throw a unit out to try and deal with it. I throw a unit out to take advantage of that unit now being available to attack - or to put another unit on the objective. You respond with the next unit etc. Its different - because its harder to guarantee a kill with just one unit rather than multiple ones (although this is where you'll run into issues of Knights vs MSU) - but the trading process is going to be sort of similar.
Now you could respond and say this is very limited - AA could open up completely different scenarios, or very different rules to 40k in general. But that's just how I sort of imagine it going.
As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality
hard no. You clearly have never played a game with an AA system. Even if its still has the GW lethality, at least you're doing something that allows you play around your opponent's heavy hitters
Tyel wrote: So for example - when I think about top level 40k play, it tends to be about trading. Now this occurs in turns - but it happens all the same.
I.E. turn 1 I move a unit to take the objective. In your turn you move some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill it - and take the objective for your own. But that means I bring some units out of LOS-blocking terrain to kill them and take the objective back etc. Hopefully I'm doing this more efficiently than you are so will come out ahead.
As I see it, this system would just sort of mean it just happens in turns. But all things being equal - that just ups the lethality. So I throw a unit on to the objective. You throw a unit out to try and deal with it. I throw a unit out to take advantage of that unit now being available to attack - or to put another unit on the objective. You respond with the next unit etc. Its different - because its harder to guarantee a kill with just one unit rather than multiple ones (although this is where you'll run into issues of Knights vs MSU) - but the trading process is going to be sort of similar.
Trading like you describe is a product of the turn structure and armies activating as a whole. In an AA system, you can't win by solely reacting to the unit that just activated, you have to be proactive.
Your unit is already on the objective- I don't have to respond to it immediately, I just have to respond to it before the end of the turn. So maybe I'll hit it with my star shooting unit now, and then on my next activation move a unit of my own onto the objective. But maybe I'll instead shoot your star shooting unit that has yet to activate. Maybe I'll move a melee unit near the objective to try to bait you into over-committing more assets to it, or maybe I'll just charge directly so I can take the objective before you bring up reinforcement, without expending any activations on softening it up first. Maybe there's another objective elsewhere that I'll take the opportunity to seize, and hope that you start reacting to that and give me some room to breathe.
In IGOUGO, if that objective is my priority, I start declaring shooting attacks until either your objective-grabber is dead, I run out of shooting, or I decide to shoot something else. In AA, I know at some point I'm going to try to get your unit off the objective, but I have to weigh which assets are not yet committed, and whether I want to start shooting now to ensure I can do it or wait until later and hope that what remains is enough to do the job. And I know that you know this too, so if I delay too much, you might start prioritizing my remaining shooting units to ensure I have nothing left to take out the objective-grabber, or my nearby units that might move onto the objective if your unit is killed.
Again, this flexible sequencing adds a significant tactical element that has no equivalent in pure IGOUGO. Doubly so when compared to 40K's phased IGOUGO, where the rigid move -> shoot -> charge sequence both limits your options, and creates weirdness like trying not to kill the objective-grabber with shooting because then I can't charge it to get a free move onto the objective.
Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.
I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.
I wonder if a lot of issues people have with AA would be fixed if you could use group activations, like being able to activate any models within x inches of your warlord, or spending resources like command points, so the army can move together, but limited in comparison to IGOUGO. Elite armies could use less group activations, but have more individual activations. Like Custodes can only move one unit at a time, while Guardsmen could move 3 or so.
I know Necromunda and Kill Team have mechanics like this, but I've not played Necromunda, and don't really like Kill Team, so others can say if they work well.
catbarf wrote: Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.
no it is not industry standard, and SST uses alternate turns (aka what some people call IGoUGo), and all of those you named are smaller than 40k (more like 1000 points 40k) and specially Bolt Action is a good example as people consider 1000-1250 points the maximum the game is playable and the rules not suited to go any higher (so a 40k scaled 2k game of Bolt Action is not a thing)
the only games in the same scale of 40k that I know that uses alternate activations is Warpath and Grimdark Future, and both are not that common as the smaller scale version (both called FireFight) is what a lot of people like more
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I wonder if a lot of issues people have with AA would be fixed if you could use group activations, like being able to activate any models within x inches of your warlord, or spending resources like command points, so the army can move together, but limited in comparison to IGOUGO. Elite armies could use less group activations, but have more individual activations. Like Custodes can only move one unit at a time, while Guardsmen could move 3 or so.
I know Necromunda and Kill Team have mechanics like this, but I've not played Necromunda, and don't really like Kill Team, so others can say if they work well.
Yeah, those are all viable options. Bolt Action has leaders that, when activated, in turn allow you to activate other nearby troops. So you spend a single activation on an officer, and he activates several models near him.
It's a straightforward way to represent leaders actually leading and not just being melee beatsticks or making everyone around them more accurate, and you really feel a difference between elite and well-led armies (who can do a lot of damage in a brief impulse) versus green and poorly-led ones (who activate in ones and twos and are harder to coordinate).
There are a lot of ways you can layer in those command-and-control concepts, which fit more naturally with alternating or limited activation than pure IGOUGO.
Apocalypse has a more basic system, in that you activate a whole detachment at a time, and with 3-8 detachments per side you get some fun AA-esque play/counterplay while still activating actual formations and not individual units.
I also find it interesting because it means the structure of your army affects how it fights, not just the pre-battle CP calculation. So you have to think about how you organize your army, because slotting the artillery in with the melee troops is not likely to work well when they all have to activate together and receive the same order (move and shoot, move double and fight, or don't move and shoot at +1).
catbarf wrote: Like I've said before, I am not a massive fan of pure AA, but pretty much all modern wargames operating at the scale 40K does (platoon to reinforced company sized) implement some kind of alternating activation, limited activations, command system, and/or reaction system. Even GW's other games do it, with Kill Team and Apocalypse using different flavors of AA, as do the games written by former 40K designers (eg Starship Troopers, Dust, Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). It's industry standard at this point, and for good reason.
no it is not industry standard, and SST uses alternate turns (aka what some people call IGoUGo)
My brother in christ, if you're not going to actually read the posts before rushing to reply, I'm going to start ignoring you. See bolded text (hint: 'reaction system'). Then re-read and notice that 'wargames operating at the scale 40K does' and 'wargames by former 40K designers' were two different sentences.
well, 40k has also some sort of reaction system, limited activations and alternate activations
or better said a mix of all those, so it should be perfectly fine without going into full alternate activations as it already uses what everyone else uses
why it does not is simply because 40k designers use all those without understanding why other games use it, what other games want to achieve and why mixing everything without a clear design goal just make things worse
so yes, SST here as this is what people called IGoUGo prior and actually it is an example for how the alternate turn sequence works fine in a SciFi skirmish setting and not an example how some sort of "insert bold text" will improve 40k (as 40k already has all that stuff)
while Bolt Action is a good example why games with that kine of activation system are limited in size and not scalable as they work for the intended size but not much smaller or larger
I'd actually argue that the dice pull mecahnic does limit what you can play, in terms of logistics. I've done that when my local club was running multi-platoon campaign games for the Invasion of Poland.
We had to limit each side to 12 order dice, plus bonus order dice when leaders used their initiative to activate units.
Which gave players some very hard decisions. Do you use your lieutenant to coordinate your main offensive? Or to sit back and organize a second wave if the first one failed.
Alternatively you can increase the amount of units activated when a die is pulled. 1 die = 2 or 3 units that aren't armored cars or tanks (we had a problem where I was out for a game, and somehow a player managed to convince everyone else that he could activate a tank platoon on one order die. No wonder the Germans did so well in that game).
We play a IGOUGO version of 40K with a reaction phase. The current player can move OR shoot first, and the reacting player can react after the current player has done either his first OR second action. Units reacting must be within 12" and LOS or were shot at by the current player. Only half the reacting hits count, but otherwise fire is at full capability.
We played a game where we had simultaneous movement with a 4 minute timer, which was interesting. If opposing units made contact both sides got any bonuses for charging. Shooting was simultaneous and casualties removed after the shooting phase was over. Units on either side could still charge 6" if they hadn't shot heavy/rapid fire weapons.
The scenario with simultaneous play created some interesting tactics and worked surprisingly smoothly, but we normally play with the reaction system. I'd say there are multiple ways of making the game better than GW's current paradigm but expecting GW to actually fix that is bit like taking a leak in the wind.
I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.
I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.
I can heartily 2nd this recommendation.
pretty much anyone that has tried it can agree lol
Given what usually happens when GW burns a thing down and tries to reboot it (Kill-Team, Warcry, Sigmar, 8e, Aeronautica) I can guarantee you that if they do burn down 9th and do a reboot for 10th they'll pick the wrong things to keep and the wrong things to throw out, and I don't think more of the same is practical given the horrorshow of bloat they've managed to bring back to the game just two editions after the last time they burned the game down to clear out the bloat.
Personally I think if they did xenos books for Heresy and just called that 10e that'd go a long, long way towards making a game that actually worked; it doesn't have alternating activations, no, but the reaction system still manages to make you sit up and pay attention during your opponent's turn, they've had the discipline thus far not to go wildly overboard with statlines while also breaking with some of the more illogical assumptions of older systems, Rites of War are still a better army-comp system than anything in any other version of Warhammer, and they managed in one of the greatest miracles of the modern age to figure out how to make Knights feel big and stompy without also making them feel unfair to play against.
I highly recommend that anyone who is having trouble wrapping their head around the implications of AA for a game like 40K give Grimdark Future a shot. The 40K-lite combat resolution mechanics are deep as a puddle, but the activation system (basic as it is) makes up for it and shows how much impact a different activation system has on the core gameplay.
I can heartily 2nd this recommendation.
pretty much anyone that has tried it can agree lol
we all agree, difference is just that some don't think GW can make something good of it
(simply because GW has shown what happens if they copy good ideas without knowing why those are used in the first place and tries to add their own twist to the story)
kodos wrote: as one unit sitting still and watch how the other one is slaughtered 2 meters away is not more realistic as an army all moving at the same time while the opponent waits
If the tangible outcome of a different activation sequence or reaction system or command and control mechanic or whatever is that an army responds in at least some fashion to the enemy as they act rather than sitting completely static until the enemy says 'your turn', then it is de facto more realistic, because that is closer to how armies behave in the real world even if it isn't a perfect representation of simultaneity.
This idea that all options are equally bad if none of them are perfect is just contrarianism, and for some reason it comes out a lot more with activation systems than other mechanics.
40k has had activation systems in the past, any time you can do something in your opponent's turn that is an activation. Overwatch is the best example, where you get to shoot when one of your units get charged. Added a lot of dice rolling to the game for a mechanic that typically had like a 2-3% chance of doing anything.
Nothing about AA suggests it's more realistic than IGOUGO or that "realism" should be pursued over anything else. We used to have armor facings on tanks, that was more realistic than the current system. It went away when game designers focused on efficiency and trying to get through a game in a couple hours.
It's a tabletop game, not a computer game. Not everything needs to react instantaneously for it to seem real.
AnomanderRake wrote: Given what usually happens when GW burns a thing down and tries to reboot it (Kill-Team, Warcry, Sigmar, 8e, Aeronautica) I can guarantee you that if they do burn down 9th and do a reboot for 10th they'll pick the wrong things to keep and the wrong things to throw out, and I don't think more of the same is practical given the horrorshow of bloat they've managed to bring back to the game just two editions after the last time they burned the game down to clear out the bloat.
Personally I think if they did xenos books for Heresy and just called that 10e that'd go a long, long way towards making a game that actually worked; it doesn't have alternating activations, no, but the reaction system still manages to make you sit up and pay attention during your opponent's turn, they've had the discipline thus far not to go wildly overboard with statlines while also breaking with some of the more illogical assumptions of older systems, Rites of War are still a better army-comp system than anything in any other version of Warhammer, and they managed in one of the greatest miracles of the modern age to figure out how to make Knights feel big and stompy without also making them feel unfair to play against.
The biggest issue Heresy would have to get over is the transition into supporting competitive play and balance updates. Heresy right now has even worse balance than 40k with every competitive game basically being dreads and terminators.
techsoldaten wrote: 40k has had activation systems in the past, any time you can do something in your opponent's turn that is an activation. Overwatch is the best example, where you get to shoot when one of your units get charged. Added a lot of dice rolling to the game for a mechanic that typically had like a 2-3% chance of doing anything.
I dunno if you're bringing up Overwatch to imply that that time-wasting, non-interactive kludge for one of the most visible issues of IGOUGO is proof positive that AA is a bad mechanic, but if so, that's a pretty silly argument. 'Any time you can do something in your opponent's turn is an activation' is also neither an industry-accepted definition nor one anyone else is using here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding.
HH2.0's reaction system is a far better approach to layering interactivity into an otherwise IGOUGO structure, and even if it isn't perfect it adds a lot to the game.
techsoldaten wrote: Nothing about AA suggests it's more realistic than IGOUGO or that "realism" should be pursued over anything else.
Putting a lot of words in my mouth there. I don't think realism should be pursued over anything else. I think fun and playable gameplay should be the #1 consideration. And going to make a sandwich while my opponent takes his movement phase, before conceding before the start of my first turn because he's alpha-striked me into a condition I cannot recover from, is about as far from fun gameplay as you can get. You don't need everything to react instantaneously for it to be fun or 'seem real', but some systems are better for verisimilitude than others.
Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.
Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.
I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL
Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.
I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL
Neither are overly realistic? Igougo represents a concerted force relaying and actioning orders across the army and working in coordination. AA represents more fluid dynamic movement, showing units individual reactions to the opponents units movements and actions.
It's about as realistic to claim that the whole army acts their orders out as the other army sits there and waves as the units kindly wait in turn to get shot one after another while pretending not to notice their buddies 2ft away getting sliced apart.
Well games are games. If they weren't games, then stuff like wrestling, football or anything else would not be games, but insted brawl or war.
The job of a picked system is to be enjoyable to as many players as possible within existing core rules any game has. Any variable or big change has to make the game, of any kind, more enjoyable for at least the majority of people taking part in it. If it is not then it generaly not well recived.
On top of that people also tend to not like to buy or remake their armies just for the sake of change, especialy when the game does not become more fun for them, if the change happen. I understand that some people like OPR, but when you are a Knight player and start it and you notice that you can't play a Knight army other then a walking the dogs list, or that any thematic army like a terminator list or bike list is impossible, you are not going to like the OPR set of rules.
And how the activiation works stops to matter, when you can't play the army you want to play.
Anyways, I certainly don't think 40K needs to be a Clausewitzian simulation, I just find it weird how 40K players will swear up and down that having their entire army sit around and do nothing while the enemy acts with impunity is 'just as realistic' as systems and mechanics that were designed to better represent friction, command and control, overwatch, initiative, and other staple concepts of warfare. It's a strange hill to die on.
I think it's because that's all 40k players know and don't want to learn any new turn structure, outside the one troll here that said 40k was somehow better designed than Infinity LOL
Pretty much. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that GW's IGOUGO games are the ones with large existing player bases that would throw a fit over "too much" change. Meanwhile Kill Team, Adeptus Titanicus, and Aeronautica Imperialis all use alternating activation systems that work much better than 40k.
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.
So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.
So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...
As a purple ork, I myself am good with the same train, I feel like there are some things that need balance such as some stat changes for units. But other than that, I am good with what we have!
But on the other hand, is scrapping everything for a new edition much better for the time being? if there was a random drop, it should be at a perfect time when they have the capability to release all the new things.
Anyway, purple ork is going back to invisible, HAVE A GOOD DAY
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.
So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...
That's the attitude of everyone, you included.
No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.
vict0988 wrote: No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.
You're never going to make everyone happy at the same time and no matter what you change or don't change there will always be someone who vehemently disagrees with whatever you did. Every single person takes a position of "screw them" to at least one group of players.
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Because 40k still has the lore and aesthetics of the 40k universe and the best way to use our models and tell our stories is for GW to make the 40k rules into a better game. The fact that some people stubbornly defend a deeply flawed game and will be unhappy about changes, even positive changes, is not really something I care about.
So basically "Facilitate my viewpoints and feth anyone else"? Pretty much what I guessed...
That's the attitude of everyone, you included.
No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.
Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.
Just Tony wrote: No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.
Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You
You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.
Just Tony wrote: No, it isn't. Don't EVER speak for me. If KOW was a superior system to WFB (Which I don't think it is) or AOS (Which I most assuredly think it is) I wouldn't advocate for WFB and/or AOS to be turned into KOW. I'd simply play KOW. It stems from me not being an egocentric spoiled entitled narcissist.
Tell you what, zippy: I challenge you to go through my posts and find ANYTHING remotely like me asking for anything like you are. You won't.
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You
You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.
You seriously can't see the difference between telling someone who said they ALREADY fething ENJOY ANOTHER GAMING SYSTEM to stick with that rather than appeal to have a separate system forced to become what they like, tossing out everyone who does not WANT to play that other system NOR do they want that in their game they play currently. YOUR version feths large swaths of gamers over if made reality as they wouldn't have an alternative option other than retrogaming with a severely small group of people. MY version changes no existing options. Want your Guard army to play like you're playing Infinity? Run your Guard in Infinity with whatever rules match the army the most.
Just Tony wrote: You seriously can't see the difference between telling someone who said they ALREADY fething ENJOY ANOTHER GAMING SYSTEM to stick with that rather than appeal to have a separate system forced to become what they like, tossing out everyone who does not WANT to play that other system NOR do they want that in their game they play currently. YOUR version feths large swaths of gamers over if made reality as they wouldn't have an alternative option other than retrogaming with a severely small group of people. MY version changes no existing options. Want your Guard army to play like you're playing Infinity? Run your Guard in Infinity with whatever rules match the army the most.
We are not the same.
And your version of 40k screws over people like me. We are exactly the same, you aren't morally better just because you defend the status quo.
Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.
Just Tony wrote: Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.
Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?
And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.
I'd rather learn the system we already have, than try to learn a whole new system, that's probably only juuust different enough that I'll be doing the "wait, do we do XXX in this edition, or was that 9th?) BS. Sticking as close to the system as possible, while clarifying, rewording, etc would do wonders.
Just Tony wrote: Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.
Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?
And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.
You're assuming first that this poll represents the majority of gamers. This isn't even a good metric to make an educated guess, let alone correlate data. That's mistake #1.
Mistake #2 is your refusal to accept anything other than "Have my cake and eat it, too" as far as 40K goes. 40K is what it is. Don't like IGOUGO? Play one of the MANY video games which take place in real time. Dawn Of War is just as playable now as it was when it came out.
Mistake #3 is assuming I actively want anyone to not get their gaming experience, which is what YOU are asking for by asking for 40K to be changed into something it's not. Ultimately it doesn't affect me as I play 3rd Ed. and have no problem finding opponents. However, I speak for others in this regard as they get punished just so you can be overdemanding.
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?
-You
You just told everyone who wants a better version of 40k to GTFO and go play some other game, giving up on the lore and aesthetics of 40k to do it, because you want 40k to remain as it is. I prioritize my enjoyment of 40k over yours, you prioritize your enjoyment of 40k over mine. We're exactly equal.
because there will never be a better version of 40k, as GW has no interest in making a good version of 40k and keep that one running until the end, they want a new game every few Edtion so that people have to learn everything new, need to buy everything new, need to adjust their collections, and need time to realise which flaws the new game has and by that time GW will already release a new game and everything starts again
if you want a good game and not just for a few months, leaving the current version of 40k, going back to play and adapted old Edition or a game from a different company is the only valid options
I think here is the point that is often misunderstood, we don't say that certain game systems are bad or that they won't work for a SciFi game, we say GW has no interest in writing an actual game system, so no matter what you hope or wish for, GW won't be able to do it right because they suck at designing games, intentionally as their interest is in writing short small scale stuff so they can bring in new ideas, but don't want to write a coherent large game system were everything is on the same level (hence why it works better for Kill Team, Underworlds or Warcry)
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models.
Grimdark Future is exactly that with GDF Firefight as smaller version (hence I see it running into similar problems as they really try to have every single unit of 40k in their game no matter if there is any use for it or not)
Warpath, with a different SciFi Universe in the back, with WP Firefight being the smaller version, though you would need to adapt as not every single unit has a 1:1 replacement (which is or the better) but you can play your Guard with Tanks, Airplanes Infantry etc.
Just Tony wrote: Once again, you'd have a game to go to. Period. Your version eliminates that for the many to cater to the few or the one. You aren't immoral, simply egocentric.
Which game do I have to go to? Nothing on the market currently allows me to play in the 40k universe with my 40k models. You say "just play your guard in Infinity" but Infinity doesn't support 100+ models, tanks and aircraft, etc. So what am I left with? Some obscure third-party alternative 40k? Or some homebrew rules that nobody else plays? Why is it ok for you to say "I'm fine with you having nobody to play with as long as I get my version of 40k with a large player base" but it's not ok for me to say the same?
And why do you get to just assume that my version only benefits few people while the majority want yours? Currently over 75% of the people who expressed an opinion in this poll voted for a major reset with 10th, so it looks like it's YOU who wants to sacrifice the needs of the many to cater to the few or the one.
Dakka is not even close to being the majority of 40k players. Do you really think that? There's discords with a larger, more active playerbases that enjoy 40k. There's Reddits that enjoy 40k with larger, more active player bases than Dakka. Dakka is also well known for being very negative about 40k in general to most of the playerbases outside of it given who constantly tends to post along it.
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?
Maybe 40K wasn't solely defined by AV and blast templates, isn't solely defined by pure IGOUGO, and has the potential to improve beyond legacy mechanics from 80s game design without compromising its core identity.
Horus Heresy has already done it, and I don't see many sky-is-falling posts about how the reaction system has turned HH2.0 into Infinity or whatever.
Just Tony wrote: Okay, so several posters have mentioned non-GW games that they play and enjoy that have AA implemented. Why don't you simply play that rather than advocate for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game? Some people play 40K for what it is, and choose to NOT play those other games expressly for what they are and how they work.
Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?
Maybe 40K wasn't solely defined by AV and blast templates, isn't solely defined by pure IGOUGO, and has the potential to improve beyond legacy mechanics from 80s game design without compromising its core identity.
Horus Heresy has already done it, and I don't see many sky-is-falling posts about how the reaction system has turned HH2.0 into Infinity or whatever.
Your point falls flat when that is what people did. GW lost market share and thus changed things as a result. However 9th hasn't lost people in droves and thus there isn't an incentive to change as the market isn't on the side of need to change.
No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.
How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts. There is not a single game system that doesn't create a meta game or the optimal way to play, nor is there a rules change that doesn't make it really unfun for some people. And this is in general not just GW implemantation of things. We can't forget though that the new AA rule set, assuming it would potantialy drop in 11-12th edition, would have GW design team work on it and write it. And as always with GW, the sales guys could always come and say make X uber. Expectations are nice, and dreams are nice to dream, but reality is a whole different thing.
Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?
Wasn't that what happened though? GW was not happy that their main sells source was losing players fast, and in the wake of plans to kill WFB, they needed a "solid" w40k, especialy as they had a whole reset of models ready for the main work horse of the game.
It says a lot about GW luck that other companies had a combination of logistic problems and incompetent leadership+brand killers, that it didn't end real bad for them before 8th started.
well, if someone likes to play unbalanced games, not need to chance to a more balanced game anyway
and I know there are people who want to play 1:1 what they play in 40k and not adjust a single model
but, fun fact, they won't be able to do that with the next Codex/Edition in 40k as well, so this is a non-argument as it will happen anyway, question is just if they want to do it by changing to a different rules system, or must do it because GW changes things
catbarf wrote: Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?
yes 8th was a different game than 7th and not "the same but improved" and from what from what I have seen around the web prior 8th, GW just copied ideas from other games (the whole Stratagem stuff was already out there and not invented by GW) but messed it up with the Codex rules later on
and there were enough players quitting the game with 8th because GW ruined the game they loved, while those that thought 6th/7th ruined the game they loved returned
the same will happen with 10th, 11th, 12th, those that really like the current version will leave because it is not their game any more, their armies are not playable etc, while others come back because "this time GW will do it right"
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Your point falls flat when that is what people did. GW lost market share and thus changed things as a result. However 9th hasn't lost people in droves and thus there isn't an incentive to change as the market isn't on the side of need to change.
If GW only changed their rules when market share drops, I would agree. But that isn't remotely the case.
GW's going to release a new edition whether there's market incentive to change or not. It might involve less drastic changes than when the flagship product showed signs of failing, but there will be changes for the sake of improvement, streamlining, and modernization. Someone out there is going to think those changes are unfamiliar and strange, even if in the long run it makes for a better game.
Frankly, changing up the pure IGOUGO structure is really not as drastic as some seem to think. GW already did it when they added Overwatch, and again when they added Stratagems. HH2.0 did it in a much more significant way, and it seems to have gone over fine, even with that game catering much more heavily to old-40K grognards. The specialist games- even those intended either as an entry point to 40K (Kill Team) or an offshoot for 40K players (Apocalypse)- use some flavor of AA. It isn't 2002 anymore; pure IGOUGO is not the baseline default from which any deviation is a bold and controversial choice.
Besides, Tony's argument isn't based on market incentives, it's essentially 'I like it as it is, hands off my 40K'. Well, some people really liked 7th. Some people really liked any particular edition you name. Changing things is always going to alienate someone who likes things the way they are, but if it makes for a better game, them's the breaks.
Edit: And I mean, just to be clear, my point was that if someone in 7th Ed said 'If you don't like AV, templates, and formations, and praise non-GW games that don't use those, why don't you go play those instead of advocating for 40K to be essentially turned into that other game?', that's a pretty bs response. Ditching those elements of 7th Ed didn't turn 40K into Bolt Action and ditching pure IGOUGO wouldn't either.
catbarf wrote: GW's going to release a new edition whether there's market incentive to change or not. It might involve less drastic changes than when the flagship product showed signs of failing, but there will be changes for the sake of improvement, streamlining, and modernization. Someone out there is going to think those changes are unfamiliar and strange, even if in the long run it makes for a better game.
are we talking about a different GW here now?
because comparing 3rd Edition with 9th and I see a side-grade at best, no long term improvement or anything like that
same I cannot see how 6th was an upgrade to 5th but actually a down-grade that was somehow fixed by 7th but made worse over time
GW changes for the sake of change and sales and not for improvement, streamlining or modernization, that is the wrong company to talk about those things
kodos wrote: well, if someone likes to play unbalanced games, not need to chance to a more balanced game anyway
and I know there are people who want to play 1:1 what they play in 40k and not adjust a single model
but, fun fact, they won't be able to do that with the next Codex/Edition in 40k as well, so this is a non-argument as it will happen anyway, question is just if they want to do it by changing to a different rules system, or must do it because GW changes things
There is a gigantic difference between. Army build X is no longer dominant or even bad, and under our rule system we decided that the way a faction played under a different rule system is no longer legal. Like going from 5th to 6th ed of WFB and comparing it to introducing AoS to the world.
Just Tony wrote: You're assuming first that this poll represents the majority of gamers. This isn't even a good metric to make an educated guess, let alone correlate data. That's mistake #1.
Potentially flawed data is better than the nonexistent data that you have provided to support your claim that you represent the majority.
Mistake #2 is your refusal to accept anything other than "Have my cake and eat it, too" as far as 40K goes. 40K is what it is. Don't like IGOUGO? Play one of the MANY video games which take place in real time. Dawn Of War is just as playable now as it was when it came out.
Video games are not a substitute for tabletop games.
But let's talk about your refusal to accept anything other than "have my cake and eat it too" as far as 40k goes. You won't accept anything other than IGOUGO and 40k preserved in its current state, and you don't care one bit about the people who have to sacrifice their enjoyment of the hobby for you to get what you want. If "settle for a video game" is an acceptable response to me then why can't you just deal with 40k becoming an alternating activation game?
Mistake #3 is assuming I actively want anyone to not get their gaming experience, which is what YOU are asking for by asking for 40K to be changed into something it's not. Ultimately it doesn't affect me as I play 3rd Ed. and have no problem finding opponents. However, I speak for others in this regard as they get punished just so you can be overdemanding.
It's not a mistake at all, you have made it very clear that you're fine with me (and people like me) not getting my gaming experience as long as my exclusion means that you get to have the gaming experience you want.
Which is fine, to be clear. I'm perfectly fine with you not getting the game you want if it means 40k becomes the game I want it to be. We're both exactly the same on this.
kodos wrote: yes, and this is the difference between a yearly points update and a new Edition of 40k
I don't think a yearly GW update and a new GW update of an edition compares to OPR making it impossible to legaly play a faction. Now GW has made stuff illegal in the past, and they will for sure do it in the future too, but I still think there is a very big difference between a rules creator saying , I don't think knights should be played and I don't want mono armies to exist in my system, and GW removing lets say the jump pack option from a chaos lord. As stupid and bad GWs decision to do so is.
If "settle for a video game" is an acceptable response to me then why can't you just deal with 40k becoming an alternating activation game?
Because sacrificing something that is, for something that might be. Puts the person who has in a position where they lose more, then the person who has nothing. Removal of IGOUG and potential failing of a GW made AA system, means the person that dislikes the first and likes the idea of the second, loses nothing. Just a potential. The person that doesn't like AA or who likes IGOUG loses the game he likes. There is a gigantic difference between the two people. Both in what is invested and what is lost in case of the new thing not working.
kodos wrote: yes, and this is the difference between a yearly points update and a new Edition of 40k
I don't think a yearly GW update and a new GW update of an edition compares to OPR making it impossible to legaly play a faction. Now GW has made stuff illegal in the past, and they will for sure do it in the future too, but I still think there is a very big difference between a rules creator saying , I don't think knights should be played and I don't want mono armies to exist in my system, and GW removing lets say the jump pack option from a chaos lord. As stupid and bad GWs decision to do so is.
If a rules designer thinks that a certain army layout is not suited for the game he is aiming for, they have every right to do it
same as Knights are not possible to play at most low points tournaments
so Knights not being there at Firefight is intended and not just to upset Knights players
and yes GW not only removed single models but also made armies illegal to play by changing unit types, removing formations, changing force org slots for units etc. or just did not update it or merged it with other factions
No, because if I am changing 40k to something I like I am not hurting the people that like Apoc or 1p40k. If I was convinced people wouldn't like a change I wouldn't advocate for it. I might say I'd personally enjoy something or find it sensible and insist it deserves to be playtested. When I say keep Strats it's not because I think feth the 70% of players fed up with them, but rather that I think people wouldn't be fed up with the mechanic if it had a different implementation.
How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts. There is not a single game system that doesn't create a meta game or the optimal way to play, nor is there a rules change that doesn't make it really unfun for some people. And this is in general not just GW implemantation of things. We can't forget though that the new AA rule set, assuming it would potantialy drop in 11-12th edition, would have GW design team work on it and write it. And as always with GW, the sales guys could always come and say make X uber. Expectations are nice, and dreams are nice to dream, but reality is a whole different thing.
Did 40K turn into [insert other game] in the shift from 7th to 8th, and should the people who felt 7th Ed was bloated and unwieldy have just quit whining and gone to play [insert other game] instead?
Wasn't that what happened though? GW was not happy that their main sells source was losing players fast, and in the wake of plans to kill WFB, they needed a "solid" w40k, especialy as they had a whole reset of models ready for the main work horse of the game.
It says a lot about GW luck that other companies had a combination of logistic problems and incompetent leadership+brand killers, that it didn't end real bad for them before 8th started.
When I say people I don't mean every single individual. Some changes are more popular than others, nerfing an underpowered unit is going to be less popular than nerfing an overpowered unit. I think you should be able to build a terminator list so I'd rather defend the implementation of rule of 3, which I actually like and has similar implications of banning certain lists people might like to make. It looks and feels better to play against an army with more than a couple of datasheets, it is less likely for a single overpowered datasheet to break the game. It's not feth you Plagueburst spammers, it's "we've weighed your enjoyment of winning with this list and your investment into this list and decided that the collective enjoyment of the rest of the community outweighs those concerns, sorry and here's a mission set that allows you to continue running the list."
How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army
, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts.
Just like in 40k.... (and btw, 2000pts in OPR equals 1000pts in 40k)
Oh and guess what, Knights in OPR actually feel like unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike 40k where they die to a stiff breeze
Tony, most wargamers really don't care so much about activation systems that it's a make-or-break factor for a game. I can whinge about IGOUGO from a design standpoint, but it's never stopped me from playing 40K. There are plenty of people out there who currently play 40K despite feeling it would be better with a less archaic turn structure, plenty who haven't given it much thought, and plenty more who would shrug and move on if the game changed rather than burn their armies. If HH could incorporate a reaction system and KT could go full AA without players making fan rulesets to convert them back to pure IGOUGO, then more modern turn structuring really is not that controversial in 2022.
The way you talk about 'IGOUGO outlets', and suggest that people who like AA should be happy to go play any AA game on the market (regardless of how different it is from 40K), makes me think you're really fixated on this one mechanic in a way that's absolutely not reflective of the greater playerbase. But I mean, even if that is the case, the logical answer to 'where can I get IGOUGO gameplay if 40K goes AA' would be Warmachine, Flames of War, Team Yankee, Kings of War, or any of the other numerous rulesets out there that still use old-fashioned pure IGOUGO. It's still popular, just for gameplay styles and at scales where it fits and makes for better gameplay, rather than as an atavistic carryover from 80s design.
But we're just talking about what we like and dislike. None of us have GW's ear. This isn't worth getting worked up over.
catbarf wrote: Tony, most wargamers really don't care so much about activation systems that it's a make-or-break factor for a game. I can whinge about IGOUGO from a design standpoint, but it's never stopped me from playing 40K. There are plenty of people out there who currently play 40K despite feeling it would be better with a less archaic turn structure, plenty who haven't given it much thought, and plenty more who would shrug and move on if the game changed rather than burn their armies. If HH could incorporate a reaction system and KT could go full AA without players making fan rulesets to convert them back to pure IGOUGO, then more modern turn structuring really is not that controversial in 2022.
The way you talk about 'IGOUGO outlets', and suggest that people who like AA should be happy to go play any AA game on the market (regardless of how different it is from 40K), makes me think you're really fixated on this one mechanic in a way that's absolutely not reflective of the greater playerbase. But I mean, even if that is the case, the logical answer to 'where can I get IGOUGO gameplay if 40K goes AA' would be Warmachine, Flames of War, Team Yankee, Kings of War, or any of the other numerous rulesets out there that still use old-fashioned pure IGOUGO. It's still popular, just for gameplay styles and at scales where it fits and makes for better gameplay, rather than as an atavistic carryover from 80s design.
But we're just talking about what we like and dislike. None of us have GW's ear. This isn't worth getting worked up over.
exactly, while i do think that 40k would be more enjoyable if it was AA instead of IGOUGO (for the simple reason that i wouldnt "do nothing" during my opponent's turn), i still play 40k and enjoy it somewhat. I'd say trimming the amount of rules is more important than swapping to AA anyway at this moment
Okey, but would it be more enjoyable in general or more enjoyable to you, because you like AA?
Because those are two very different things.
And rules trimming is the worse thing GW always does. They trim the rules for the initial books, which are generaly marines, and then stop to trim for everyone else, and mid edition they explode with a 1000+1 rule new books.
How would you convince someone who likes terminator armies or who plays knights to "like" the OPR system? One player gets limited by the limitation of tough units and how many characters can be run in 2000pts army
, the other player can not play his army unless he is playing a walking the dogs lists, if he wants to play with 2-3 knights, then he has to play 3-4k pts.
Just like in 40k....
Oh and guess what, Knights in OPR actually feel like unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike 40k where they die to a stiff breeze
So if it is the same, then it fixes no problems just changes it with new, often the same ones. it would only make people who like AA happy. And considering how GW designes their armies. It would make fast moving MSU armies , especialy those that can ignore terrain even more powerful. Everything would have to be balanced with layers of rules, not related to outright destroying the enemy. And if we expect balanced rules from GW in w40k, then we may as well start about enjoying the idea of winning in lotto.
(and btw, 2000pts in OPR equals 1000pts in 40k)
after looking at custoeds and GK it felt to me like 1500pts, with big handicaps what you can take. But that is besides the point. It is the "this is how we play the game" point size and it is still a bigger then skirmish games. If GW went to 2250 with w40k it wouldn't change much to how the game feels right now.
Karol wrote: Okey, but would it be more enjoyable in general or more enjoyable to you, because you like AA?
Because those are two very different things.
And rules trimming is the worse thing GW always does. They trim the rules for the initial books, which are generaly marines, and then stop to trim for everyone else, and mid edition they explode with a 1000+1 rule new books.
can you stop?
Obviously i'm stating my opinion, i thought that was pretty clear from my comment. I even went and told you WHY i think it would be more enjoyable for me (not waiting for the other player's turn to be over).
I don't care if GW is gak at implementing changes and sticking to them, i still think the game needs it. Just because GW is bad at doing it doesnt mean it cannot be discussed.
So if it is the same, then it fixes no problems just changes it with new, often the same ones. it would only make people who like AA happy. And considering how GW designes their armies. It would make fast moving MSU armies , especialy those that can ignore terrain even more powerful. Everything would have to be balanced with layers of rules, not related to outright destroying the enemy. And if we expect balanced rules from GW in w40k, then we may as well start about enjoying the idea of winning in lotto.
STOP THINKING THERE IS ONLY THE GW WAY OF MAKING THINGS
after looking at custoeds and GK it felt to me like 1500pts, with big handicaps what you can take. But that is besides the point. It is the "this is how we play the game" point size and it is still a bigger then skirmish games. If GW went to 2250 with w40k it wouldn't change much to how the game feels right now.
2000pts is the recommended starting level, but most people play with varying levels. Still, do you expect to bring 10 big knights in a 40k game? Like the "problem" is already there in 40k, i don't understand what you're trying to argue.
kodos wrote: if we are thinking about the "not GW way of things" we are better of discussing which other game out there should be played instead of 40k
rather than discuss things that will never happen because GW has its way of doing things and this won't change
so whatever improvement you have, consider how GW will implement it and if this is still something you want for 40k
otherwise, we are talking about non-GW games that should be played instead of 10th
if you want to put it that way?
or did you want to say that it does not matter what GW will do as long as the discussion is about things that will never happen so we can keep the illusion that it might become true?
if you want to put it that way?
or did you want to say that it does not matter what GW will do as long as the discussion is about things that will never happen so we can keep the illusion that it might become true?
its not about the illusion become true or whatever, its just about exploring alternate ideas and trying to convince people that in a theoretical world, 40k could become a solid game with a clear and concise ruleset while not sacrificing anything
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I'd like GW to have a crack at an Infinity-style ruleset, but probably in a Kill Team/Necromunda style setting rather than 40k.
yeah, i think infinity's ruleset would break if it had the scale of 40k
One of the reasons 40k is broken is because it uses core rules not suited for the size
There is a reason why games are written for a certain size, because not everything scales well and some mechanics that work well and are fun, make the game worse outside their scale
Bolt Action does not work with 2k points as the random activation starts to suck with too many units and list balance is off if you can take one of everything
Grimdark Future starts well at 1000/1500 points and gets additional rules to stay fast above 2,5k/3k
Deadzone, Firefight and Warpath, going from 150-400 points, 750-1500 points and 2000+ points
Having 1 game trying to have everything from 500-3000 points with the very same granularity in rules to cover RPG like Heroes and tank formations always swings hard to one side and is impossible to stay fast (as in be done in 2 hours) and balanced
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Its not about the illusion become true or whatever, its just about exploring alternate ideas and trying to convince people that in a theoretical world, 40k could become a solid game with a clear and concise ruleset while not sacrificing anything
hence why you need to keep in mind how GW is doing things
If you want to see what possibilities are there for a clear and good ruleset, stop playing 40k and play something else
If you want to keep playing 40k and discuss the possibilities of that game, ignoring the company behind it does not work as it even if GW would listen to that suggestion it won't be what you wanted but what GW thought you wanted
The designers explicit stated that 8th was designed with the complaints from the community in mind that the game was "too complex"
it was just that the community meant something different by "complex" as GW
And for the same reason going from "IGoUGo" to AA won't turn out the way people might think
Because the community talks about replacing alternating turns + phases by alternating activations + actions and GW gives you more interrupting elements and player interaction within the alternating turns because this also means removing IGoUGo
So with 9th they already removed a huge part of IGoUGo from 40k, you have interrupts and alternate activation, but this was not what most people meant by "IGoUGo" same as people meant something different with "7th is too complex"
kodos wrote: If you want to see what possibilities are there for a clear and good ruleset, stop playing 40k and play something else
That's a bit of a 50-50 experience if you ask me. One likely will see as much good as bad, and the latter can overshadow the former as easily as vice versa. You might as well tell the guy to ask a Magic 8 Ball about whether 40k can be better.
a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th
and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad
kodos wrote: a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th
and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad
I don't know jack about anything post 4th and all of 5th, after those I left 40k to drive around in a crowded van and blowout my ear drums. I was there through all of the internet madness that you must be referring to with 5th. The problem with 5th was the players, not the rules. People could not list build at the time, like at all. The armies people fielded in tourneys were terrible. That's why that S something or other fellow's blog exploded with condemnation. The online community refused to look at the rules and the fluff separately. I loved all of 5th. I played like 5 different armies around fifth, it was a great time. Maybe you are remembering monstrous creature spam, or MSU, or alpha strikes, or early flyer rules? Are those even a problem? One of the locals ran tank only IG at the time, I remember occasional frustration, but that's part of gaming...
I hope the ruleset is functional, and the exploits surmountable.
kodos wrote: a 50:50 chance that 40k turns out bad straight away with the core rules, like it did with 6th
or becomes bad later on with the 2nd half of the Codex releases like it did with 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th
and yes, the good core is usually overshadowed by the bad codex rules, but a game is all of it parts, you cannot judge it by excluding an essential part of it just because it is bad
I don't know jack about anything post 4th and all of 5th, after those I left 40k to drive around in a crowded van and blowout my ear drums. I was there through all of the internet madness that you must be referring to with 5th. The problem with 5th was the players, not the rules. People could not list build at the time, like at all. The armies people fielded in tourneys were terrible. That's why that S something or other fellow's blog exploded with condemnation. The online community refused to look at the rules and the fluff separately. I loved all of 5th. I played like 5 different armies around fifth, it was a great time. Maybe you are remembering monstrous creature spam, or MSU, or alpha strikes, or early flyer rules? Are those even a problem? One of the locals ran tank only IG at the time, I remember occasional frustration, but that's part of gaming...
I hope the ruleset is functional, and the exploits surmountable.
Do you think the players of the "bad" factions in 5th had options for building lists that were competitive with Grey Knights? By the S guy I assume you mean the former GW game designer who thought that bland-mc-blandface Chaos Space Marines were well-designed and that people should just homebrew the rules they wanted to play with? Occasional frustration is okay, but when the rules mean that it's possible to field a 1000 point unit that can't be targeted by blast templates and can only be hit on 6+ with other weapons and that list is very viable then it's more than occassional frustration.
vict0988 wrote: Do you think the players of the "bad" factions in 5th had options for building lists that were competitive with Grey Knights?
yes
at least here maybe because we used custom missions for tournaments and not default rulebook ones (and also a win/draw/los system so you 3 victories could not place you ahead of 5 victories just because you won 20:0 3 times)
I would like to see the rules overhauled to incorporate a reaction system. I actually think IGOUGO would be ideal for 40k if on your turn you ENGAGE units and then the actual combat is resolved simultaneously, or wounds allocated simultaneously after both combatant units have fired.
There can still be strategic options like ambushing or going-to-ground, but the importance of the player turn should be positioning your units and choosing when/where/how to engage, not just going in for the kill.
I was thinking of the demons suck guy. That Chaos book was super weak, and GK were strong.
How much of the modern top tier stuff is able to charge through multiple units in a turn?
My mind is still reeling at the ability to split fire all the time.
Speaking from experience with my own ruleset, AA can work really well. Even if GW wouldn't change anything else, it would massively upgrade the gaming experience for both players.
The best part about it is, that it scales perfectly with bigger point sizes. The game you play may take longer, but you don't wait any longer between turns, wether you play 500 oder 5000 points. It is a dramatic reduction in lethality as well, as now you only have to endure a single enemy unit to do damage to you before you are able to retaliate.
I mean if you have a good buddy with you, just give it a try. Play a regular game of 40k, but only activate one unit at a time and go through all of the phases with it before your friend activates one unit of their own.
ProcessNotPunishment wrote: I was thinking of the demons suck guy. That Chaos book was super weak, and GK were strong.
How much of the modern top tier stuff is able to charge through multiple units in a turn?
My mind is still reeling at the ability to split fire all the time.
I don't understand your point about the demons suck guy. Do you think he was whining for no reason?
Getting more than 100% return per turn is pretty rare, an expensive unit can kill multiple less durable units in a turn.
Split fire all the time is really good for less optimized lists. 2x lascannon, 2x heavy bolter isn't as bad as it used to be.
