Twin-Linked should have been a general re-roll, to hit and to wound/anti-tank
and it makes sense to use it that way by how 3rd Edition is designed
for the historical reference, TL weapons were never used to get more shots out, as high ROF weapons against infantry were better used as singles to cover larger areas than to get more shots into a narrow path
the WW2 MG with 700-1200 shots per minute, against infantry, using 2 TL ones to have 2400 shots in the same area would not have made a difference
but those weapons were used on hard to hit targets like airplanes or fast moving vehicles, so that the chance to inflict critical damage if you hit, was higher
so yes, having a TL Heavy Bolter not being able to kill more infantry but just being better at hitting stuff makes sense for 3rd
to remove it as the games changes from the core up make sense as well
the problem was just that outside the core nothing else was changed and were are going to reach 10th Edition when the last units have their profiles adopted to 8th Edi Core rules
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean, yeah. It's an abstraction. It's not firing exactly 3 shots every time anymore than regular Squaddies are firing 1 shot at a time.
Who honestly would think that?
You have no idea how many players I've talked to who assume the ground scale, time scale, and combat mechanics are meant to be taken literally.
I've seen more than one discussion about the lack of load-bearing equipment on Marine or Guard models justified by the idea that they're only firing about ten shots at most during a battle anyways.
Actually the way a twin linked weapon should work is:
- Re-Rolls to hit and takes best result
- Re-Rolls to wound and takes best result
- Re-Rolls to damage and takes best result
- Target re-rolls armor and takes worst result.
Thats now a twin linked weapon should work to represent the amount of shots landing on the target.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean, yeah. It's an abstraction. It's not firing exactly 3 shots every time anymore than regular Squaddies are firing 1 shot at a time.
Who honestly would think that?
You have no idea how many players I've talked to who assume the ground scale, time scale, and combat mechanics are meant to be taken literally.
I've seen more than one discussion about the lack of load-bearing equipment on Marine or Guard models justified by the idea that they're only firing about ten shots at most during a battle anyways.
It's hard to keep the megathreads straight, but I believe this very thread contains negative commentary about "tanks being able to fire behind themselves" in the last two editions.
Thank you for restating the subtext of my post, H.B.M.C. -- a valuable and generous service, performed by a proficient understander. The game is abstractions all the way down, meaning that a twin-linked weapon firing twice as many shots as the non-twin-linked version of that weapon is one of many valid ways to design that weapon.
Honestly, I’m totally fine with loads of dice and even rerolls if they still just balance it out. In 8th a shoota boyz mob with more dakka, double shoot, and their reroll ones were pretty balanced, it’s more the insanely high quality weapons that start to get annoying. Dice can be fun to roll.
Cyel wrote: I'll be ok with it just not being Upkeep: The Wargame. It may be as silly and as it is, but "boring" and "tedious" are dealbreakers.
But keeping track of multiple rules (both army wide and unit specific) that change every turn is what makes a game strategic and deep.
I could tolerate having the layers and layers of rules not present on a datasheet if the default missions didn't also come with multiple secondaries I need to keep track of and strategems/cp...
Altruizine wrote: It's hard to keep the megathreads straight, but I believe this very thread contains negative commentary about "tanks being able to fire behind themselves" in the last two editions.
Thank you for restating the subtext of my post, H.B.M.C. -- a valuable and generous service, performed by a proficient understander. The game is abstractions all the way down, meaning that a twin-linked weapon firing twice as many shots as the non-twin-linked version of that weapon is one of many valid ways to design that weapon.
I don't mind abstraction at all. I like abstracting out the things that I don't really care about for a given scale of play, and modeling the things that do matter. In an RPG I may care about how exactly many bursts of fire I put out and how much ammo that consumes. In a skirmish game I may care about tank facing. In a mass-battle game I'm okay with a unit's position being a single marker and a zone of control.
What I don't like is inconsistent abstraction, and 40K is pretty bad in that regard. If a system cares about the individual placement of every single trooper for determining range and line of sight, then I expect that the positioning and facing of a tank matter too. And for the individual placement of troopers to continue to matter when we get to determining casualties, while we're at it.
Having twinned weapon mounts represented by re-rolls as an abstraction is fine with me. I actually quite like the idea of allowing it to re-roll both hits and wounds/armor-pen. But when that mechanic exists alongside counting up the exact number of lasguns remaining in a squad to determine its fire output, or every last gun barrel on a Repulsor getting its own discrete weapon profile, it feels like inconsistent levels of abstraction.
I don't mind abstraction at all. I like abstracting out the things that I don't really care about for a given scale of play, and modeling the things that do matter. In an RPG I may care about how many bursts of fire I put out. In a skirmish game I may care about tank facing. In a mass-battle game I'm okay with position being a single marker and a zone of control.
What I don't like is inconsistent abstraction, and 40K is pretty bad in that regard. If a system cares about the individual placement of every single trooper for determining range and line of sight, then I expect that the positioning and facing of a tank to matter too. And for the individual placement of troopers to continue to matter when we get to determining casualties, while we're at it.
Were vehicle facings to return we'd still have inconsistency, since there was never any accounting for non-vehicle models' facings. Shouldn't getting shot in the back have more acute morale penalties? Aren't most body armour designs more effective in the front?
I would go the other direction, and make the position of individual trooper models matter in fewer ways.
Cyel wrote: I'll be ok with it just not being Upkeep: The Wargame. It may be as silly and as it is, but "boring" and "tedious" are dealbreakers.
But keeping track of multiple rules (both army wide and unit specific) that change every turn is what makes a game strategic and deep.
I don't mean rules (although in GW games they hardly make their games strategic and deep, their amount gives an illusion of complexity but resulting gamestates are still simplistic and shallow.) but upkeep. Resolution and obligatory stuff takes ages, gameplay (decisions) - moments.
3rd Edi was designed as a wargame with the basic factions in mind and was consistent with its rules
it got problems with as soon as the rules needed to be outside the designed box to feel different and people tried to fix the problems with adding different rules that put in another layer
remember that there was an issue with "height", as it was hard capped and a model height 3 on a hill with height 3 was not able to see over another model height 3 that was not on the hill in 4th, that was solves by true line of sight, that you go down and look via the gun barrel of you could see something
and with 8th we got the problem that there is a Skirmish level core, with RPG level details in army lists, to play a mass battle game
this just cannot work and causes all kind of problems
but it also triggers all kind of players and you get the RPG, Skirmish and Mass Battle players on the same table who accept the problems because this is the game everyone plays
Altruizine wrote: Shouldn't getting shot in the back have more acute morale penalties? Aren't most body armour designs more effective in the front?
In many 'large skirmish' games it's assumed that infantry can quickly reposition to take cover against threats in any particular direction, but getting flanked is a major problem. So, it's typical to not worry about individual model facing, but have penalties to use of cover (eg no save bonus) when a unit is hit from multiple angles. And something like a simple -1 to saves taken against crossfire (to represent less effective armor use) wouldn't be unreasonable either. You won't find me opposing rules that make maneuver and positioning more relevant than raw mathhammer firepower, but...
Altruizine wrote: I would go the other direction, and make the position of individual trooper models matter in fewer ways.
...I also completely agree with this, just because of the scale 40K currently operates at. Tracking the position of every model and vehicle when an 'army' is 30 guys and a tank is fine. Having to worry about the individual positioning of every trooper when I have 100+ models on the battlefield is downright tedious. Same reason I don't miss blast templates, even though I'm okay with them in concept- they're just not right for this scale of game.
Frankly, one of my favorite things about Apocalypse is how the rules were written around the use of movement trays. Pushing trays of models around the table, and having units abstractly occupy buildings rather than having to be positioned in firing points, tremendously speeds up the game.
And again, my issue is really inconsistency. Currently when you shoot in 40K, it matters exactly which of your models have line of sight and which ones are in range of the target. But then when the target takes casualties, it doesn't matter at all which models are visible to or in range of the firing unit. How does that make sense?
...I also completely agree with this, just because of the scale 40K currently operates at. Tracking the position of every model and vehicle when an 'army' is 30 guys and a tank is fine. Having to worry about the individual positioning of every trooper when I have 100+ models on the battlefield is downright tedious. Same reason I don't miss blast templates, even though I'm okay with them in concept- they're just not right for this scale of game.
Frankly, one of my favorite things about Apocalypse is how the rules were written around the use of movement trays. Pushing trays of models around the table, and having units abstractly occupy buildings rather than having to be positioned in firing points, tremendously speeds up the game.
I, too, would love the game to move in that direction. It would also help address the semi-invisible issue of the meta self-selecting towards low model count armies (because of the greater physical and mental burdens inherent in making and executing plays with large model count armies). Ideally, those burdens would be experienced more on a unit count basis than a model count basis (ie. 5 units of Custodes aren't significantly less cumbersome to play with than 5 units of Hormagaunts).
Of course, a lot of peoples' reaction to that seems to be "we'd just be turning models into glorified tokens that could be replaced by cardboard!" And to that, my response is the astronaut meme -- always has been, friends.
LostTemplar wrote: Actually the way a twin linked weapon should work is:
- Re-Rolls to hit and takes best result
- Re-Rolls to wound and takes best result
- Re-Rolls to damage and takes best result
- Target re-rolls armor and takes worst result.
Thats now a twin linked weapon should work to represent the amount of shots landing on the target.
Why re-roll instead of just rolling two dice and take the best result when rolling to-hit and rolling to-wou d (and rolling damage when applicable)?
I don't mind abstraction at all. I like abstracting out the things that I don't really care about for a given scale of play, and modeling the things that do matter. In an RPG I may care about how many bursts of fire I put out. In a skirmish game I may care about tank facing. In a mass-battle game I'm okay with position being a single marker and a zone of control.
What I don't like is inconsistent abstraction, and 40K is pretty bad in that regard. If a system cares about the individual placement of every single trooper for determining range and line of sight, then I expect that the positioning and facing of a tank to matter too. And for the individual placement of troopers to continue to matter when we get to determining casualties, while we're at it.
Were vehicle facings to return we'd still have inconsistency, since there was never any accounting for non-vehicle models' facings. Shouldn't getting shot in the back have more acute morale penalties? Aren't most body armour designs more effective in the front?
I would go the other direction, and make the position of individual trooper models matter in fewer ways.
Maybe this was not always true about model facings. Maybe RT had something like that for infantry. I recall though for example crossfire maybe in third meant if falling back through an enemy unit’s potential firelane, the fleeing unit would be wiped out. So incentivised getting behind enemy units then concentrating fire to force them to break.not exactly like facings but direction or orientation I guess mattered, and that made sense. I do not like the way that vehicles are represented in current editions. I liked facings, also I liked templates and misfires and scatter and so on. I do not like that the game has both shrunken tables and enlarged models and sized of massed forces at the same time. I preferred smaller games with fewer models on larger tables that took a few hours to play through. I do not like the wham bam whombo combo playstyle of current editions. But, that is just me, anyways I would go a hard 180 from making position of Indy troops less meaningful.
So this thread got me looking back on older editions and I think I found something specific that I think it was a mistake for GW remove this from the rules, not because it talks about talking things out, but because it talks about the intent being for both players to try and make the experience enjoyable for both players. Losing this removes that expectation an opens the game to a fair amount of pushing the game towards being about winning over everything else.
I don't know, maybe it's just me but I think when they removed it they removed a core part that made 40k, well, 40k.
ClockworkZion wrote: So this thread got me looking back on older editions and I think I found something specific that I think it was a mistake for GW remove this from the rules, not because it talks about talking things out, but because it talks about the intent being for both players to try and make the experience enjoyable for both players. Losing this removes that expectation an opens the game to a fair amount of pushing the game towards being about winning over everything else.
I don't know, maybe it's just me but I think when they removed it they removed a core part that made 40k, well, 40k.
I mean yeah, its like when people say removing complicated or rules that left a lot up to interpretation made it so people argued less. Which in reality it did gak all, because anyone worth playing with would just pretty much invoke that rule right there and we settled it with a die role and moved on.
Altruizine wrote: I dunno, making special characters legal without opponent's consent seems like a far more impactful "removed rule" change than the above.
Also, wasn't The Most Important Rule still around during some pretty tournament-vicious editions?
In terms of balance you're probably right, but in terms of stated intent of how the game should be approached? I feel like removing this sort of intent and no longer saying "we want you to focus on both sides having fun" it changes the tone of how the community as a whole sees the game, even if some people ignore it.
Did you not read the whole thing I shared? Because it was a lot more than "roll off on it". It covered designer intent (play should be fun for all involved), validated house rules and made it clear that rules are not intended to be binding but rather a framework.
That's more than just "roll off on it" (which was only one way mentioned to resolve disputes during the game but was not presented as the only way).
Did you not read the whole thing I shared? Because it was a lot more than "roll off on it". It covered designer intent (play should be fun for all involved), validated house rules and made it clear that rules are not intended to be binding but rather a framework.
That's more than just "roll off on it" (which was only one way mentioned to resolve disputes during the game but was not presented as the only way).
The only thing the current one doesn't explicitly state is the term house rule, which I guess I just don't find necessary -- personally, anyway. Maybe that's just my brain liking an authoritative ruleset.
Did you not read the whole thing I shared? Because it was a lot more than "roll off on it". It covered designer intent (play should be fun for all involved), validated house rules and made it clear that rules are not intended to be binding but rather a framework.
That's more than just "roll off on it" (which was only one way mentioned to resolve disputes during the game but was not presented as the only way).
The only thing the current one doesn't explicitly state is the term house rule, which I guess I just don't find necessary -- personally, anyway. Maybe that's just my brain liking an authoritative ruleset.
Still ignoring the whole "intent of the game" thing I talked about. Or is the concept of playing a game that's fun for both sides of the table just sliding right past you like a person's eyes off of a Somebody Else's Problem Field?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
Almost as if two people with different expectations for the game should be able to communicate their expectations and then draw up ideas how to have a fun game that doesn't involve the most hyper-tooled lists in existance...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since there is some confusion apparently: the "most important rule" I posted and the point I was trying to make was NOT about rolling off to settle rules disputes.
It was about the creators clearly stating an intent for the game, formally recognizing house rules as a valid way to play and stating in clear language that the rules are not binding and that one does not need to follow them perfectly to be playing "correctly".
The entire point was that by removing such language the tone of the game as presented to the player is different. Especially to new players who may have never seen such language used in the ruleset and not know that the game they're playing was built on being able to compromise in order to try and work with their opponent to enjoy the game outside of a strict box of the "correct" way to play the game.
Basically the tone of the rules without that intent spelled out and without that permissive language to go outside of GW's specific box if you want to tailor things more changes the way people look at the game. Just consider how for a few pages now we've discussed the rigid "competitive first" mindset that has taken hold in a number of communities where even the idea of doing something outside of the strict framework GW lays out is "wrong".
I get that there are folks who likely ignored that box, but that's okay. You can enjoy GW's sandbox exactly how they give it to you. Some people might be butting heads with the game though because they don't know they can tailor their experience beyond what GW has given them and I feel it's something important for the tone of the game that was lost.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
Just to add on what AndromaderRake and Cyel wrote above, „superior listbuilding” and „superior game skills” rarely occur at the same time and more often than not „superior listbuilding” is a crutch that makes up for poor game skills.
Regarding The Most Important Rule, what is missing from the new version the most is not only mentioning open framework and house ruling, but also calling WAAC by name as a wrong approach to the game.
I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."
The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.
I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.
To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.
PenitentJake wrote: I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."
The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.
I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.
To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.
As much as I love/nostalgiawank over the older ways of GW thats not really what people want out of a game anymore. People WANT and expect games to be playable straight out the box. Its very much an attitude from a time when wargames were played with a few nerds in a garage, not in a community of thousands.
PenitentJake wrote: I also frequently mention an old article from White Dwarf by Rick Priestly about why the company was called "Games Workshop."
The article very explicitly states that the founding philosophy of the company was always providing a toolset so that players could create the game they wanted, rather than producing a slick, play it straight out--of-the-box or book experience. They always wanted their players to feel like co-creators.
I wish I still had the Dwarf that contained the article- I think it would have been somewhere in the 1995-1998 span.
To me, this article expressed a lot of concepts similar to those Zion saw in the text he quoted.
As much as I love/nostalgiawank over the older ways of GW thats not really what people want out of a game anymore. People WANT and expect games to be playable straight out the box. Its very much an attitude from a time when wargames were played with a few nerds in a garage, not in a community of thousands.
I think it can be both. Like a Lego set. Sure it's supposed to make X, but it's individual parts (or by adding parts) lets you make the rest of the alphabet.
Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
Primaris were largely mediocre for a good while after their release too, weren't they? Initial release, and the new stuff from the Indomitus and onwards release.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
Well that's a completely different message, isn't it? It helps to be accurate with wording. A solid chunk of new models coming out tend to be mediocre. New rules for some old things seem to hit randomly and buff things rather obscenely. To my wholly unprofessional eye, it looks like GW incompetence rather than malicious writing to sell specific things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.
People don't need the permission of Lego to do what they want with it. 40K is the same. It's just that most people don't want to and they have less reason to do so now.
Given all the printed materials GW produces there is a valid expectation bias that GW products are complete within themselves, in the same way that Apple produces a complete and insolated product.
Yeah, I use Apple stuff and have for a long time for a few reasons, one of them is what you say Tokhuah, that it works straight out of the box and is basically idiot proof. Another is that my Apple hardware works for a VERY long time, at least the stuff that I have has. I am using a Macbook pro from 2011, added some memory, exchanged the HDD for an SDD, blew out the dust, even lost a screw... Thing does what needs done with the occasional headache for a no longer supported platform with an older OS.
If this is what people want from "Games Workshop" (considering Sim's emphasis on the "workshop" aspect) then I guess they get neither.
Wargames can't be a "build your own" ruleset unless you play with a very close and insular group. Because it's a multi-person experience.
When I play 40k, it's a rare moment I'll play the same person twice in six months, my community is rather large.
In this situation the only possibility is we play the game straight out the book.
Lego is easy to customise because no one but you is involved.
Playing wargames doesn't work like that.
I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
First off all, I think what’s happening with 40K is also happening in other game mediums. I’m a published board game designer, and keep a close ear to the board game community. What’s been a driving paradigm behind many highly regarded modern euro-games (i.e. BGG top ranked games) is a push towards optimization-based decision making, multiplayer solitaire, and reduced interactivity or reduced “chaos” in the game system as a whole.
Behind this paradigm is the sentiment among players of “I want to win or lose due to my own decision-making prowess”. It is a reasonable enough statement to make and it’s one that ultimately comes from a competitive mindset. Putting that sentiment into practice means making certain design choices. It means cutting down on the lines of interactions between players (to minimize cases where the player to your right “messes up” your perfect plans/moves) and also strives to eliminate randomness on the backside of decisions (e.g. rolling dice to determine successes or not). The result are games where players are increasingly playing “against the system” as opposed to playing against the other players at the table. It may be more strategic and computationally heavy from a planning and look-ahead standpoint, but it orients the skill of the game around optimization and logistical modes of thinking, as opposed to more spatial or psychological modes.
I think the above philosophy has influenced the design of 40K, specifically in 8th and 9th edition. While 40k still remains a wargame, the competitive mindset and sentiment of wanting “to win or lose purely on my own good/bad decision-making” is clearly influencing the design. What’s the evidence for this? (1) Symmetrical ITC style mission designs and players starting to want/expect more symmetrical terrain setups These shifts eliminate a huge source of uncertainty in the game space and diminishes the role of spatial planning and reading novel board arrangements. (2) Mitigation of randomness through using a plethora of stratagems, auras, traits, doctrines, and more to reduce the variance in randomness felt over the course of the game and make outputs closer to expected values..
From a competitive player's perspective, the above things are seen as a good evolution for the game. Matches are structured symmetrically and more fairly. Randomness is curtailed and outcomes are less swingy, etc.. The effect of these, however, is that it makes the underlying math of the game more open to be programmed onto the table and army output/performance easier to optimize and predict. When there are fewer X-factors affecting the relative value of a unit, you can more reliably calculate its value and optimize the whole army around a narrow set of battle parameters. This shifts the game even more into list building, especially with the more simplified core in 8th/9th rules providing less avenues for counter play or unusual/unexpected situations to arise.
And this is where army points come into the equation. Ironically, by diminishing other aspects of the game system, even more of the burden for balancing the game falls onto the point values. If the game is 90% about list building, then points are going to have an outsized importance. Unfortunately, if we’ve seen anything over the years, it’s that chasing balance through point adjustments is like chasing unicorns. One can change point values, but then something else will just emerge as the new optimal relative to the rigid competitive context you’re playing in. And this assumes the best intentions from GW (surely they wouldn’t be manipulating points to drive sales, right?).
All said, from a purely competitive, ITC-style matched play perspective points can, in theory, make headway towards leveling the playing field, but that honestly only gets you so far. Moreover, the integrity of a point-based system breaks down quickly when you have missions with asymmetric objectives and setups, uneven and varied terrain, when playing larger or smaller games than what army size the points were based around, and/or where opposing armies happen to counter their opponent particularly well (or not). Points are a rough guide at best, even under ideal circumstances.
ProHammer is designed under a different paradigm than the trajectory 40k is currently on. It is NOT intended to provide a tight, balanced, competitive play experience. The name is a bit of a misnomer (or tongue-in-cheek reference), as there is nothing “Pro” about it in terms of a competitive “pro” player or supporting “pro” play (whatever that may be).
What ProHammer sets out to accomplish is providing a ruleset more aligned with 40k being a wargame simulation and narrative-based game. There’s a number of design objectives for the project that feed into this:
(1) Celebrate the epic drama of Warhammer 40k and its emphasis on gritty infantry battles.
(2) Give players more interesting and tough tactical choices, rewarding clever play over list building.
(3) Balance fairness with excitement. Keep gameplay surprising but not randomly or overly punitive.
(4) Emphasize intuitive rules. Simple is good, but shouldn’t be at the expense of gameplay or rule logic.
(5) Restore the importance of position, maneuver, and terrain which is at the heart of miniature wargaming!
The above list is what we check rule changes against. Obviously many of these are a balancing act to achieve as they can pull against each other. But I think more broadly these objectives provide a compelling case for the way that classic 40K editions did things (which we’re building onto) and which go against the current 40K design paradigm.
Morale, for example, is a big one. As a simulation game trying to maintain some level of fidelity, having a morale failure cause units to fall back has more fidelity (is less abstract) than how it works in 8th/9th with just losing more models. Moreover, there are ripple effects that result from this greater fidelity. That units can fall back creates opportunities for trapping units that fall back, or pushing units out of position (and out of range for shooting or objectives, etc.), forcing their owner to adjust their tactical plans. The fidelity creates more potential dynamics in the system where unanticipated or emergent things can happen.
We have an eye on streamlining and making the game intuitive and logical to play. Whether this translates into a shorter or longer playtime isn’t really a metric we’re tracking. That said, I’ve found that many of ProHammer’s adjustments do streamline and speed up play. Declared shooting and declared charging, with neither allowing pre-measuring, is an example that DOES go towards speeding up the game. There is far less re-evaluation going on (aka “let me see how this unit’s shooting attacks go… okay…. not as good as expected, let me re-assess what second unit should now shoot at that target…” and so on). With declared shooting you have to make some big gut level decisions and then work with whatever transpires. The attack resolution process is much the same as the entire system is designed to always be batch/fast rolling all shots. You’re not even allowed to roll shots one at a time to try and game the way the wound allocation system works.
In regards to unit point values and the ramification of rule changes, there are a few crucial things to bear in mind.
First, a specific operational goal of ProHammer is to let any classic era (3rd-7th edition) codex / army list play against any other. Home-brew rulesets have a much more difficult hill to climb when you ask players to not only accept your rule changes, but also to disregard their library of old codexes. So making a system that works, well-enough, with any classic codex is important.
Second, is the realization that both within an edition cycle, and between edition cycles, there has always been (and continues to be), significant swings in power from one army to another. Or codex’s that were horribly out-of-date with respect to the current core rules. You had the 4th edition Ork codex lasting through 4th, 5th and 6th edition of the game (for example). There is nothing that’s changed rule wise, IMHO, that swings things any worse than has already swung before within all of the official content.
Third is to realize that ProHammer seeks to CHANGE the core mechanics and have those changes actually result in different gameplay outcomes and incentives. Let’s say that with the “AP = Sv, then take save at a -1” change we went through and “rebalanced” everything perfectly to account for that. Would be the effect? Okay - now I have X-fewer marines or your cheaper plasma guns mean you can take a few more. Great. So I’ve made a change, rebalanced everything, and then I’m right back at where I started in relative terms. The point of making a change is to have that change actually cause an effect - not to rebalance the system to mitigate the reason for making the change in the first place.
When you couple the desire the make a change with the objective of having broad-codex compatibility, and the realization that balance is always all over the place anyway, AND the desire for ProHammer to cater more towards a simulationist and narrative style of play, then all of the concern and obsessing about points and balance is rendered largely moot.
To bring this all back to the current topic - the above highlights for me different directions that 40K could’ve gone. Even down to “the most important rule” and how its wording has shifted the intent of the play experience. 40K today is a game that strives to maximize “control” for players in order to satiate a competitive-mindset. Players want a fair and level playing field to properly test their mettle - but they are are really just testing their list building capabilities. Classic 40K, and by extension ProHammer, is rooted more in trying to simulate battlefield dynamics, using the rules and the resulting effects to put players in unexpected situations. For us, the latter is where the game thrives.
Almost as if two people with different expectations for the game should be able to communicate their expectations and then draw up ideas how to have a fun game that doesn't involve the most hyper-tooled lists in existance...
Sure, but the bad-faith casual at all costs scrub isn't going to come to that negotiation trying to make sure their opponent has a fun time too.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
I'm talking about more games than just 40k here. Scrubby players exist in all game systems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Just to add on what AndromaderRake and Cyel wrote above, „superior listbuilding” and „superior game skills” rarely occur at the same time and more often than not „superior listbuilding” is a crutch that makes up for poor game skills.
Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.
From a competitive player's perspective, the above things are seen as a good evolution for the game. Matches are structured symmetrically and more fairly. Randomness is curtailed and outcomes are less swingy, etc.. The effect of these, however, is that it makes the underlying math of the game more open to be programmed onto the table and army output/performance easier to optimize and predict. When there are fewer X-factors affecting the relative value of a unit, you can more reliably calculate its value and optimize the whole army around a narrow set of battle parameters. This shifts the game even more into list building, especially with the more simplified core in 8th/9th rules providing less avenues for counter play or unusual/unexpected situations to arise.
1000%. This was a thing competitive players were pushing for as early as 4th edition. Random table setups and random terrain layouts caused a lot of drama for me for that exact reason.
The more as you say X factors exist, the harder it is to optimize, and while thats closer to a real war situation - from a person that wants a game to be more like a sporting event as opposed to a 'wargame' (the war-themed game if you will) - that is a huge cancer to them.
I design games based off of the experience of feeling like you are commanding real armies - more classic wargame.
Classic 40K, and by extension ProHammer, is rooted more in trying to simulate battlefield dynamics, using the rules and the resulting effects to put players in unexpected situations. For us, the latter is where the game thrives.
For players like us - 1000%. For competitive players - they do not like this.
I enjoy it though and appreciate your post and the direction you come from because it is exactly how I do my design and what type of games that I enjoy and what I want 40k to be.
However - the next step to look at is marketing. From my own design space (mostly PC related and xbox/playstation but also tabletop ports) - the competitive player in almost every marketing research I have seen is the vast majority of commercial buyers of these games.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Except, to extend the metaphor, the Lego set's instructions are wrong, and you don't have all the pieces to build what's on the front of the box, even though you can use those pieces to build other things.
People don't need the permission of Lego to do what they want with it. 40K is the same. It's just that most people don't want to and they have less reason to do so now.
So why are you buying Lego instead of a cheaper brand that gets you all the pieces you need? I have a newsflash: Mega Blox/Constructs pieces are just as durable.
Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.
I'd say out of 10 "pro tournament players" - maybe 1 or 2 of them designs their own list.
The other 8 or 9 copy an ITC list that placed well and might minorly tweak here or there, but the list is mostly not theirs. Its just the tank that they are wielding that they bought off of the lot to use.
So while listbuilding is a skill, it is not a skill that I see used very often. I see parroting and copy paste the majority skill.
And I've absolutely seen poor to mid players stomp mid to good players using weaker lists with their copy paste ITC power list for me to not agree that good players are ace list makers.
I placed top 10 in the old GT system several times because I knew how to copy good lists. That didn't make me a good player, though at the time I thought it did.
Given a moderate list, I struggle 50/50. The list drives so much in these games and you don't need to be good at listbuilding to grab a good list, especially with how easy the internet is and how there are players that literally charge a few hundred bucks to make your list for you.
I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.
Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".
So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.
I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.
Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.
There is a very important distinction to be made here.
Good listbuilding arises from good gameplay skills.
Good gaming skills do not automatically arise from good listbuilding.
What auticus wrote is very, very true, especially since the internet became a thing and building a list off the combined knowledge of the community became a thing. In most cases "good listbuilding skill" is pretty much a synonym of a good google-fu.
Mezmorki wrote: I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...
Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing
kirotheavenger wrote: I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.
Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".
So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.
I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.
This is especially true since most people play really small number of games throughout their entire hobby "career". In my first 40k period in 2nd and 3rd I've played around a dozen games total. That was a couple of years worth of actual gaming as opposed to list building, painting, reading etc.. My perspective on what I actually want from the game changed when I had the time and capacity to play several games a week.
Availability bias for 40k is definitely the factor keeping it's success going imo.
For many people 40k is the only wargame available, I know many people that are interested in wargames but either won't try them or won't continue with them because the playerbase isn't there.
40k has a vice-grip on the playerbase, it's the only game I ever see consistently played anywhere. In my city there's at least 4 local clubs focusing on 40k, I'm lucky to get 4 people for any non-GW system (and all of those 4 will consider 40k their main game).
Mezmorki wrote: I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...
Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing
I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
Ah yes, the age old "new stuff is op" argument that doesnt actually have any basis.
Doomstalkers
Ophydians
Primaris speeders
Sororitas predator
etc. etc.
sooo many newly released models are gak
On competitive tables, sure. Most of my collection of models is 30k stuff/models with rules dating back to 3rd, if you think some new models are gak you clearly haven't plumbed the depths of gak you'll find if you try running mech-foot CSM.
Mezmorki wrote: I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...
Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing
I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.
Its probably best not to go down the "compare 40k to a board game" rabbit hole because its too easy to say it's like comparing apples to oranges. I have to resist using War Of The Ring as an example of a simple system with deep mechanics and decision making all the time but it's too easily countered as an argument.
That said the worst board game I own is better designed than 40k. I wonder if the reason FFG lost the 40k license is because Forbidden Stars was the best 40k based game ever made?
Mezmorki wrote: I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...
Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing
I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.
Totally agreed with both of the above posts as well.
I've been playing the Undaunted series of board games, and the density of tough decisions is way above a typical 40k game. We've joked about porting the undaunted system to the 40k context for the fun of it.
Regarding 40k dominance - on one hand yes it remains popular because for many its the only game in town and has momentum. But also, 40K lore is becoming, slowly, more of a cultural identifiable item. It's a far cry from Star Wars or Star Trek, but I have to imagine that it's up there. So many people are roped into the game, or remain playing the game, because of the IP and setting. I've said for a while now the most valuable thing GW has is their IP. The value of their rules and even models is going to decline I feel, but the value of the IP remains.
Mezmorki wrote: I wanted to share some more of my own thoughts on the topic of 40k evolution and how that dovetails with what ProHammer is striving to accomplish. This is a bit of a long read, and so I apologize in advance!
...
...
...
Your entire post explains the situation pretty well. I'd also like to add, that, funnily, for a euro-style boadgame fan, WH40K in its current form is a laughing stock when it comes to comparing it to sharp, state-of-the-art design philosophies of modern era board games. For all these failed attempts at making the game all the things at once it is surprisingly popular. Availability bias and cool models I guess? Sprinkled with excellent marketing
I have "pet comparison game" I often use in this context, which you may be familiar with given your flag. Neuroshima Hex is so much better war themed game, with all possible wargame concepts and mechanics distilled into the most abstract form, resulting in so much deeper gameplay that it is not even funny.
Its probably best not to go down the "compare 40k to a board game" rabbit hole because its too easy to say it's like comparing apples to oranges. I have to resist using War Of The Ring as an example of a simple system with deep mechanics and decision making all the time but it's too easily countered as an argument.
That said the worst board game I own is better designed than 40k. I wonder if the reason FFG lost the 40k license is because Forbidden Stars was the best 40k based game ever made?
I agree with the ease of countering and invoke Neuroshima only in abstract contexts of game design, but that being said, with the direction 8th and 9th went, the comparison to board games is now arguably a more valid one than a comparison to a proper, historical context of wargames like original Kriegspiel.
There's definitely a comparison to be made in terms of game design philosophy though. 40k is an archaic lumbering beast, stuck in it's old ways in terms of design, especially compared to how innovative, streamlined and fluid games have become in the last 10 years or so.
kirotheavenger wrote:I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.
Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".
So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.
I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.
kirotheavenger wrote:Availability bias for 40k is definitely the factor keeping it's success going imo.
For many people 40k is the only wargame available, I know many people that are interested in wargames but either won't try them or won't continue with them because the playerbase isn't there.
40k has a vice-grip on the playerbase, it's the only game I ever see consistently played anywhere. In my city there's at least 4 local clubs focusing on 40k, I'm lucky to get 4 people for any non-GW system (and all of those 4 will consider 40k their main game).
I see this sentiment over and over again and it makes me scratch my head.
As an old married guy who works long hours away from home during the week. war gaming has become my #1 hobby as such it is both something i enjoy for gameplay but also for social activity with others who share the same interests. sure, life happens and keeps us busy, but for the last 20+ years since i have been frequenting the FLGS scene i have made time to game every weekend. when i was single it was a couple days (usually Friday and Saturday night) a week, that eventually turned into one very long day (usually 12+ hours) one day a week because of those other responsibilities. back in the day it was mostly 40K and battletech, however as my other hobbies dropped off and i focused more on my wargaming hobbies i expanded into other systems for the sake of variety and shared/built this interest up within the local community. to the point that some nights we do nothing related to GW games but end up getting many games in every weekend.
I can list build anytime during the week, and i do, with the direct drive that i will be able to try them out the next coming game night that week. so, the idea of only playing a game every couple of weeks or months is an alien concept and would make me question my continued interest in the time, effort and resources i am putting into the hobby. if i just want a cool looking model to display on a shelf i have no need to buy squads of them. It also diminishes my drive to complete them. it took the covid lockdowns to get me to finish all my old gundam master grade kits, some of them nearly 20 years old, as i had nothing else to do. however, in that same space i have built more armies of minis for a dozen different game systems than i care to count because i had a reason to get them done in a timely manner so i could use them.
This is why i play older editions of 40K and so many old games GW doesn't support any more like BFG, because like all my other non-GW games i want game night to be a fun experience for all involved.
The current edition and game design direction GW has gone in isn't that. so, i no longer chase it, and i am willing to critically look at what GW is doing. i am a fan of the original setting not the current company. that is the only thing that keeps me playing with my huge collection of 40K minis.
Like I'm not trying to be a dick but I don't get your post. It seems like a long way around to saying "not my problem/works for me". You get to play your prefered way so it shouldn't be a problem for anyone else? And if they can't play their preferred way they just shouldn't play at all? Help me out here.
Sim-Life wrote: Like I'm not trying to be a dick but I don't get your post. It seems like a long way around to saying "not my problem/works for me". You get to play your prefered way so it shouldn't be a problem for anyone else? And if they can't play their preferred way they just shouldn't play at all? Help me out here.
I guess the question is.... if one had a group or could convince a group to play something other than the latest/current iteration of 40k, how many people would rather do that?
Generally speaking, if you want to play 40k at a store or some established group/meetup, most people are going to be playing 9th edition whether they like it or not. But how many of those people, if given the choice, would be willing or interested in playing something else (30k, old hammer, etc.) if given the opportunity. 9th edition generally seems favored by more competitive-players, whereas more simulation and narrative players seem more receptive to older editions.
I took Aphyon basically to be reporting on his experience. And I feel similarly that I was sold on the setting but am not sold on the current company.
Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.
About marketing and so on tho, sure, chasing the plastic crack dragon means spending money, and I suppose that it means spending more than someone who uses old codices with Prohammer rules, but things did not need to go this way. There is something needy about meta chasing mindsets and nothing wrong about that I guess but the point is that sort of neediness is easy for marketers to manipulate by E.g. blowing meta bubbles of incremental codex releases to force the churn and burn whombo combo trade offs for top table aspirants is an easy enough marketing strategy. There is a different set of needs characteristic of the sort of mindset represented by E.g. an Auticus or a Morki. Those are more complex, and perhaps a bit more difficult to deliver to, but I would imagine as profitable especially long term and without evaporating goodwill from established invested and as serious hobbyists.
* 40k and table top miniature games and home brew rule crafter
* Board game player and designer
* Strategy and 4X video game critic (past staff writer at explorminate.net) and player
A trend that's cut across of these different genres is a (mistaken IMHO) belief that complexity equals depth, and by extension that competitive dominance can be achieved by demonstrating one's ability to process complexity better than their fellow players.
But this growing complexity is almost always funneled through systems and gameplay devices based on optimization and logistics.
We see it in board games where the complexity of things continues to escalate with engine building / resource management / resource conversation games getting fantastically intricate. Increasingly these are being designed to also accommodate solo-play. Having other players at the table is no longer even a prerequisite for the game.
We see it in 4X and empire building strategy games where games are lauded despite being baroque puzzle boxes of moving numbers and very little to offer by way of actual strategy. For every legitimate tactical choice one faces, there are 100 small micro optimization steps to take.
And we see it in 40K - most clearly in 9th with the extensive and intricate layering of codex level rules and the interactions that emanate from it. It's a LOT of content and specific knowledge to parse and sort through and account for - but at the end of the day the actual gameplay, once you've leapt through the optimization hurdles, is as straight forward as ever.
I don't know how this trend reverses. I think in many ways there's something fundamental and human about people being inherently attracted to this escalation of complexity. One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.
Over at boardgamegeek.com, we started a guild last year for "OG-style" games - which was "Original German" style of games. Largely, the members there are reacting against the escalation of complexity and saying "wait a minute, these older German-style games that kicked this whole thing off, which focused way more on shared space and player interaction (and depth coming through that) is what we really after! How do I find more games like those?" It's been a great group to gel around this similar sort of reaction against complexity.
jeff white wrote: Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.
Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.
No1: I Iike where this thread is right now. Good points being made.
No2: Re "drive towards complexity" - I've long been viewing part of this drive as being associated with ease-of-dialogue surrounding gameplay. It can be hard to talk about tactics when you're dealing with spacial relationships and broader contexts involving multiple units. But it's really easy to talk about employing specific wargear, strats, unit abilities etc. There's a sort of soft drive for clutter because it makes for more dialogue and engagement.
Like try having a discussion about the game Go. Lol, you can do it, but it's pretty ephemeral unless you're really on top of the board situation.
jeff white wrote: Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.
Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.
Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.
I learned some important lessons from randomness, I think. I mean somehow in the early days it seemed that my dice had more 1s on them and they would always seem to show up at the worst times… my plans would fail because I failed a critical roll and everything would fall apart. I learned two things, one being it didn’t matter. Skilful gameplay is more than consistent winning, because we win everytime we have a good time and that has nothing to do with the luck of the dice and everything to do with how I dealt with it, which was poorly. So I ruined enough good times that way to finally learn my lesson. There is nothing random about winning in this way, because it happens every time. Oh yeah and two is it all started with me planning too much beforehand, deck building and then just not adjusting well. Expectations were too rigid. That attitude had to change.
Insectum7 wrote:Randomness is also more forgiveable when lethality is lower. When the stakes are high, bad luck feels worse.
Sim-Life wrote: Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.
I'd argue it's not the lethality per se, or even whether the game has lots of randomness or not. It's the distribution of outcomes.
A single 1D6 roll for who goes first, or roll to hit on your Super Death Laser (before it gets blown off the board and never gets a second shot) will inherently produce more swingy outcomes than rolling 20 dice per attack three turns in a row. The more lethal the game is, the fewer attacks your units get to make, and so there's less opportunity for a unit that flubbed its first shot to make up for it later.
The fewer rolls you make, and the stronger consequences those rolls produce on the game outcome, the more random the game ends up feeling. But a game can have lots of randomness without feeling unfair/arbitrary if the results are either tuned to avoid negative outcomes (eg a D6 roll for mission type, where if the missions are designed well, you aren't winning or losing on the basis of that roll), or if there are lots of opportunities for randomness to average out without snowballing early.
This touches on other issues of 40K's current design. You can lose turn 1 if you fail to do enough damage, or take too much damage, or flub some advance rolls, and then get walloped enough that a comeback is nigh-impossible. But that's only a thing because armies can regularly output their full combat potential on the first turn. A game with a more gradual escalation is less likely to be decided early by a couple of bad rolls, as it's less likely to immediately snowball. There's more opportunity for rolls to average out before the game is decided.
So there are a number of elements that combine to determine how 'random' a game ends up feeling; and they're not directly related to how much randomness it actually contains.
I feel like GW basically said "oh, so people want die rolls to be less swingy and random? let's add ALL THE DICE so they don't get a bunch of rolls that whiff all the time, and then let's add a bunch of re-rolls and bonuses to their rolls too!"
And like, sure that works but it's opened a lot of other problems too.
As I guy who is fortunate enough to be able to play 9th in a way that works for me, I haven't really engaged Prohammer, but reading your detailed post in this thread do have me taking it more seriously- there were things about previous editions of 40k I did enjoy, and of course, Prohammer would brin a lot of those back.
There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world. People often complain that strat use isn't "tactical"... but for me, knowing which strats to combine with which auras and how to not go overkill so that I maintain resources feels like more of a tactical thing than just having a better sense of spatial awareness than my opponent, so the the totally mundane, non-game related skill of being able to accurately estimate 24" gives me more of an advantage than a skill that can only be developed by engaging with the game.
Not a big deal- with my group, we could take Prohammer, and just like we do with 9th, we could say "Well we like the vast majority of the rules, but not this one, so lets just not use it."
The bigger issue for me is the limited model choices that are imposed by sticking with 3rd- 7th, and for some armies, dex choices too.
I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back. I don't know when Custodes and Knights got their dexes, and I happen to really like Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams for my Deathwatch. Harlequins might have a hard time. And for me, this was always the strong suit of 8th/9th- the absence of have/ have not armies. I can't think of any other edition where ALL faction rules where developed with the same amount of bells and whistles that have been available to Space Marines since second.
Prohammer mitigates SOME of the disparity by allowing a player to pick the best dex from the four year span. Even so, there are still going to be some factions left out.
Having said that, I still respect the time and effort you put into it, and I respect the amount of time and thought you put into your posts. You haven't entirely converted me yet, but I'm hearing you more clearly.
jeff white wrote: Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.
Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.
Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.
Sure, but BattleCON has no randomness to speak of.
There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world.
This is definitely worth pointing out (and is something that makes me skeptical of Prohammer's "objectives"). Does it also bring back guess weapons?
Because both of those things are deeply at odds with a simulationist approach, which would make the decision to include them appear like deference to tradition, or, worse, some sort of purity test for (a single hyper-niche, otherwise meaningless) skill.
I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back. I don't know when Custodes and Knights got their dexes, and I happen to really like Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams for my Deathwatch. Harlequins might have a hard time. And for me, this was always the strong suit of 8th/9th- the absence of have/ have not armies. I can't think of any other edition where ALL faction rules where developed with the same amount of bells and whistles that have been available to Space Marines since second.
Prohammer mitigates SOME of the disparity by allowing a player to pick the best dex from the four year span. Even so, there are still going to be some factions left out.
Our group doesn't use pro-hammer but a lot of Mezmorki's ideas also show up in the rules we do use-
We use base 5th but allow all codexes from editions 3-7th to be used
We import about 15 rules from other editions that fit better in 5th (including pre-measuring, and to Altruizine's point the actual rules for guess weapons from 3rd were dumb-mostly because they were taken directly from WHFB rules for cannons that bounced when they fired-. scatter dice +2d6 minus BS for direct fire makes for a much more reasonable approach given the setting)
To your point. as an old SOB Player and a GK player i will only use the demon hunter and witch hunter codexes as they best fit the fluff for an inquisitorial force. They also hard counter the 3.5 chaos codex that all the chaos players always choose.
As for the other factions, nobody is actually left out. by 7th ed all the "new" factions had a dex-sisters of silence/custodes (although most of their units were FW at the time), GSC, admech, deathwatch, and knights. the rest were already available to pick from-
.various flavors of space marines
.imperal guard
.demon hunters/GKs (5th ed but i hate that codex)
.witch hunters
.tau(kroot even had a chapter approved stand alone army)
.nids
.eldar
.dark eldar
.necrons
.chaos/demons
.orks
FW armies had DKOK, elysians, blood ravens, minotuars, corsair eldar, etc... in the IA books.
You can always use primaris minis as "counts as" in most cases without issue.
I have collected pretty much all my favorite versions of the above codexes (and IA books) for people to use if they do not have one. i think there are only 3 i do not personally own and regulars at the shop have those.
One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.
There is more truth to this little sentence than you realise. I think you need to be 'burned out' of the conpetitive game/complex game to really see it for what it's for. I can absolutely testify that this is my personal experience - loved wmh and infinity. Now I can barely look at them. The complexity I used to love is now something that actively keeps me away.
I remember ages ago, someone used the term 'post-competitive' to describe themselves. You've been there you've done that now you just want to dial it back and relax because ultimately you've got nothing left to prove to anyone at this point.
I also think age plays a role. We all want different things at different stages in our lives. With life experience etc you see things later and understand things better that you didn't see at the time.
One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.
There is more truth to this little sentence than you realise. I think you need to be 'burned out' of the conpetitive game/complex game to really see it for what it's for. I can absolutely testify that this is my personal experience - loved wmh and infinity. Now I can barely look at them. The complexity I used to love is now something that actively keeps me away.
I remember ages ago, someone used the term 'post-competitive' to describe themselves. You've been there you've done that now you just want to dial it back and relax because ultimately you've got nothing left to prove to anyone at this point.
I also think age plays a role. We all want different things at different stages in our lives. With life experience etc you see things later and understand things better that you didn't see at the time.
Age and how busy/complex your life is definitely play a factor.
I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back.
I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.
jeff white wrote: Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.
Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.
True. As a stoic I find it hard to be passionate about things out of my control (my reaction is "whatever" whether I roll extraordinary well or badly), but I see place for randomness in wargames. That said high variance, high impact rolls should just die (like "this cannon can blow up itself or kill a dragon in one shot")
Giving players tools for ruthless interaction is a perfect replacement for surplus RNG. Games like Food Chain Magnate, Game of Thrones or Imperial 2030 have amounts of uncertainty, drama and tension WH40K could only dream of, but it all comes from player interaction, because these games are entirely or almost entirely deterministic.
There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world.
This is definitely worth pointing out (and is something that makes me skeptical of Prohammer's "objectives"). Does it also bring back guess weapons?
Because both of those things are deeply at odds with a simulationist approach, which would make the decision to include them appear like deference to tradition, or, worse, some sort of purity test for (a single hyper-niche, otherwise meaningless) skill.
Why and how are these mechanics "deeply at odds with a simulationist approach"? I mean, do people get to pull out tape measures before they decide to engage with enemy A or B in real life? Range finders are a thing, but are their use always practical? What about smoky battlefields with chunks of flag and flesh blowing by in between unit X and enemies A and B? Might these interfere with such range finding? Terrain? Hills? Stubby scrubby brush, perhaps also blowing past in the explosions?
How is this a "hyper-niche" skill any more than say knowing to use 2 command points to play card Y now as opposed to later? Or, knowing to measure exactly 12.1" away from enemy unit A so that A cannot shoot friendly unit X? Or... any other thing involved in this game? What is wrong with practicing, so that one gets better at estimating ranges? Or, what is wrong with forcing players to err on the side of caution on way or the other, perhaps moving to within 11.9" range to use that pistol instead of measuring to stay exactly at that 11.9" line? Again, how "simulationist" is that, exactly?
I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back.
I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.
A trend that's cut across of these different genres is a (mistaken IMHO) belief that complexity equals depth, and by extension that competitive dominance can be achieved by demonstrating one's ability to process complexity better than their fellow players.
We have always summed it up as Complicated (lots of fiddly bits) vs Complex. Chess would be low complication, high complexity. 40k high complication, low complexity. The design for me is more reminiscent of magic than a wargame (or even their own wargames like warmaster or epic). But it seems to be the right choice. Magic is popular. The power up style is popular in online games. Maybe its just a case of the mainstream gamer wants something different to people who fall more on the traditional wargaming side, but the former are the majority?
Of course it could just be cyclical - maybe we are edging back to a version of the 70's/early 80's with the modern version of hordes of chits, tables and challenger 2000 wargames
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like GW basically said "oh, so people want die rolls to be less swingy and random? let's add ALL THE DICE so they don't get a bunch of rolls that whiff all the time, and then let's add a bunch of re-rolls and bonuses to their rolls too!"
And like, sure that works but it's opened a lot of other problems too.
I'm not sure really. The outcome range on say a unit which hits on 3s rerolling 1s and wounds on 3s rerolling 1s for some low save chance is going to be fairly tight.
You can then skew the stats so said unit "reliably" does about 25% of its points as damage - or 65%.
I don't think 40k has a problem because its too random. Clubs aren't (in my experience anyway) full of people exclaiming "Yahtzee" as they score 20+ 6s on say 25 dice.
The issue is on perfectly average dice the result is "I kill about 40-50% worth of points of your stuff as the unit I used". And an even slightly above average set of dice starts to just kill everything.
Why and how are these mechanics "deeply at odds with a simulationist approach"? I mean, do people get to pull out tape measures before they decide to engage with enemy A or B in real life? Range finders are a thing, but are their use always practical? What about smoky battlefields with chunks of flag and flesh blowing by in between unit X and enemies A and B? Might these interfere with such range finding? Terrain? Hills? Stubby scrubby brush, perhaps also blowing past in the explosions?
How is this a "hyper-niche" skill any more than say knowing to use 2 command points to play card Y now as opposed to later? Or, knowing to measure exactly 12.1" away from enemy unit A so that A cannot shoot friendly unit X? Or... any other thing involved in this game? What is wrong with practicing, so that one gets better at estimating ranges? Or, what is wrong with forcing players to err on the side of caution on way or the other, perhaps moving to within 11.9" range to use that pistol instead of measuring to stay exactly at that 11.9" line? Again, how "simulationist" is that, exactly?
Frankly, I do not see your point... enlighten me?
I agree that "no premeasuring" is unrealistic, so I'll give it a punt.
Yes, in real life I can't tell the exact distance to the enemy. But, say my rifle has 300m effective range, I can tell roughly if the enemy is 300m away. If they're actually 325m away my rifle won't lose really any power at all vs 300m. 300m is just the rough point where the slow degradation of effectiveness is deemed too low. If the enemy is 400m away and I genuinely can't hurt them much at all, well that'll be obvious enough.
But in 40k... 300m is "might as well be point blank", whereas 301m suddenly becomes "might as well be on another planet". That cliff edge is so sharp and totally unrealistic. Premeasuring is a level of abstraction that helps feather that edge and actually leads to a more realistic overall sense.
Not to mention in the 41st millenium most factions will have some of range sensor in their helmet.
The same applies to movement for much the same reason. In real life, I can get a rough estimation of how much time it'll take to run across the street. Also, whether it's 5m across or 7m across won't leave me exposed to enemy fire for much differing amounts of time.
But in a turn based game, 5" means I cross the gap and am never exposed to enemy fire at all. 7" (assuming I move 6") means I'm standing around in the open with my dick in my hand for the entire enemy army to shoot.
So again, it's a totally unrealistic cliff edge that premeasuring helps to smooth out a little.
Sometimes an individual rule, despite being more realistic itself, leads to a less realistic game as a result of interactions with rules around it. This is one such example.
If you wanted to implement no-premeasuring in a realistic way, you would need to add range degradation. It's something I've seen in a few historical games. Eg you hit on a 2+, with -1 for every 6" between you and the enemy. Then, if I estimate you're at the edge of my range, it's not a question of "full effectiveness or none at all" it's a question of "hitting on 6s or not at all" which isn't much of a difference and there's no huge swing for being slightly off.
Actually, Warhammer Fantasy used to have a rule to this rough effect. You got -1 to hit over half range. Which gave you a little dip before it hit the cliff at full range and dropped to nothing.
I do think estimating distances is more "meta" than knowing what strategems to use*. The latter is actually just knowing how to use the game rules. The former is something else entirely.
*But don't get me wrong, I despise strategems with a passion.
But estimating distances shouldn't be a part of the game.
I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.
I get you- like I said, I loved that dex for its time and there are still things about it that I really like- to aphyon's point, the Hunter books were the gold standard for Inquisition/ chamber militant armies... With the exception being Xenos Hunters, who didn't get a book before the reset button got punched (for which I STILL haven't forgiven GW).
I think I also almost like Witch Hunter AoF better too... But it's close. The powers laid out in the Witch Hunter book were great, and there's sort of an ease of use that isn't present given the versatility of the new system and its interactions with strats, traits and relics. I too loved the jump Cannoness AND melta Seraphim.
The units I'd miss most from the new dex:
Zephyrim- I feel like these complete the "Angelic Host" archetype. This would be so much stronger if we still had jump cannonesses... But I just love the ideas of a winged detachment, and sure, you can still get close to it with just Seraphim, but when you combine the two, it just feels more versatile and complete.
Mortifiers- This unit fills a big fluff space for me; the penitent engines were always so Ecclesiarchy in flavour, and I was always stretching to keep my penitent units together because the Repentia were the outsiders of the penitent units, being sororitas rather than Ecclesiarchy. Now that we have mortifiers, it feels like the penitent legion is conceptually complete- both the ecclesiarchy and the sororitas have a foot unit and a battlesuit unit. You can field a sororitas only Penitent legion (detachment).
Morvenn- It isn't so much Morvenn herself; it's the fact that the Abbess of the Sororitas has been given a model. It wouldn't even matter who the Abbess was, or how good her rules were to me- the fact is I want a model for that role for story reasons, and is an equality among factions issue.
The Triumph of Saint Katherine- I've posted in a couple of different threads about what the Triumph means to me- the way I use it is not as a model; instead, it's a campaign in a box. Admittedly, I could achieve the same campaign using Prohammer by doing a "Counts As" thing... But it just isn't as cool.
Cannoness Commanders/ Preceptors/ Superia- These aren't models or datacard entries- this is represented by the Blessings of the Faithful upgrade (well, unless you're OoOML, in which case GW DID actually give you a Cannoness superior). Again, this is a faction parity issue, as well as another model on the table and a storytelling tool.
But I would be a liar if I told you I never pull my WH dex of the shelf and wax nostalgic about loading up a hereticus inquisitor with a psyocculum and excruciators and building her a retinue to strike fear into the hearts of heretics across the galaxy. It's just that the Sororitas almost NEED the Inquisition to be complete in 3rd, and now they do not.
No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.
The concept of turning a miniatures game into a Living Card Game (LCG) was like a highly infectious STD carried by Fantasy Flight Games that was passed onto GW during their brief love affair. Strategems are the festering lesions of a gaming venereal disease, causing such irreparable damage to the minds of the playerbase that they now think they like it.
nou wrote: No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.
I disagree that sight measuring is any easier today than it was before.
Where ever you played? You knew how big the table was. Whatever the year, a 4x6/4x8 table is still 4x6/4x8.
Known base sizes. You think we didn't know what size bases our models were on in the past?
I'll ad to this that we also knew the dimensions of models/vehicles. My Chimeras haven't changed length/width in 25 years....
Terrain features of known dimensions. Same thing as with bases & tables. You learned the dimensions of the stuff in your terrain collection.
And yet people would marvel that I could reliably drop a Basilisk round within 1/4" (at most) difference of my "guess"....
Newsflash: There was no guessing. The table may as well have had a grid overlay on it. The inaccuracy was because I often didn't take more than a casual glance before stating my so-called guess.
Tokhuah wrote: The concept of turning a miniatures game into a Living Card Game (LCG) was like a highly infectious STD carried by Fantasy Flight Games that was passed onto GW during their brief love affair. Strategems are the festering lesions of a gaming venereal disease, causing such irreparable damage to the minds of the playerbase that they now think they like it.
This is your truth, your opinion, and I won't dispute it.
I played RPG's before table-top games, and I played Card games at roughly the same time. I always liked all 3. Sometimes I feel like pure RPG's or pure CCG's or pure Table-top games.
But most often I find a game that scratches all three itches at the same time to be the most fun. Again, that's MY truth, based on my preferences and my needs- I'm not trying to change your mind or invalidate your point of view. I just want to make it clear that it isn't the only point of view.
nou wrote: No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.
I disagree that sight measuring is any easier today than it was before.
Where ever you played? You knew how big the table was. Whatever the year, a 4x6/4x8 table is still 4x6/4x8.
Known base sizes. You think we didn't know what size bases our models were on in the past?
I'll ad to this that we also knew the dimensions of models/vehicles. My Chimeras haven't changed length/width in 25 years....
Terrain features of known dimensions. Same thing as with bases & tables. You learned the dimensions of the stuff in your terrain collection.
And yet people would marvel that I could reliably drop a Basilisk round within 1/4" (at most) difference of my "guess"....
Newsflash: There was no guessing. The table may as well have had a grid overlay on it. The inaccuracy was because I often didn't take more than a casual glance before stating my so-called guess.
2nd/3rd ed tables were relatively empty compared to today's overcrowded boards. Nowadays you can often literally just count the bases parallel to your line of fire. Back in the day you had to at least imagine those bases along the line so there was some room for miscalculation. And yes, you knew that the table was 6x4, but today I mostly play on a 6x4 table divided to a nice 2'x2' grid, often with a sub-grid of Zone Mortalis-like tiles. The board is almost literally a sort of tape measure.
jeff white wrote: Why and how are these mechanics "deeply at odds with a simulationist approach"? I mean, do people get to pull out tape measures before they decide to engage with enemy A or B in real life? Range finders are a thing, but are their use always practical? What about smoky battlefields with chunks of flag and flesh blowing by in between unit X and enemies A and B? Might these interfere with such range finding? Terrain? Hills? Stubby scrubby brush, perhaps also blowing past in the explosions?
For one thing, rangefinding IRL is a lot easier than I find wargamers tend to think it is. Parallax rangefinders on artillery pieces can determine distance through optical effects that aren't affected by smoke or terrain, magnified optics often have built-in rangefinders that use a ~1.8m reference height (ie, the average height of an enemy soldier), some optics have fancy compensatory solutions that ensure you don't need an accurate range measurement to score a hit. Plus if you have a topographical map of the area- let alone something integrated/electronic- it's not hard to work out distance that way.
For another, it's way more binary in 40K than it is in real life. In real life if I mistakenly guess a target to be at 300m when it's actually at 350m, I observe my fall of shot and compensate, and now I'm producing effective fire. A lot of guys never even use the range adjustment on their service rifles, because having a standard zero and applying holdover as needed is quicker and easier. In 40K, though, if I order a Guardsman squad to fire and the enemy turns out to be 24.1" away, their shots all disappear into the aether and do exactly nothing.
But most importantly: You don't expect me to pull out a BB gun and a silhouette to determine if a Guardsman hits his target or not, and you shouldn't expect me to apply my range estimation skills to determine where the Guardsman puts a shell. I'm the commander sitting in the TOC with a map layout of the battlespace, with adjutants and rulers on-hand to assess distances as needed, and providing fire orders to the artillery pieces. I'm not the guy sitting behind the breechloading artillery piece, working out the distance to target when that order comes down.
Edit: This also relates back to the discussion on randomness- it's not to everyone's taste, but I like games where you don't know who's going to be up for activation next or exactly how far your troops will get, because that's the commander's experience. You can issue orders, but you can't control whether your soldiers make it to where you're sending them, whether they hit their targets, or whether they deploy artillery correctly.
A well-built wargame will decide exactly who you are playing as, and set the abstraction and randomness accordingly. That said, it's a common conceit for the sake of fun to let you operate as two adjacent command echelons simultaneously, but more than that is often a sign that the game lacks coherent vision. For example, if you are playing as the company commander in charge of an overall force of several platoons, it's not uncommon for you to also play the role of the platoon commanders who decide where squads go- but you shouldn't be micromanaging individual soldiers.
Almost as if two people with different expectations for the game should be able to communicate their expectations and then draw up ideas how to have a fun game that doesn't involve the most hyper-tooled lists in existance...
Sure, but the bad-faith casual at all costs scrub isn't going to come to that negotiation trying to make sure their opponent has a fun time too.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's unfun when their opponent uses superior listbuilding and gameplay skills to beat them.
I'm talking about more games than just 40k here. Scrubby players exist in all game systems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Just to add on what AndromaderRake and Cyel wrote above, „superior listbuilding” and „superior game skills” rarely occur at the same time and more often than not „superior listbuilding” is a crutch that makes up for poor game skills.
Nah, good gameplay skills and good listbuilding usually go hand in hand.
Tokhuah wrote:The concept of turning a miniatures game into a Living Card Game (LCG) was like a highly infectious STD carried by Fantasy Flight Games that was passed onto GW during their brief love affair. Strategems are the festering lesions of a gaming venereal disease, causing such irreparable damage to the minds of the playerbase that they now think they like it.
nou wrote: No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.
I disagree that sight measuring is any easier today than it was before.
Where ever you played? You knew how big the table was. Whatever the year, a 4x6/4x8 table is still 4x6/4x8.
Known base sizes. You think we didn't know what size bases our models were on in the past?
I'll ad to this that we also knew the dimensions of models/vehicles. My Chimeras haven't changed length/width in 25 years....
Terrain features of known dimensions. Same thing as with bases & tables. You learned the dimensions of the stuff in your terrain collection.
And yet people would marvel that I could reliably drop a Basilisk round within 1/4" (at most) difference of my "guess"....
Newsflash: There was no guessing. The table may as well have had a grid overlay on it. The inaccuracy was because I often didn't take more than a casual glance before stating my so-called guess.
2nd/3rd ed tables were relatively empty compared to today's overcrowded boards.
{shrugs} That all depends on where you played/who you played with/what had available & what you set up.
We often built jungles, canyons, an entire swamp table once.... Cities (ruined & not). etc One person new to the shop commented "Where do you put the models? Wish I had some pics.
You look at todays tables & see overcrowded. I look at the average board & think it's too sparse.
nou wrote: Nowadays you can often literally just count the bases parallel to your line of fire. Back in the day you had to at least imagine those bases along the line so there was some room for miscalculation. And yes, you knew that the table was 6x4, but today I mostly play on a 6x4 table divided to a nice 2'x2' grid, often with a sub-grid of Zone Mortalis-like tiles. The board is almost literally a sort of tape measure.
So going back to something I feel that some of the issues with shooting would be balanced by range degredation. Perhaps -1 for every 6" would be a bit much, but -1 over half would at least push people to get closer to be more effective. Pair that with terrain modifiers to shooting amd not giving units direct access to to-hit modifiers so we don't see the return of -5 jank and I feel the system would feel more balance between ranged and shooting.
Obscuring itself is okay IMO, it's a cludge bandage to make up for the fact that if a building has windows (like all of GW's) they're almost useless for blocking LoS.
However, that combined with Breachable means infantry can quite happily hide behind a building, immune to any shooting, then suddenly rush forwards.
Another factor is also the extreme lethality of the game. You're either untargetable or you're dead. If cover was improved and lethality reduced to the point there was some kind of in-between, you could reach a less extreme solution as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: So going back to something I feel that some of the issues with shooting would be balanced by range degredation. Perhaps -1 for every 6" would be a bit much, but -1 over half would at least push people to get closer to be more effective. Pair that with terrain modifiers to shooting amd not giving units direct access to to-hit modifiers so we don't see the return of -5 jank and I feel the system would feel more balance between ranged and shooting.
Fireball Forward uses a funky system where you roll a range die in addition to your firepower dice. If the range die + your weapon's base range fails to equal or beat the actual range to target, the attack fails. For a rifle team a typical combo might be a 12" base range and a D20 as the range die, so you can generally expect to take fire if you're inside 18", but you could potentially get hit up to 32" away. It both neatly accounts for range and prevents the 'as long as I stay 30.1" away, he can't shoot me next turn' scenario.
Chain of Command gives rifles and machine guns an optimal range, but maximum range is unlimited. Your weapons are more effective up close, but at the scale of the game if you can see a unit, it's within the max range of a rifle. At first I was against that sort of mechanic, but after trying it out I have to say it's less 'hide out of LOS or you die' than 40K is, just because cover is actually effective as a means of reducing casualties. It also helps that the game's deployment system explicitly puts units out of LOS of one another until they get fairly close.
As far as simple solutions for 40K go, though, I was surprised that 9th Ed didn't adopt the Kill Team mechanic of obscuration being -1 and firing over half range being -1. I thought it was a simple way to produce less effective fire at range, particularly with how those factors stack to really incentivize use of cover at long range. Having defensive buffs leverage those mechanics (eg, 'this unit always counts as Obscured when over 12" away') rather than stack additional penalties on top might allow such a system to work without the current penalty capping.
Generally speaking I'd really like to see ranged combat not be so dependent on LOS-blocking terrain, particularly because that severely curtails movement. Ideally, I'd like a 'typical' table setup to have a couple of large pieces of terrain that vehicles/monsters can move around and infantry fight within, rather than be a maze of impassible barriers, and a return of hills (ie, terrain that limits LOS without limiting movement). There is just no good way to deploy a Leman Russ (let alone a Baneblade) on a table that looks like this.
kirotheavenger wrote: Obscuring itself is okay IMO, it's a cludge bandage to make up for the fact that if a building has windows (like all of GW's) they're almost useless for blocking LoS.
However, that combined with Breachable means infantry can quite happily hide behind a building, immune to any shooting, then suddenly rush forwards.
Another factor is also the extreme lethality of the game. You're either untargetable or you're dead. If cover was improved and lethality reduced to the point there was some kind of in-between, you could reach a less extreme solution as well.
I feel like 40k needs a garrisoning system like WHFB had and abstract the way LoS interacts with terrain. Like you simply can't see through any building, if the unit is garrisoning the building they can be shot at but get a bonus to their saves or something. TLoS causes more problems than it solves honestly.
Those who are obsessed with realistic stuff should love Gotcha moments then. In real life wars the opposing factions not always know the secret strategies, available assets, tools and synergies of the enemy. In fact even today the most powerful forces can't know everything about possible and actual enemies. Now imagine if we're talking about wars between alien factions. Seriously, getting caught by surprise by unknown factors is extremely realistic, we should love that!! .
Totally agree with others that "realistically" units would have sorts of range finders and stuff for target acquisition. And from a "desire for simulation fidelity" standpoint, I see the argument based on that for why pre-measuring should BE allowed.
But this is one of those topics where I said the ProHammer goals sometimes rub up against each other. From a scope standpoint, the idea is that you're playing the role of the battlefield commander and issuing orders. There's some degree of separation behind the player as the commander versus what an individual model on the ground is dealing with. So for instance, it might very well be your intent, as commander, to have Unit A shoot at Enemy X, and give orders to that effect. Only for your squad to fumble about and reply that the target it out of range, or they have no shot, etc. This notion of player as commander is ALSO why we like having declared fire (and declared charging). You're issuing your intent for what you want units to be doing and seeing how it all shakes out, rather than acting in some omnipotent manner where you can pause time and see how one unit's shooting went before deciding how the next unit will shoot. All of this is supposed to be happening simultaneously.
The above is approaching the issue from a fidelity standpoint, but there's also the gameplay / decision-making side to consider. Personally, with things like declared fire and no-premeasuring I like the uncertainty and ambiguity that the decision poses. It puts me, as the player-commander, into the position of having to make some gut-level decisions. I can't measure things out with perfect precision, I can't incrementally resolve firing to squeeze out and optimize ever shot. Sometimes I'll overshoot a target, and sometimes I'll undershoot it (and both of those outcomes contribute to reducing lethality by the way!).
This same gestalt-level, gut-decision making is also why we retained the IGOUGO turn structure. As a commander, you're having to devise an orchestrated plan of movement (these troops go here, this tank moves up and screen's them, these reserves come on over here, etc...) which then plays out all at once. These bigger sweeping movements provide more opportunity for the game state to swing and undulate, as oppose to an AA-type system where any isolated movement can be immediately countered at the next step. The AA-system becomes less about planning and big sweeping movement, and more about manipulation of activation order and fine grained tactical counter-plays.
On the broader topic of randomness....
For any given mechanic, it's a helpful experiment to view outcomes as binary state, ignoring the detailed percentages, and ask... is this mechanic or unit action something I want to work 100% of the time, none of the time, or in a 50/50 manner. What are the core functions and actions that a unit should be able to perform with a degree of reliability, and what are the actions where variability is warranted.
One example: I really dislike the 2D6" random charge distances introduced in 6th edition and carried through to 9th. Being able to charge a reliable distance and having the emphasis fall on the player to maneuver their unit so they are within that distance is a "core competency" of a melee-oriented unit. It's problematic, in my mind, when a unit randomly gets a terrible roll and can't at least do their basic function. It would be like saying that when you pick a unit to shoot, even through you are "in range" with your weapon, there's a 50% chance they'll actually be out of range, and you don't even get an option to make an attack roll. So for me, a random charge distance is a randomizing element that hinders the gameplay.
Anyway - I gotta bounce for now - but great discussion!
Blackie wrote: Those who are obsessed with realistic stuff should love Gotcha moments then. In real life wars the opposing factions not always know the secret strategies, available assets, tools and synergies of the enemy. In fact even today the most powerful forces can't know everything about possible and actual enemies. Now imagine if we're talking about wars between alien factions. Seriously, getting caught by surprise by unknown factors is extremely realistic, we should love that!! .
I love games with fog of war. There are scenarios you can get in double-blind games that would never occur in a typical perfect-information game.
But getting caught out by an unexpected rule in a game that doesn't have fog of war and does allow perfect information of the battlefield is a 'gotcha', and that's not fun. It should be the other player that takes you by surprise, not the game designers. If I'm not supposed to know the capabilities of the enemy, that should be a by-design part of the game, not a result of the game being too damn complicated to remember all the rules.
But in real life opposing factions might not have the same tools from the beginning. One faction might be super technological with tons of knowledge (like the player who knows by heart every single codex), the other faction might just have a basic or even underdevolped intelligence section. In real life opposing factions don't fight with the same rules, resources, knowledge, etc... so it's not realistic to put everyone on the same level.
An AM commissar, even the most skilled and experienced one, might completely ignore about the enemy gotcha stratagem/relic/etc... can't possibly know about everything he could face in the galaxy, and that's very realistic I think. Getting wiped out by a "gotcha mechanic" from an horde of tyranids or any other enemy faction is even fluffy. Maybe not enjoyable, and in fact I even dislike too much realism in a game like 40k. But those who want realism at all cost should appreciate that.
I certainly don't defend gotchas, although I think people overreact about them and there aren't that many in the game, I'm just arguing that some people want realism only if that fits their agenda. They don't really want more realism, just some clunky mechanics that they preferred over current ones, arguing that they should return in the name of realism. Abstraction is typically much better than realism.
I love games with fog of war. There are scenarios you can get in double-blind games that would never occur in a typical perfect-information game.
But getting caught out by an unexpected rule in a game that doesn't have fog of war and does allow perfect information of the battlefield is a 'gotcha', and that's not fun. It should be the other player that takes you by surprise, not the game designers. If I'm not supposed to know the capabilities of the enemy, that should be a by-design part of the game, not a result of the game being too damn complicated to remember all the rules.
There is 'random' and 'ran-dumb'. Hidden info and fog of war can be awesome. Best game we ever played was a Home brewed flames of war (tanks and anti tank guns only) game with ^squint^ historical accuracy.
Germans (attackers) versus Russians (defenders).
Rosters were historically accurate-ish. Russians were t-34s mainly, germans had some tigers but mainly mk3 and mk4 panzers.
Russians had a 'hidden deployment' so units didn't start on the map. Locations were marked on a hand drawn map based on the board. I had to advance into an unknown deployment/unknown # of forces and seize thr village crossroads at the centre of the map (we are good enough at eyeballing matching forces that putting together a 'fair' contest was straight forward).
The idea was the German attackers had to use their mk3 and mk4s as 'recon' units as they were used tactically in the war with the tigers as the big punchers; I couldn't just attack with everything; as an attacker I had limited resources I had to husband carefully. My recon units could attempt to 'spot' Russians if it was reasonable to expect they could see them (ie they got close etc)instead of shooting. Russians would reveal themselves by shooting (ambush). However communications would have to get relayed back and Germans could only shoot discovered/revealed Russians on the next turn.
Anyway I was ze Germans and fog of war killed me (in a good way!). Left flank I advanced slowly and ended up in a stand off with Russians hidden in cover. Was losing slowly. Or at least was losing units in the firefight that tactically/logistically was silly. I Saw what I thought was an opening on the right and wheeled my right flank into the forces facing my left. Yeah, i didn't recon. Thought it was safe. Sure I did my awesome tactical wheel in front of a whole bloody russian tank squadron qt 12" that then revealed itself and had a 'turkey shoot' at my expense. Ive never hoped for 1s so much in my life! Somehow survived with some tanks, pulled back both flanks since it was obvious attacking both flanks would just get me murdered pointlessly, regrouped, concentrated on olthr right flank and took it with some luck, wheeled again and took out the original forces that had blocked my left.
My god, what a game. Tense, exciting, evocative and most of all, it felt authentic. It genuinely felt like this is something that could have happened to a German tank platoon in ze war.
Blackie wrote: But in real life opposing factions might not have the same tools from the beginning. One faction might be super technological with tons of knowledge (like the player who knows by heart every single codex), the other faction might just have a basic or even underdevolped intelligence section. In real life opposing factions don't fight with the same rules, resources, knowledge, etc... so it's not realistic to put everyone on the same level.
An AM commissar, even the most skilled and experienced one, might completely ignore about the enemy gotcha stratagem/relic/etc... can't possibly know about everything he could face in the galaxy, and that's very realistic I think. Getting wiped out by a "gotcha mechanic" from an horde of tyranids or any other enemy faction is even fluffy. Maybe not enjoyable, and in fact I even dislike too much realism in a game like 40k. But those who want realism at all cost should appreciate that.
I certainly don't defend gotchas, although I think people overreact about them and there aren't that many in the game, I'm just arguing that some people want realism only if that fits their agenda. They don't really want more realism, just some clunky mechanics that they preferred over current ones, arguing that they should return in the name of realism. Abstraction is typically much better than realism.
You're confusing realism with simulation. Reductio ad absurdum also.
In addition to what kirotheavenger and catbarf said about "no premeasuring" potentially being anti-simulationist, there is also this:
"No premeasuring" totally flattens the battle-sense of every unit on the board and turns it into a single measure. For every unit that quality become an extension of the player's ability to estimate range on a 2D plane. From an elite Space Marine to a Grot, who has never held a gun, they're all at the mercy of the player 2D spatial accuracy.
It kind of reminds me of a bugbear from roleplaying games; that is, the tabletop expression of an "intelligent" character (who may be being played by a flesh-and-blood human who is distinctly not a once-per-generation intellectual titan). The mechanics of the game should offer opportunities to express that intellect.
And a wargame should do the same. Troops should be expected to engage successfully most of the time, without the intermediate step of playing a personal guessing game. One player's marines should not have better fire discipline than another player's marines because one player is better at estimating range.
Although I would also be totally cool with a system that integrated pre-measuring with unit characteristics, like having to take a leadership test to measure something to/from a unit, or use your warlord's LD for measurements between random points on the table.
Obviously 40K is different things to different people, each with their own biases and expectations for a war game. The trick I suppose is to find that balance based upon your game environment. What rules, armies, terrain, time and other players are on hand to make it a worthwhile experience for you? Each answer is likely unique to each individual. It's not so much as to what is wrong to players, but what is more right.
We don't pre-measure in our game either. Not because it's more or less realistic, but because pre-measuring feels wrong to us. A squad moving through a ruined city breaks out into a plaza with enemies all around and they somehow have time to find the optimal firing solution for every target?? Nah, lack of pre-measuring helps to capture the feel of snap decisions required in short time increments under duress. If people complain about the lack of realism there why don't they complain about not being able to shoot at a target 25" away with their 24" range weapon? The game is often more art than science, and that's ok.
@ Mezmorki - we tried determining fire at targets ahead of shooting but it didn't work out for us because it actually took more time. It makes sense on several levels, but our staunchest proponent of it was also our slowest player at the time and he insisted on using colored chits or ones with symbols to help keep track of what was shooting what. It became a mess that wasn't worth the effort. Perhaps if we just set dice next to the targets with the proper pip showing to indicate which unit is firing would be better. What do you guys do?
A few pages back there was a brief discussion on twin-linking. We've always just used the old rule of granting a reroll to hit. It was suggested that it should also be a reroll to wound or even a reroll for armor saves. In this case gut feel is not the best way to gauge the efficacy of a rule change, but math is. Do people realize that rerolling to hit and wound is often better than simply two shots? If that is the effect people want, that's fine but I'd rather use a mechanic that is better than just the reroll but not as good as two shots. HBMC's model of giving and extra hit on a natural 6 works best in my opinion finding that middle zone, so I'll propose that to my group.
If I'm not supposed to know the capabilities of the enemy, that should be a by-design part of the game, not a result of the game being too damn complicated to remember all the rules.
I think it very much is by design. I think the reason GW thought it was okay to give every army in the game 3-4 pages of strats, and give bespoke names to them rather than giving them common names is that it absolutely is their design philosophy that you're not supposed to try and memorize all the strats in the dex of every possible opponent. And I'm willing to bet that game designers think it's bat$#!+ crazy that some players think that they are supposed to memorize all the strats of every possible opponent.
But getting caught out by an unexpected rule in a game that doesn't have fog of war and does allow perfect information of the battlefield is a 'gotcha', and that's not fun. It should be the other player that takes you by surprise, not the game designers.
The intention of the designers shouldn't make the experience of not knowing something feel different. I'm not sure about the exact mechanism of the fog of war rule, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- maybe there is something within that mechanism that does make it feel different than when you get caught of guard by a strat. Could you clarify?
But getting caught out by an unexpected rule in a game that doesn't have fog of war and does allow perfect information of the battlefield is a 'gotcha', and that's not fun. It should be the other player that takes you by surprise, not the game designers.
The intention of the designers shouldn't make the experience of not knowing something feel different. I'm not sure about the exact mechanism of the fog of war rule, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- maybe there is something within that mechanism that does make it feel different than when you get caught of guard by a strat. Could you clarify?
Imo because the mechanics or abilities of Strats are often kind of bizarre, but maybe more because there's no "unknowns" for the player enacting the Strat, while the "victim" of the Strat can be caught off guard. When people are using Fog of War mechanics I imagine both players are acting with uncertainty, and if one player manages an advantageous situation there's usually either more forethought or outright luck involved. The perception is that one is more "meritable", possibly.
amanita wrote: Do people realize that rerolling to hit and wound is often better than simply two shots?
After running a couple combinations of numbers I find this hard to believe. Am I missing something?
amanita wrote: Do people realize that rerolling to hit and wound is often better than simply two shots?
After running a couple combinations of numbers I find this hard to believe. Am I missing something?
6+ to-hit and to-wound.
With 2 shots, you get 18 rounds of firing for one wound.
With 1 shot, rerolling hits and wounds, you need around 11.
Now, if that's 5+/6+, then it's 9 rounds of firing 2 shots for one wound, or 6 for 1 shot rerolling.
So under EXTREME circumstances, yes, you can actually do better than doubling your shots based on rerolls. Such as Guardsmen shooting Lasguns at a T6+ model through Dense Cover. Except Lasguns aren't Twinlinked.
One of things I want to bring up design wise is simulation versus abstraction. Simulation tries to emulate all the details while the abstraction tries to emulate the general idea and feel of something. I feel 40k works best leaning towards abstraction over simulation, mainly because the further towards simulation you go the more into the weeds you have to go and the slower the game plays.
Now I'm not claiming it should go full abstract (if we did that we might as well just go play Risk or Statego or a number of abstracted war based traditional games), but that the rules should aim more towards capturing the feel of something while not trying to make players count all the grains of sand on Armageddon just to play the game.
kirotheavenger wrote: 9th already leans quite heavily into melee doesn't it, based on terrain rules and objective scoring.
Only on sufficiently obscurring terrain dense tables.
Honestly I'd like obscurring to go away because it's made terrain too binary in that people want to be behind it but almost never in or on it.
I just miss cover saves. It was straightforward, and you either had them or didn't.
The current mess is a result of GW trying to hard with terrain and failing badly. Not at realism, but at trying to do too much with it and trying to force GW brand terrain kits rather than the former (more realistic) concession that they'll never know what terrain real people are using (or how they're using it).
The pages of this that and the other cover and examples of what might have which rules is just a failure.
kirotheavenger wrote: 9th already leans quite heavily into melee doesn't it, based on terrain rules and objective scoring.
Only on sufficiently obscurring terrain dense tables.
Honestly I'd like obscurring to go away because it's made terrain too binary in that people want to be behind it but almost never in or on it.
I just miss cover saves. It was straightforward, and you either had them or didn't.
The current mess is a result of GW trying to hard with terrain and failing badly. Not at realism, but at trying to do too much with it and trying to force GW brand terrain kits rather than the former (more realistic) concession that they'll never know what terrain real people are using (or how they're using it).
The pages of this that and the other cover and examples of what might have which rules is just a failure.
I like *most* of the cover system. My issue is with how obscuring works honestly. It feels off for the setting, especially when even the most basic weapon can punch holes right through concrete walls and shoot at people you think might be at the other side.
Everything feels off. Walls are impermeable to some units, but not others, sometimes height of the terrain matters (but different heights), some things can never not be seen, even if they're smaller than other things that aren't seeable, heavy cover rather bizarrely protects attackers in melee not defenders, hills exist, but aren't terrain (somehow), but affect LOS, buildings exist, but roofs are apparently vortices into the netherworld and can't be used, difficult ground affects maximum movement rather than Movement, and 'common' terrain features basically got a d6 roll of how many random traits would be assigned.
Blackie wrote:But in real life opposing factions might not have the same tools from the beginning. One faction might be super technological with tons of knowledge (like the player who knows by heart every single codex), the other faction might just have a basic or even underdevolped intelligence section. In real life opposing factions don't fight with the same rules, resources, knowledge, etc... so it's not realistic to put everyone on the same level.
If you want to simulate that, put it in the game. It's utter nonsense if a tribe of backwoods feral Orks who have never seen an outsider somehow has perfect intelligence on the invasion force (because their player knows the game inside and out), while the Space Marine force, veterans of a thousand battles, has no idea what the Orks are capable of (because the player is new to the game).
It's doubly nonsense if the game is designed around perfect information- there is no rule against me asking to see your codex, asking to see your army list, or going on Wahapedia to look up the rules, all whenever I want. Getting caught out by rules gotchas isn't a simulationist mechanism, nor a deliberate gameplay mechanic; it's the result of a game that's too complicated for its own good combined with real-world constraints on pausing play to look up the rules.
At a very basic level, which idea do you prefer: That the game designers know all the rules they're writing and so are playing with better information than the players, biasing their playtesting outcomes; or that they don't know all their rules either?
PenitentJake wrote:I'm not sure about the exact mechanism of the fog of war rule, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt- maybe there is something within that mechanism that does make it feel different than when you get caught of guard by a strat. Could you clarify?
Getting surprised because I assumed the face-down counter was a platoon of infantry, when it turned out to be a platoon of Tiger tanks, is fun. I got outplayed by my opponent through a mechanic designed into the game.
Getting surprised because I was trying to get on with the game instead of dragging it out by asking to see my opponent's codex every five minutes just to make sure I'm not about to run into a relevant stratagem or special ability is not fun. I got surprised because I didn't know the rules of the game we're playing.
Losing games because you didn't know the rules you were playing by isn't fun.
amanita wrote: Do people realize that rerolling to hit and wound is often better than simply two shots?
After running a couple combinations of numbers I find this hard to believe. Am I missing something?
6+ to-hit and to-wound.
With 2 shots, you get 18 rounds of firing for one wound.
With 1 shot, rerolling hits and wounds, you need around 11.
Now, if that's 5+/6+, then it's 9 rounds of firing 2 shots for one wound, or 6 for 1 shot rerolling.
So under EXTREME circumstances, yes, you can actually do better than doubling your shots based on rerolls. Such as Guardsmen shooting Lasguns at a T6+ model through Dense Cover. Except Lasguns aren't Twinlinked.
It doesn't have to be extreme at all.
A 4+ roll has a 50% chance of success. A 4+ roll with a reroll has a 75% chance of success.
Two shots, hitting on 4+ and wounding on 4+, average 0.5 wounds.
One shot, hitting on 4+ with rerolls and wounding on 4+ with rerolls, averages 0.75 * 0.75 = 0.5625 wounds average.
So even if you're succeeding on 4s, it's better to get full rerolls than to double your shots.
kirotheavenger wrote: 9th already leans quite heavily into melee doesn't it, based on terrain rules and objective scoring.
Only on sufficiently obscurring terrain dense tables.
Honestly I'd like obscurring to go away because it's made terrain too binary in that people want to be behind it but almost never in or on it.
I just miss cover saves. It was straightforward, and you either had them or didn't.
The current mess is a result of GW trying to hard with terrain and failing badly. Not at realism, but at trying to do too much with it and trying to force GW brand terrain kits rather than the former (more realistic) concession that they'll never know what terrain real people are using (or how they're using it).
The pages of this that and the other cover and examples of what might have which rules is just a failure.
Bingo
9th ed terrain rules were an attempt by GW to make up for the fact that the 8th ed terrain rules were basically non existent.
The terrain height of 9th VS area terrain and solid terrain of pre-8th is a personal gripe of mine. when it takes an entire paragraph in the main rule book to explain heavy cover so that tourney players will not abuse it. there is a problem with the game design.
The idea of AP reduction and wonky terrain modifiers is lifted directly from WHFBs, there are many reasons why i didn't play it and that is one of them.
All or nothing saves, hard cover saves and true blocking LOS terrain helped reduce the lethality of turn 1 alpha strikes and promoted player interaction with the terrain.
The real problem always lies with the lack of adequate amounts of terrain in most games prior to 8th especially at tournaments.
For 40K i like how it works prior to 8th, 8th even works on a macro scale for enormous battles (we use it for our epic rules). i also enjoy other games that use more and less complex rules. Dust is a throwback to 4th ed terrain rules (it's Andy Chambers so not a surprise) all area terrain block LOS unless you are in it and within 4" of an edge to look/shoot out, infinity uses a modifier to hit that also boosts saves so long as you are actively using the terrain (up against it and the shots must travel across the terrain piece to the target). in battletech it provides a to hit modifier or completely blocks LOS based on height of the terrain. additionally hits that land on the obscured area of the target hit the terrain instead.
If I'm not supposed to know the capabilities of the enemy, that should be a by-design part of the game, not a result of the game being too damn complicated to remember all the rules.
Another factor in "strats vs fog of war" is that in fog of war your opponent is still playing by the same rules. You know exactly what the capabilities of his units are, just not how he's using them.
Strats are different, strats inherently change what a unit is.
"Oh you thought you were out of charge range? Surprise, I can actually run faster than an aircraft"
"Oh you thought these were weak peashooters? Surprise, they're actually most of the way to anti-tank guns".
As for cover, it's really difficult to implement and I'm not a fan of either system. In fact, I'm not sure of a good way to implement cover to 40k.
To-hit modifiers? Only works when armies have fairly consistent to hit requirements. But you have entire armies of BS5, which will get entirely screwed by even a -1 to hit and entire armies of BS2 or 3, which won't care that much about a measly -1. So that would be a poor system.
Invulnerable saves? (Eg old 40k) now cover is either absolutely useless or absolutely critical, depending on how good your armour and the incoming fire is.
Armour modifiers (eg current 40), same as to-hit modifiers armour sways so heavily it's impossible to find a good average. I do like that high penetration weapons can punch through cover better than small arms though, that feels realistic. And that ignores-cover can be useful even on lower AP weapons.
For something like Horus heresy, where armies are more similar, I would prefer to-hit modifiers.
For 40k, I think Invulnerable saves is the only practicable option, although it's not a good option.
If you want to simulate that, put it in the game. It's utter nonsense if a tribe of backwoods feral Orks who have never seen an outsider somehow has perfect intelligence on the invasion force (because their player knows the game inside and out), while the Space Marine force, veterans of a thousand battles, has no idea what the Orks are capable of (because the player is new to the game).
I can put it this way: to me it's utter nonsense that a player that is new to the game is supposed to lead veterans of a thousand battle if we're going down to the realism route. His SM would just be rookies. All SM had to be rookies at some point, right? The feral orks might have got shamans to read enemies's mind or even predict the future and get perfect knowledge of the upcoming battle, instead . All very fluffy and realistic.
You're confusing realism with simulation. Reductio ad absurdum also.
Not me. I vastly prefer abstraction over realism. Simulation and realism comes together. There's no simulation without realism, that's the whole point of simulation. That's why I can't consider a wargame a simulation of war and I hope no one sugggests (or desires) otherwise. We can have some realism without turning the game into a simulation though. I just think that some mechanics don't add any realism, they're simply liked by some players who justify their tastes behind realism, when it's actually immersion at most.
I'm going to jump in here again to make a point about false dichotomies; there's a big difference between realism (the property of accurately simulating reality) and verisimilitude (the property of seeming to simulate reality). Trying to make 40k accurately simulate reality is a fool's errand; it's not reality, it's over-the-top sci-fi with chainsaw swords and space wizards. The problem 40k has, from a verisimilitude standpoint, is that there are a lot of things about the game and the setting that aren't consistent with the rules. For example: There are tanks in 40k. They're big, chunky, armored, probably take a lot of resources to put together in-setting. But they're also incredibly squishy and die very quickly in the game. So that raises the question of why the tanks exist at all? They're almost universally armed with a boatload of weapons you could get on other platforms, and even when they have their own heavier weapons they're often outperformed by massed infantry weapons. They die as fast as or faster than infantry. They're a little faster than infantry, but not so fast as actual fast units. If you look at just how they function in the game there's no reason for there to be tanks at all, and yet they exist in the setting, which is where verisimilitude starts to be a problem. It's not about whether it's realistic or not, it's about whether the rules seem to represent the lore.
As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that era.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
amanita wrote: Do people realize that rerolling to hit and wound is often better than simply two shots?
After running a couple combinations of numbers I find this hard to believe. Am I missing something?
6+ to-hit and to-wound.
With 2 shots, you get 18 rounds of firing for one wound.
With 1 shot, rerolling hits and wounds, you need around 11.
Now, if that's 5+/6+, then it's 9 rounds of firing 2 shots for one wound, or 6 for 1 shot rerolling.
So under EXTREME circumstances, yes, you can actually do better than doubling your shots based on rerolls. Such as Guardsmen shooting Lasguns at a T6+ model through Dense Cover. Except Lasguns aren't Twinlinked.
It doesn't have to be extreme at all.
A 4+ roll has a 50% chance of success. A 4+ roll with a reroll has a 75% chance of success.
Two shots, hitting on 4+ and wounding on 4+, average 0.5 wounds.
One shot, hitting on 4+ with rerolls and wounding on 4+ with rerolls, averages 0.75 * 0.75 = 0.5625 wounds average.
So even if you're succeeding on 4s, it's better to get full rerolls than to double your shots.
Oh yeah look at that! How interesting. (I used a wrong base number for my math)
You can consider rerolls as an extra attack if you fail.
In that light it's perhaps a little more obvious that when your chances to fail are very high, you get a lot of bonus attacks.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'm going to jump in here again to make a point about false dichotomies; there's a big difference between realism (the property of accurately simulating reality) and verisimilitude (the property of seeming to simulate reality). Trying to make 40k accurately simulate reality is a fool's errand; it's not reality, it's over-the-top sci-fi with chainsaw swords and space wizards. The problem 40k has, from a verisimilitude standpoint, is that there are a lot of things about the game and the setting that aren't consistent with the rules. For example: There are tanks in 40k. They're big, chunky, armored, probably take a lot of resources to put together in-setting. But they're also incredibly squishy and die very quickly in the game. So that raises the question of why the tanks exist at all? They're almost universally armed with a boatload of weapons you could get on other platforms, and even when they have their own heavier weapons they're often outperformed by massed infantry weapons. They die as fast as or faster than infantry. They're a little faster than infantry, but not so fast as actual fast units. If you look at just how they function in the game there's no reason for there to be tanks at all, and yet they exist in the setting, which is where verisimilitude starts to be a problem. It's not about whether it's realistic or not, it's about whether the rules seem to represent the lore.
Well to the point about tanks, at least in 2nd edition tanks were MUCH faster than infantry (A Land Raider could move maybe 20" a turn, a Space Marine maxxed 8" when Running). Could seal occupants againts things like gas attacks, and usually had Targeters on their weapons for better accuracy, and were completely immune to small arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
The Superheavy before Superheavies. Old school Monolith is best Monolith.
Blackie wrote: I can put it this way: to me it's utter nonsense that a player that is new to the game is supposed to lead veterans of a thousand battle if we're going down to the realism route. His SM would just be rookies. All SM had to be rookies at some point, right? The feral orks might have got shamans to read enemies's mind or even predict the future and get perfect knowledge of the upcoming battle, instead . All very fluffy and realistic.
Are you trolling? That's an asinine take. How about we make Astartes players take tren, because you can't have biologically modified super soldiers unless you, yourself, have augmented athletic performance. It's an idiotic idea.
Like you're so firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory with game design I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to explain things to you...
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
I've never seen Land Raiders ran EVER since I've been playing in 3rd
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
I've never seen Land Raiders ran EVER since I've been playing in 3rd
The Crusader was popular with some Templar players, but honestly none of the variants really ever saw mass adoption.
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
I've never seen Land Raiders ran EVER since I've been playing in 3rd
The Crusader was popular with some Templar players, but honestly none of the variants really ever saw mass adoption.
You never saw the mass Vulkan He’Stan and a trio of Redeemers in 5th? Cause I did several times.
Been playing since 2nd and saw loads of Land Raiders in 3rd when the kit came out and beyond.
Re premeasuring, CCS said it well I think.
Aminita also and blind mage, sim. In accord.
My orks rush into the ruined square covered in thick smoke, fluttering pieces of trash and bits of exploded banners floating over the craters, and spot some shadowy movement in the rubble in two different areas. They decide to first use their range finding Morker-lights to discover that more of the unit’s sluggas are in range of the firewarrior team on the left than on the right. Then, they all decide to fire at that unit in concert. Glorious…re roll ones, and using my Vengeance of Gork strat paying 3 cp, they are now able to fire also at the firewarriors on the right. … yeay. Some talented orks.
Or..
My orks move into the ruined square, see movement, and to be sure to get as many shots as possible, advance as far as possible toward what appears to be nearest while trying to keep in cover as well as possible. They fire their sluggas into that unit at their earliest and best opportunity, X are within range. Minus to hit for obscuring terrain including smoke and ruins… Rolling…
For me, I like something closer to the second scenario.
Insectum7 wrote: The Superheavy before Superheavies. Old school Monolith is best Monolith.
Imperial Armour Super Heavy rules predate the 3rd Ed Necron Codex by 2 years.
Well ok. . . "Mainline" 40K Superheavy. I mean, I played the Armorcast Reaver Titan back in 2nd and I got a White Dwarf with a paper pattern for a Baneblade from Rogue Trader too Monolith was in-codex and pickup-game/tourney usable. Superheavies weren't really mainstreamed into 40K until 6th iirc.
jeff white wrote: Re premeasuring, CCS said it well I think. Aminita also and blind mage, sim. In accord.
My orks rush into the ruined square covered in thick smoke, fluttering pieces of trash and bits of exploded banners floating over the craters, and spot some shadowy movement in the rubble in two different areas. They decide to first use their range finding Morker-lights to discover that more of the unit’s sluggas are in range of the firewarrior team on the left than on the right. Then, they all decide to fire at that unit in concert. Glorious…re roll ones, and using my Vengeance of Gork strat paying 3 cp, they are now able to fire also at the firewarriors on the right. … yeay. Some talented orks.
Or..
My orks move into the ruined square, see movement, and to be sure to get as many shots as possible, advance as far as possible toward what appears to be nearest while trying to keep in cover as well as possible. They fire their sluggas into that unit at their earliest and best opportunity, X are within range. Minus to hit for obscuring terrain including smoke and ruins… Rolling…
For me, I like something closer to the second scenario.
I feel like it's important to point out that orks work like the second scenario currently, and not like the first one...
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
I've never seen Land Raiders ran EVER since I've been playing in 3rd
The Crusader was popular with some Templar players, but honestly none of the variants really ever saw mass adoption.
The reason for this was the following vehicle rule since 3rd:
"You move, you suck."
Only vehicles which could somehow work around this limitation were of use.
Blndmage wrote: As an oldcron player, I fondly remember the time when the Monolith was the biggest and toughest thing in the game, seeing one was rare, but they were terrifying.
The Landraider and variants being the next toughest, about double the frequency as Monoliths.
I miss that area.
I could see things getting rebalanced and having the lower point/PL brackets be something like the old Movie Marines, but for everyone.
I've never seen Land Raiders ran EVER since I've been playing in 3rd
The Crusader was popular with some Templar players, but honestly none of the variants really ever saw mass adoption.
The reason for this was the following vehicle rule since 3rd:
"You move, you suck."
Only vehicles which could somehow work around this limitation were of use.
The Land Raider had Machine Spirit though, actually making it one of the few vehicles which could move and still fire at full/high effect.
kirotheavenger wrote: Normal rules said if you moved you could only fire 1 weapon accurately. PotMS let that be 2. A Landraider had 3-4 major weapons.
I saw Landraiders semi-regularly. Although at that time we were all kids/newbies just bumbling along running what was cool.
The memory can is a little rusty, but for at least a while the LR could fire the Heavy Bolter as well because it was only S5 and counted as a "defensive weapon". The Crusader on the other hand could fire the Hurricane Bolters because they were S4, and then fire the Assault Cannon and Multimelta as the Heavy Weapons they were.
One of my favorite lists of 3rd had two LRs in it. I certainly incorporated them into a few lists in each edition, but it was increasingly rare 5th onward since LOS blocking terrain got more rare.
Yep, S5 is defensive weapons so LRs could do 2 S6+ heavy guns on the move and split fire Thanks to POTMS. you paid for it though at a 250-point starting cost without upgrades.
jeff white wrote: Re premeasuring, CCS said it well I think.
Aminita also and blind mage, sim. In accord.
My orks rush into the ruined square covered in thick smoke, fluttering pieces of trash and bits of exploded banners floating over the craters, and spot some shadowy movement in the rubble in two different areas. They decide to first use their range finding Morker-lights to discover that more of the unit’s sluggas are in range of the firewarrior team on the left than on the right. Then, they all decide to fire at that unit in concert. Glorious…re roll ones, and using my Vengeance of Gork strat paying 3 cp, they are now able to fire also at the firewarriors on the right. … yeay. Some talented orks.
Or..
My orks move into the ruined square, see movement, and to be sure to get as many shots as possible, advance as far as possible toward what appears to be nearest while trying to keep in cover as well as possible. They fire their sluggas into that unit at their earliest and best opportunity, X are within range. Minus to hit for obscuring terrain including smoke and ruins… Rolling…
For me, I like something closer to the second scenario.
I feel like it's important to point out that
orks work like the second scenario currently, and not like the first one...
I should have made more clear that the first scene implies pre measuring (Morker lights) while the second does not.
catbarf wrote: If you want to simulate that, put it in the game. It's utter nonsense if a tribe of backwoods feral Orks who have never seen an outsider somehow has perfect intelligence on the invasion force (because their player knows the game inside and out), while the Space Marine force, veterans of a thousand battles, has no idea what the Orks are capable of (because the player is new to the game).
I can put it this way: to me it's utter nonsense that a player that is new to the game is supposed to lead veterans of a thousand battle if we're going down to the realism route. His SM would just be rookies. All SM had to be rookies at some point, right? The feral orks might have got shamans to read enemies's mind or even predict the future and get perfect knowledge of the upcoming battle, instead . All very fluffy and realistic.
I'm playing as the force commander, not the intelligence section. If my otherwise competent troops are commanded to do boneheaded things because I'm not a good commander, that's on me. If I make a mistake because I can't reasonably be expected to remember that one of the approximately 1,374 Stratagems, special rules, subfaction abilities, WLTs, relics, Armies of Renown, and other assorted bs is about to be situationally relevant- under a ruleset that assumes I have access to this information- that's on the designers.
I could make up some in-universe explanation for how a new player forgetting to do the Psychic Phase after moving actually represents their psykers losing focus on a chaotic battlefield- but the designers clearly don't consider periodically misremembering the turn sequence to be an intended part of the game.
Also: It's clear that the rules assume perfect information, because there are no rules governing it to begin with. There are no rules against me stopping play after every phase and consulting both my codex and yours to see what rules are relevant. No rules about whether I'm allowed to have my own copy of your codex, so that I can refer to it for the information I need. No rules about what information I'm allowed to ask about your army, or what about your list or capabilities can be concealed in play, or how much you have to reveal and what you can conceal when you are challenged on a rule. Rules and lists are both implicitly considered public to both players.
There aren't even community standards for restricted information; if anything, there's a general convention that if I ask 'hey do you have any relevant stratagems on this unit' in casual play you give me an honest answer, because again, we're playing under the assumption that we all have complete access to information if our personal knowledge of the rules isn't perfect.
You're wrong there- much of it isn't implicit or assumed. The rules insist you MUST provide a copy of the army roster for the opponent to read through, at least in matched play (page 280 under muster armies, right before 3. Determine mission), any pre-battle strats must be used and noted before sharing. Page 251 has an itemized list of what must be on the army roster. At least at the roster step, everything is an open book to both players, nothing about the army list can be concealed. Explicitly, not implicitly.
Similarly, both players can measure distances whenever they want- absolutely perfect information.
The idea that there is such a thing as restricted information in current 40k is dubious at best, and if it exists at all, it would be one player actively lying about strats and codex rules, which doesn't seem likely or reasonable.
Its standard around here to go so far as to tell your opponent how many points your list offers for Secondaries. We certainly tell our opponent about Stratagems/psychic powers/faction traits. For an example, at a tourney last week I had my Plasma Inceptors in deep strike. My opponent was generous enough to inform me that he had the ability to shoot units that arrive within 18". We quickly talked through each other's weird and wonderful rules before game. Playing against a faction for the first time can be an adventure, but its a game after all.
I would rather have flavour and get surprised every now and then than have a bland game. Flames of War removed the flavour in the V3 to V4 transition, as did Epic when they went to 3rd Ed. Neither system was improved by it.
Voss wrote: You're wrong there- much of it isn't implicit or assumed. The rules insist you MUST provide a copy of the army roster for the opponent to read through, at least in matched play (page 280 under muster armies, right before 3. Determine mission), any pre-battle strats must be used and noted before sharing. Page 251 has an itemized list of what must be on the army roster. At least at the roster step, everything is an open book to both players, nothing about the army list can be concealed. Explicitly, not implicitly.
Similarly, both players can measure distances whenever they want- absolutely perfect information.
The idea that there is such a thing as restricted information in current 40k is dubious at best, and if it exists at all, it would be one player actively lying about strats and codex rules, which doesn't seem likely or reasonable.
The rules go even further and call out specific instances of when you should hide information from your opponent (such as the use of GSC blips, or when rules have you note something like terrain secretly) as well, this pointing to the game being built around sharing information of the game state at all times.
auticus wrote: The more tournamenty a ruleset... the less surprises can occur.
Yup. Honestly I don't mind GW designing the core of the game around the idea people having all the info. The issue is more than they didn't design the arm rules around the same philosophy. Makes me wonder if we're looking at a 5th edition again where the core rules were largely done by someone who leaves the company while the remaining team works on the codexes because the design philosophy feels different.
I think it's because they're focusing on bespoke rules rather than universal rules.
The only reason deepstrike isn't in the rulebook is they can claim, firstly, that the rules are short and easy to get into, and secondly that every codex and unit has a set of bespoke rules tailored/themed specifically to your faction.
This is also why they add a new layer of rules to every faction with each publication. Faction rules, subfaction rules, purity rules, etc etc.
It's all part of the same design philosophy of minimalist core rules for maximum bespoke faction rules.
Putting deep strike in the core rules would do absolutely nothing to reduce complexity.
Calling all those rules deep strike and giving them the exact same wording in every book... that would help, irrespective of whether they also put it into the core rules or not.
Same goes for all the the other totally-not-USR like FNP, scout, infiltrate, bodyguard, melta, get's hot...
Oh, and while you are at it, keyword "fights first" and "fights last". MtG solved that very problem over two decades ago FFS.
I think part of the design switch to bespoke rules was to make it easier to reign in specific issues rsther than nerfing a USR and causing massive swings in game balance in an effort to correct a problem.
And I don't hate that idea as we've seen them make changes to some bespoke rules to correct problems, but some rules are so universal that they likely didn't need to be bespoke despite that design philosophy.
Basically I feel in 10th they should come back part way and bring back some of the USRs to simplify the game in a way that makes it eaiser to manage for the players.
I'm not sure really. The outcome range on say a unit which hits on 3s rerolling 1s and wounds on 3s rerolling 1s for some low save chance is going to be fairly tight.
You can then skew the stats so said unit "reliably" does about 25% of its points as damage - or 65%.
I don't think 40k has a problem because its too random. Clubs aren't (in my experience anyway) full of people exclaiming "Yahtzee" as they score 20+ 6s on say 25 dice.
The issue is on perfectly average dice the result is "I kill about 40-50% worth of points of your stuff as the unit I used". And an even slightly above average set of dice starts to just kill everything.
You make this sound simple, but it's really, *really* not.
First off, it's not accounting for platform. A Space Marine has two wounds, T4, and a 3+ save. An Imperial Guard veteran has one wound, T3, and a 5+ save.
They can both hit on 3+ and carry a Meltagun, Plasmagun, or Flamer.
The former costs 23 points with a flamer, the latter, 11 (and a half). How do you balance the power of a unit to reliably deals 25% of its points, when the other factors of that unit aren't taken into account?
Let's add on another factor - target. A Meltagun firing at a Grot is only ever going to kill 5pts of model, no matter how expensive or cheap the platform. If the meltagun is being fired at a Rhino, the points work out differently than if it's being fired at an Exorcist - despite both being a T7 mini with roughly the number of wounds.
So, let's use our example from above.
In one, a Veteran with a Meltagun is firing at an exorcist at half range. In the other, a Space Marine with a Meltagun is firing at a Rhino, also at half range. (For fairness, it's a Sisters of Battle Rhino.) The Veteran will, on average, deal a wound about 36% of the time, and when they do, the Veteran will cause 5.5 wounds - Half of the Exorcist's wounds, so 87.5 points of damage. Doing the math, this Veteran is dealing 32 points worth of damage with that shot! That's incredible - almost exactly twice its point value!
Now, the Space Marine fires. The Space Marine will, on average, deal a wound about 36% of the time, and when he does, the Space Marine will cause 5.5 wounds - Half of the Rhino's wounds, so 40 points of damage. Doing the math, this Space Marine is dealing 14 points of damage with that shot - still a very impressive 50% of its points value with shooting, but nowhere near the mathematical effectiveness of the Veteran.
Of course it's more complicated than even my example here - you can't take a single space marine, you have to bring a squad. But a squad could mean 'four ablative bodies and one heavy weapon' or it could mean 'a heavy weapon on literally every model in the squad'. Doing the latter means you'll be doing a lot more damage *per point*, but you'll also be TAKING a lot more damage per point.
And, the nature of 40k tournaments being what they are, everyone is taking as many units as they can that fall into that latter camp - highly efficient at dealing damage, and damn the durability. After all, your opponent is bringing glass cannons, so you're going to take heavy losses anyways, so why not build your list to punch them in the nose even harder if you get the first turn? Plus, tournaments are time limited, and ITC tournaments especially have been built so that you are rewarded for tabling your opponent as quickly as possible, since tabling your opponent meant you scored maximum victory points for every remaining turn, and if you wanted to win the tournament you needed maximum victory points. (I don't know if ITC rules are still like this, as I haven't played any ITC 9th edition Tournaments.) Hordes and tanky armies couldn't win tournaments, because tanking meant slowplay, and slowplay meant not getting all your secondary objectives.
The only way to completely prevent units dealing mass amounts of damage very quickly is to either remove glass cannon units from the game entirely, or to buff durability to the point where it overwhelms the glass cannons. However, buffing durability can quickly lead to the opposite problem which we saw in 7th edition - units that are so durable that they're effectively not worth attacking at all. (And in some cases, immortal, as with the 2++ rerolleable invuln horde that Tzeentch could put out, or Iron Hands Smashfether with 2+3++ rerollable 2++ feel no pain.) (Early 8th edition also had this problem, with conscripts being so cheap for their staying power that you could just spam the board with them and your opponent couldn't do anything to kill them.)
GW could definitely do a better job at this, but it's also not nearly as simple as you suggest. I also think GW has decided that 'killing things' is more fun than 'not killing things', and so have decided that if they're going to have an inevitable skew in the results, they may as well skew the results towards damage.
GW could definitely do a better job at this, but it's also not nearly as simple as you suggest. I also think GW has decided that 'killing things' is more fun than 'not killing things', and so have decided that if they're going to have an inevitable skew in the results, they may as well skew the results towards damage.
This is a long post- but I disagree on how you are defining tournament armies. I don't think they do take units which are "highly efficient at dealing damage - and damn the durability."
To my mind modern Competitive lists combine damage with relatively good resilience. Custodes for instance can hardly be considered a pushover. I don't think Crusher Stampede or Tau are especially Glasscannon either. What makes them potent is not only their incredible damage output, but also that you can push the defensive stats up to give you a chance of weather some firepower (while mitigating what you can through movement etc). Or, for more MSU toolbox style lists, each individual component isn't worth that much, and you trust terrain will keep things safe (although with the amount of ignoring LOS shooting in Tau lists, that is getting harder) while you exchange up.
As for the comparison. I see your point on the Marine with a melta versus the Guardsman with a melta. But this is still a function of how much glass you put in your rules.
If we ignore the rule of 3, and everyone was running massed Devastators - then yeah, I can see why the game would be incredibly lethal. But as said, they aren't - either in competitive games, or usually in casual ones. The issue is that random troop A with chapter tactic B using faction special rule C next to character with relic D using stratagems E and F = statistical expectation of high damage/points against random troop G. This isn't about shooting a tank with an anti-tank weapon. Its about regular dudes with rifles or axes expecting to annihilate other regular dudes with rifles or axes.
Its the fact that if you put two armies about 12" from each other on planet bowling ball, the player going first would most likely utterly destroy the other on turn 1.
And because their damage is partly a function of all those elements - A, B, C, D, E and F - I think stripping things back wouldn't be all that difficult.
For example - no more rerolls to hit. No more rerolls to wound. Nothing stops you getting lucky - and in some games you will. But it would happen a lot less often, and this would reduce the number of blowouts (or the degree to which the game is about playing cat and mouse with terrain). Tone down stratagems (which GW seems to be going two steps forward, three steps back on). Don't throw out things like "yeah, everything gets +1 AP for some turns cos we need a purity 9th edition bonus" as if this is a token increase in output, rather than statistically being a major one vs many factions. Hits can stop exploding into multiple hits, or dealing additional mortal wounds etc etc.
Whether players would like this or not is debatable. After all it increases the impact of a "good" shooting phase if this is unusual - and makes it more probable you'll have a horrible one where nothing works. Good players would be more likely to crash out of tournaments early due to dice. I think in 8th playing against massed Plaguebearers that just absorbed all your attacks wasn't very fun. But just because stacked defensive bonuses can be an issue doesn't change the above. You wouldn't need to stack minuses to hit, minuses to damage, invuls and FNPs etc to being vaguely survivable if all those offensive buffs above were not there.
Well the thing is, the way GW writes the rules, there always going to be book which are empowered with books which are writen with this quarter or half year of power abilities, and those books will do good. If on top of that they can play soliter, like have secondaries they score no matter what,mass ignore LoS, be able to ignore melee or shoting, those armies will rise to the top. And then there is points. If points are, on top of all that, writen by a person who wanted to create a specific army list we end up with something like liquifire DE lists, 5NDKs, crusher stampede, suit spam tau lists etc.
At best what one can do is to have 4-5 armies with most models bought for each one and hope that in a given edition one of those armies ends up being on top. And you just play the fun lists, and those that have bad rules and are unfun to play sit in the box and wait for next edition.
Of course this does create a slight problem for new players, who may not be able to start playing the game by buying 4-5 armies with 3000pts each. But most w40k players seem to be dudes in their 30s or late 20s anyway, so maybe GW thinks it is less of a problem. The "noobs" can buy in to their expensive patrol box+expansion to it, get burned or get lucky and play a few months. As in the end it does not matter, as long as they put down the initial money investment.
Voss wrote: You're wrong there- much of it isn't implicit or assumed. The rules insist you MUST provide a copy of the army roster for the opponent to read through, at least in matched play (page 280 under muster armies, right before 3. Determine mission), any pre-battle strats must be used and noted before sharing. Page 251 has an itemized list of what must be on the army roster. At least at the roster step, everything is an open book to both players, nothing about the army list can be concealed. Explicitly, not implicitly.
Similarly, both players can measure distances whenever they want- absolutely perfect information.
The idea that there is such a thing as restricted information in current 40k is dubious at best, and if it exists at all, it would be one player actively lying about strats and codex rules, which doesn't seem likely or reasonable.
there is not really restricted information but the problem with 9th is that a lot of power and especially feel bad gotcha moments don't come from the armylist, but from stratagems.
If you don't know specific armies have specific but important stratagems you get screwed and you can't really ask for information about something you don't know exists.
If you don't know about Custodes Tanglefoot you don't know to ask if they have a way to reduce your charge distance.
If you don't know about GSC you won't know to check if your opponent can't make a unit standing completely in the open (almost) untargetable outside of 12".
That is where the frustration from other players comes from. Back in ye old day all you had to worry about was a stat profile for a unit and maybe 1 or 2 special rules. You could meet an army for the first time and by just checking their unit/weapon profiles have a general idea of what to look out for. Nowadays so much power is 'hidden' in (sub) faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stratagems that its a lot lot more difficult for a 'casual' player to know what to expect from his opponent.
. . .
That is where the frustration from other players comes from. Back in ye old day all you had to worry about was a stat profile for a unit and maybe 1 or 2 special rules. You could meet an army for the first time and by just checking their unit/weapon profiles have a general idea of what to look out for. Nowadays so much power is 'hidden' in (sub) faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stratagems that its a lot lot more difficult for a 'casual' player to know what to expect from his opponent.
^+1 Upvote for this. Most unit capabilities were extremely navigable back in the day, and the few exceptions were easy to remember.
. . .
That is where the frustration from other players comes from. Back in ye old day all you had to worry about was a stat profile for a unit and maybe 1 or 2 special rules. You could meet an army for the first time and by just checking their unit/weapon profiles have a general idea of what to look out for. Nowadays so much power is 'hidden' in (sub) faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stratagems that its a lot lot more difficult for a 'casual' player to know what to expect from his opponent.
^+1 Upvote for this. Most unit capabilities were extremely navigable back in the day, and the few exceptions were easy to remember.
It definitely feels like an unexpected side effect of the bespoke rules approach.
At best what one can do is to have 4-5 armies with most models bought for each one and hope that in a given edition one of those armies ends up being on top. And you just play the fun lists, and those that have bad rules and are unfun to play sit in the box and wait for next edition.
I definitely agree on the multiple armies. I prefer to have many 25PL Crusades going at the same time; these forces can play as individual forces in small games, but they can combine with other 25PL forces for larger battles. This is more versatile than having ONE BIG ARMY. And everything about 9th ed's design, from the detachment system, to game size to crusade, is designed to support this approach.
The fact that the 2k Matched format is most popular gets in the way of this approach. When I just read the BRB, it is absolutely crystal clear to me that the designers wanted people to learn the game in stages- playing open BEFORE trying to figure out things like points, detachments, terrain rules etc. It's equally clear to me that the designers wanted a system where you could start playing with just a few units. and that your army should grow as you paint and play.
Of course this does create a slight problem for new players, who may not be able to start playing the game by buying 4-5 armies with 3000pts each. But most w40k players seem to be dudes in their 30s or late 20s anyway, so maybe GW thinks it is less of a problem. The "noobs" can buy in to their expensive patrol box+expansion to it, get burned or get lucky and play a few months. As in the end it does not matter, as long as they put down the initial money investment.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I get that you may be in an environment where you don't have a lot of control over the types of game that you get to play, but the 2k Matched format is such a tiny piece of what the edition is that those who never get to break that paradigm really don't have any sense about what the game as a whole was designed to do.
That the pick-up game mentality sees full blown 2k optimized armies as the starting point is the great tragedy of 9th. I feel that by the time you arrive at a 2k Optimized army, you've already missed out on so much of what the designers put into this game. Working with multiple 25PL sized forces gives you an opportunity to think about how you want to grow your army- it prevents you from getting stuck with a 2k point force that has a play style that you end up discovering you don't like. And since some of those 25PL forces can combine into larger armies, you are actually working on building armies of multiple scales at the same time. So for example, if I buy a new model for a 25PL Coven Crusade, that is also making my "Drukhari" army stronger.
I know that to some Dakkanaughts, saying stuff like this often sounds to them like I'm telling them they play wrong, or that I'm trying to tell them how to play. It's certainly not my intention to do that, but I see how it might come across that way. But I literally cannot read the BRB and not see this design philosophy expressed on every page, despite the "But it's game night at the FLGS, so bring your best 2k list or GTFO" mentality that seems to dominate the forums, the public play spaces and the zeitgeist of the player base.
This is a long post- but I disagree on how you are defining tournament armies. I don't think they do take units which are "highly efficient at dealing damage - and damn the durability."
To my mind modern Competitive lists combine damage with relatively good resilience. Custodes for instance can hardly be considered a pushover. I don't think Crusher Stampede or Tau are especially Glasscannon either. What makes them potent is not only their incredible damage output, but also that you can push the defensive stats up to give you a chance of weather some firepower (while mitigating what you can through movement etc). Or, for more MSU toolbox style lists, each individual component isn't worth that much, and you trust terrain will keep things safe (although with the amount of ignoring LOS shooting in Tau lists, that is getting harder) while you exchange up.
Fair enough, I was oversimplifying and also relying on my memory of 8th edition tournaments. You're right - it's not that every unit on the board is made of paper, but I think it is fair to say that the armies that are doing well durability-wise are doing so without needing to invest a lot of points just into their durability.
Either they have mobility and map control, giving them the ability to move through LoS blocking cover with (relative) safety, which also increases DPS by getting the weapons where they need to go,
Or they have saturation, denying enemies good ways to use their weapons. Custodes are a good example of this - everything in their army has a similar profile that falls into a narrow niche. The most points-efficient weapons are going to be D3 with S5-7 and 2-3 AP... which is a pretty narrow cross section of weaponry. D2 is suboptimal, but is the most common for anti-heavy-infantry shots in that strength range, most weapons with higher strength are going to do so much damage that it's wasted on overkill, (IE firing a Lascannon into an infantry squad,) and they have a stratagem to make their most valuable unit resistant to the kind of fire that might be most threatening. And meanwhile, lasguns and bolters and true anti-tank guns are all either dealing minimal damage or exceedingly overpriced for the wounds they're putting out. (And if you show up to a tournament with a list that's exclusively built to put the hurt on Custodes... you're going to get kicked up and down the board by armies that aren't custodes, since most other armies don't spam the board with 3W T5 2+4++ models.) Either way, they're not paying for durability, they're getting an advantage by rendering half their enemy's shots useless.
As for the comparison. I see your point on the Marine with a melta versus the Guardsman with a melta. But this is still a function of how much glass you put in your rules.
If we ignore the rule of 3, and everyone was running massed Devastators - then yeah, I can see why the game would be incredibly lethal. But as said, they aren't - either in competitive games, or usually in casual ones. The issue is that random troop A with chapter tactic B using faction special rule C next to character with relic D using stratagems E and F = statistical expectation of high damage/points against random troop G. This isn't about shooting a tank with an anti-tank weapon. Its about regular dudes with rifles or axes expecting to annihilate other regular dudes with rifles or axes.
Its the fact that if you put two armies about 12" from each other on planet bowling ball, the player going first would most likely utterly destroy the other on turn 1.
I don't think Devastators are necessarily an ideal choice for comparing high DPS, since Devastators aren't necessarily the option in the Space Marine codex that brings the best high-efficiency damage. (Though, it's worth mentioning that Primaris units are all a sort of Devestator squad, since they all take the same high powered weapon.)
That said, even assuming units with all the buffs, generally there are plenty of units in 40k that don't deal the sorts of damage you're talking about. Five tactical Marines with Imperial Fists, a captain to buff them, and doctrine to improve their rapid fire AP, are still only going to put about two wounds on another squad of tactical marines. Not every unit in the game is able to tear apart its rivals - but options that *aren't* capable of such are seen as weak and not taken in tournament lists.
And because their damage is partly a function of all those elements - A, B, C, D, E and F - I think stripping things back wouldn't be all that difficult.
For example - no more rerolls to hit. No more rerolls to wound. Nothing stops you getting lucky - and in some games you will. But it would happen a lot less often, and this would reduce the number of blowouts (or the degree to which the game is about playing cat and mouse with terrain). Tone down stratagems (which GW seems to be going two steps forward, three steps back on). Don't throw out things like "yeah, everything gets +1 AP for some turns cos we need a purity 9th edition bonus" as if this is a token increase in output, rather than statistically being a major one vs many factions. Hits can stop exploding into multiple hits, or dealing additional mortal wounds etc etc.
I agree that many of the buffs could be toned down, but I am curious what you would suggest Captains, Lieutenants, etc., could be used for if they can't give buffs anymore. In older editions, HQ units were primarily just used as overpowered beatsticks, rolling around in deathstars to unload their attacks on whoever they could get close to. I don't really want to go back to that.
Leadership buffs are useless on most armies, and flat bonuses to hit or wound quickly become redundant, as well as being harder to scale - rerolls of 1s is less powerful than a flat +1 to hit for any ballistic skill except 2+, where a +1 to hit becomes useless anyways.
Also, at least in theory, damage buffs and auras increase tactical play. You have to be more careful about model placement and movement when you're trying to keep all your buffs intact. If you drop all buffs, you drop many layers of potential tactical play. I don't think the issue is the presence of these buffs, or even that they can be stacked, but rather that certain comboes are just too cheap for how much utility they offer.
Waaaghpower wrote: I agree that many of the buffs could be toned down, but I am curious what you would suggest Captains, Lieutenants, etc., could be used for if they can't give buffs anymore. In older editions, HQ units were primarily just used as overpowered beatsticks, rolling around in deathstars to unload their attacks on whoever they could get close to. I don't really want to go back to that.
In Age of Sigmar, characters give you access to command abilities (stratagems) associated with that character and are needed in order to use command abilities on nearby units. It considerably reduces the number of stratagems, makes the characters you choose to take more impactful to how your army functions, and makes characters feel like they're commanding, inspiring, or leading troops rather than either just acting as beatsticks or boringly passive damage bonuses.
Jidmah wrote: Putting deep strike in the core rules would do absolutely nothing to reduce complexity.
Calling all those rules deep strike and giving them the exact same wording in every book... that would help, irrespective of whether they also put it into the core rules or not.
Same goes for all the the other totally-not-USR like FNP, scout, infiltrate, bodyguard, melta, get's hot...
Oh, and while you are at it, keyword "fights first" and "fights last". MtG solved that very problem over two decades ago FFS.
Except if they were in rulebook they would be all the same. Bespoke everywhere just ensures they will not be same universally all the time. That's the point of universal rules. Be consistent. Bespoke is by definition meant to be non-universal. Non-consistent.
Waaaghpower wrote: I agree that many of the buffs could be toned down, but I am curious what you would suggest Captains, Lieutenants, etc., could be used for if they can't give buffs anymore. In older editions, HQ units were primarily just used as overpowered beatsticks, rolling around in deathstars to unload their attacks on whoever they could get close to. I don't really want to go back to that.
In Age of Sigmar, characters give you access to command abilities (stratagems) associated with that character and are needed in order to use command abilities on nearby units. It considerably reduces the number of stratagems, makes the characters you choose to take more impactful to how your army functions, and makes characters feel like they're commanding, inspiring, or leading troops rather than either just acting as beatsticks or boringly passive damage bonuses.
That was old edition. Those CA's are being removed in the new books replaced by abilities, often targeted, which might be once per game.
Not sure is there even one actual command ability on characters in new books.
In older editions, HQ units were primarily just used as overpowered beatsticks, rolling around in deathstars to unload their attacks on whoever they could get close to. I don't really want to go back to that.
As somebody who still plays the older editions, I am going to call BS on that one.
Yes captains/chapter masters could be beat sticks but the big thing they gave your army was table wide or unit LD buffs for you know being a leader.
The true beat sticks are chaplains attached to a good assault unit. the entire point of them as an HQ is to beat things in melee
My favorite is always the master of the forge. a true ranged support HQ. he keeps your units protected or repaired and he also can bring along a big cannon as well as some personal fire support servitors.
Librarians are very situational depending on the powers you choose. they are not exceptionally good in CC but have toys like the force weapon in a pinch. conversely, they can be a transport, fire support or unit buffing HQ. As a salamander's player my favorite libby loadout is gate (24" instant deep strike for the character and the unit he is with) and the avenger (S5/ap3 psychic flamethrower).
Kind of like an expensive rhino that goes really fast and carries a heavy weapon which is not a heavy weapon, that also ignores cover.
. . .
That is where the frustration from other players comes from. Back in ye old day all you had to worry about was a stat profile for a unit and maybe 1 or 2 special rules. You could meet an army for the first time and by just checking their unit/weapon profiles have a general idea of what to look out for. Nowadays so much power is 'hidden' in (sub) faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stratagems that its a lot lot more difficult for a 'casual' player to know what to expect from his opponent.
^+1 Upvote for this. Most unit capabilities were extremely navigable back in the day, and the few exceptions were easy to remember.
It definitely feels like an unexpected side effect of the bespoke rules approach.
. . .
That is where the frustration from other players comes from. Back in ye old day all you had to worry about was a stat profile for a unit and maybe 1 or 2 special rules. You could meet an army for the first time and by just checking their unit/weapon profiles have a general idea of what to look out for. Nowadays so much power is 'hidden' in (sub) faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stratagems that its a lot lot more difficult for a 'casual' player to know what to expect from his opponent.
^+1 Upvote for this. Most unit capabilities were extremely navigable back in the day, and the few exceptions were easy to remember.
It definitely feels like an unexpected side effect of the bespoke rules approach.
Unexpected?
Do you really think the GW rules team has the foresight to predict how bloated the game would become by lumping more and more rules on it? Or do you think they just write rules with no consideration for how things will interact or how pointlessly convoluted everything will become?
I don't think they even have hindsight honestly. They have systems in place to improve the game but never leverage them. Look at the Core rule. Totally unnecessary if they put even the slightest bit of thought into the system, instead Cruddace just welded an extra lever onto the shambling mechanical mess and said "this one randomly turns off some of its legs, that should stop it from breaking stuff when it moves" and patted himself on the back.
Sim-Life wrote: I don't think they even have hindsight honestly. They have systems in place to improve the game but never leverage them. Look at the Core rule. Totally unnecessary if they put even the slightest bit of thought into the system, instead Cruddace just welded an extra lever onto the shambling mechanical mess and said "this one randomly turns off some of its legs, that should stop it from breaking stuff when it moves" and patted himself on the back.
Cruddace just seems like a bad influence honestly.
Do you really think the GW rules team has the foresight to predict how bloated the game would become by lumping more and more rules on it? Or do you think they just write rules with no consideration for how things will interact or how pointlessly convoluted everything will become?
True. I mean what arguments could anyone bring forth in favour of a change. The people in charge will always say, we are growing, we are cutting costs, we are selling more and more each year. why change anything about a formula that works.
kirotheavenger wrote: Better rules would attract more players. Pretty much everyone I know majorly into non-40k games are "40k refugees".
Although you need to contrast that with lessened sales from the churn and burn that the player base puts up with.
Net negative all around then.
Agree fully. Locally WHC rose when 40k was in a slump, and more recently One Page Rules has caught on though I wants to gripe a bit that thhe reasons it caught on (shorter games and no stratagems mainly) were things I have tried to help my local group fix over a year ago but they are so fixated on 2k GT being the "correct" way to play and even complaining that narrative wasn't "balanced" (it's literally about telling a good story, balance it something you should work with your opponent to create an maintain!) that it took a whole seperate game system to get them to finally adopt changes I mentiomed we could make over a year ago.
Yes it still frustrates me that people can be that regimented in how they approach the game.
Anyways, my rant about my local meta aside, 40k does need streamlined rules. I won't say simplier because 40k used to get compared to checkers by members of the WFB community (who compared their game to chess) and people on this site claim 40k is too "simple". The rules definitely need streamlining though as we have too many layers thst you have too parse through and keep track of actively and it slows the game down. I still stand by the current stratagem system often ends up being less like playing with a small hand of cards you can use creatively and more like playing from an entite deck you have to regularly flip through to check if you have the appropriate counter-play option available for every move your opponent makes.
And I think I see where some of this is coming from. The 40k team seems to have been trying to reward player choice for a while now by creating rules that reward lore friendly army builds and playstyle. This is often done with faction bonuses and between that and the way durability is layered in the game it feels like the push is to also create a mechanic incentive for greater internal list diversity by telling players that no single weapon is going to work against every threat so they need a toolbox of options to better allow them to fight as many different foes as possible, while also throwing a few rock, paper, scissors mechanics in likely to ensure that everyone has at least one hard counter match up for competetive so steamrolling every other faction is less prevelant there.
And I won't claim they nailed it, just that, to me, this is what it looks like they are trying to do. And iy's kind of piling up in a way that has a lot of people vocal about how much they don't like hoe the game plays.
And I get that GW is trying to use restrictions less than they used to because players want a wide array of options, plus it's good for the company if more people can buy a wider array of units, but if they push is towards a highlander style of list design where spam is discouraged, then restrictions should definitely come back. Likewise, if promoting fluff based army builds is a goal then maybe the incentive shouldn't be a large amount of buff and super doctrine like effects but better use of the core keyword with units that fit the particular theme gain core (and all units that aren't troops don't innately have it).
I know these changes don't work in 9th without a massive edition reset, but they are changes that they could use in 10th that would do a lot to flatten the buff stacking nonsense that has made the game unfun for so many people.
In older editions, HQ units were primarily just used as overpowered beatsticks, rolling around in deathstars to unload their attacks on whoever they could get close to. I don't really want to go back to that.
As somebody who still plays the older editions, I am going to call BS on that one.
Yes captains/chapter masters could be beat sticks but the big thing they gave your army was table wide or unit LD buffs for you know being a leader.
Yeah, LD buffs, the thing that over half the armies in the game didn't care about. Here I'm defining "Beat stick" as any character whose primary purpose was damage output - for simplicity. So a Chapter Master with a Thunder Hammer is a beatstick, but so is a Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun.
Something like a Chaplain, meanwhile, is deadly in combat but was taken primarily to buff his unit, so I'm counting that as 'Support'. Psykers, who provided both buffs and damage, fall into a weird middle ground.
That said, the majority of HQs I played against were either beatsticks, support characters attached to a deathstar to buff to beatstick, or psykers spamming Prescience.
The true beat sticks are chaplains attached to a good assault unit. the entire point of them as an HQ is to beat things in melee
That was never true. Chaplains were decent in melee but served to buff their unit as much as to provide damage themselves. Unless you're defining "Beatstick" as "Anyone who provides a melee buff"... but I've never heard the term used that way.
Whether we're talking about the various flavors of Smashfather beatsticks you could build in the five main Marine codices, Sisters with their beatstick canonness, CSM and Daemons with flying circuses, beatstick lords, and beatstick greater daemons, Orks with Beatstick Warbosses, Tyranids with their own flying circuses, Tau spamming their crisis suit HQs, nobody in my area played Eldar so I don't know much about what they had. Even when these units had some level of buffing ability, (for example, the Warboss giving a Waaagh!,) it was secondary to their use as a source of dps.
But yeah. I feel perfectly confident saying that most HQ choices, for the majority of armies, were taken for use as beatsticks when in tournament play.
Honestly I'd argue IC should come back as a rule to eliminate bodyguard jank, but they lose the character keyword while inside a unit and all buffs are auras from their model specifically.
Tyran wrote: The one thing I'm definitely not missing is the USRs in which only one model having one was enough to buff the entire unit.
I would like if (a trimmed) implementation of USRs came back, but Independent Character needs to stay dead.
I dont really see the problem with that. Right now we have effectively USRs given out as auras to multiple units. If you only have one character able to enter a unit and it gets that ability it is way easier to balance and also to counter on the table.
Having a character being forced to join a unit also makes them much more vulnerable than now when they can stay behind and just let their aura do their thing and only if they want to get into combat they can do a Heroic Intervention rather than being forced to get stuck in with the buffed unit. Armies with good bodyguard units just make this even worse.
I only played in 4th and 5th with Independent characters and never played 6th or 7th so maybe there were other problems there. But the way it worked in 4th and 5th is way better than how many characters work now.
Tyran wrote: The one thing I'm definitely not missing is the USRs in which only one model having one was enough to buff the entire unit.
I would like if (a trimmed) implementation of USRs came back, but Independent Character needs to stay dead.
Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.
As for the first part- I suggest taking a look at how eldar exarchs function. Many powers are effectively single-model USRs for their units.
I think Independent Characters are vastly superior to the current implementation. So much jank comes from how 9th handles it.
The only USRs that carried to the current, as far as I recall, are Scout and Infiltrate.
I do agree it would be better if, in order to use those abilities, those characters had to join a capable squad. For those characters where you want to confer it to the unit they can have a special ability to do that.
But I don't see it as a huge issue.
USRs are great, we already have universal special rules. GW just gives every one a different name.
Most of what people like about the current implementation is that all the rules are on the datasheet (except for the tonnes that aren't, but let's ignore that). There's no reason you can't have both.
You can have the rule defined in the rulebook, with all the nitty gritty "rare rules" explanations, *and* have a short version listed on each datasheet. Maybe even bonus points for a page reference number to the BRB.
Not having USRs means FAQs and abilities need to use stupid wording like "any ability that allows a unit to be set up on the battlefield", which is just so open to confusion. If deepstrike atill officially existed (we all call it deepstrike anyway) they could just say that and everyone would understand.
Bodyguard is a nice rule, as far ideas goes. It is stops being a nice rule when used in practic. When units outside of LoS start making characters in LoS untargetable. And tau bring this to a new level when they can stay outside of LoS. bodyguard and on top of that still shot from outside of LoS.
Bodyguard, as a rule, should be something like Character X becomes a member of unit Y. For all purpose of rules, Ld, tests, rules targeting squad leaders etc the Character becomes units X leader. Any rules, auras and buffs that only affect character, when he is on his own, do not spread on to the bodyguard unit, unless a specific rule says it/they do.
Karol wrote: Bodyguard is a nice rule, as far ideas goes. It is stops being a nice rule when used in practic. When units outside of LoS start making characters in LoS untargetable. And tau bring this to a new level when they can stay outside of LoS. bodyguard and on top of that still shot from outside of LoS.
Bodyguard, as a rule, should be something like Character X becomes a member of unit Y. For all purpose of rules, Ld, tests, rules targeting squad leaders etc the Character becomes units X leader. Any rules, auras and buffs that only affect character, when he is on his own, do not spread on to the bodyguard unit, unless a specific rule says it/they do.
Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason
While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.
nah. you will start to have problems with what visible is as soon, as GW intreduces units that can't be shot or who do pop up attacks. Plus it plays merry hell with how terrain and titanic stuff works right now. Making it a unit creation rule, also saves us from multiple bodyguard units protecting multiple HQs.
And I don't think it is complicated. It is like having a BT squad leader with a relic and a power weapon of some sort. People don't get confused because those exist. I don't think someone having a crissis suit Cmd in a unit of suits or a marine HQ in a unit of marines, confuses people. Now on the other hand a unit with bodyguard protecting a vehicle, which happens to be a character can be confusing as hell.
Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.
You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.
Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason
While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.
Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.
Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.
You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.
I'm... not. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'endless iterations' or anything particularly broken.
Can you posit some examples?
Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason
While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.
Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.
I'm not seeing that as a problem.
Well, except on the bodyguard players end. But they'll eventually learn how to properly position their models....
Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.
You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.
I'm... not. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'endless iterations' or anything particularly broken. Can you posit some examples?
For example, in one edition (IIRC 5th), IC could join units as long as those units didn't include monsters or vehicles. And in another (IIRC 6th) it could join units as long as those units had more than 1 model (which led to ICs in monster units). Or with battle brother units in which ICs from different factions could merge their USRs in some quite ridiculous death stars (until rerolleable 2++ made them all irrelevant in 7th).
Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason
While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.
Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.
So? thats why you should stick your bodyguards in front of the character, base to base
The current character implementation has other problems though.
Take melee characters and their units, trying to charge.
The unit makes the distance and goes charging off ahead. Meanwhile the character rolls poorly and just stands there watching them go.
Now, not only is your unit out of buff range (unless you tail back a mile, losing half your attacks) but your character is exposed to enemy fire (again, unless you tail back a mile).
Same goes for advancing. Unit rolls a 6, character rolls a 1.
Even worse is for both of those situations you need to roll for one unit and finish moving it before you can roll for the second. So you don't even know if you need to slow down or tail back until it's too late.
At least when charging you could charge with the character first, except that now they're the ones eating the overwatch to the face so the whole point of the bodyguard is rendered moot. Plus you'll really have egg on your face if the unit fails the charge.
None of these were an issues with characters in units. They solved the few problems it did have (which were all isolated and trivial) in the absolute worst possible way.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I'd argue IC should come back as a rule to eliminate bodyguard jank, but they lose the character keyword while inside a unit and all buffs are auras from their model specifically.
That just means the bodyguard rule needs to be reworked.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I'd argue IC should come back as a rule to eliminate bodyguard jank, but they lose the character keyword while inside a unit and all buffs are auras from their model specifically.
That just means the bodyguard rule needs to be reworked.
Or that it creates more problems than it solves.
For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.
If left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).
ClockworkZion wrote: ...For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.
If left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).
Honestly I'd generally be alright with that in most cases.
Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason
While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.
Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.
No it doesn't. It just means you have to position your bodyguard models more carefully. If they're directly in front of the character, between the firing model and the target character, they are necessarily in LoS. That seems thematic while also giving potential counterplay against sloppy positioning. Sounds like a win-win to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?
You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.
Nah, it has some jank interactions with line of sight, thought was that the jank could be removed.
its not janky, its logical
how can a bodyguard protect a character if hes hidden behind it or not physically intercepting the shots.
positioning the bodyguards with their base touching in front of the character makes a wall that your opponent cannot shoot through (unless they manage to position themselves in a wide enough angle
ClockworkZion wrote: Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?
You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.
Nah, it has some jank interactions with line of sight, thought was that the jank could be removed.
its not janky, its logical
how can a bodyguard protect a character if hes hidden behind it or not physically intercepting the shots.
positioning the bodyguards with their base touching in front of the character makes a wall that your opponent cannot shoot through (unless they manage to position themselves in a wide enough angle
I was talking about forcing them to stay in engagement range to solve the issue of people doing stuff like making them untargetable while using them to intercept shots directly.
Honestly I'd prefer if they were an upgrade for the character costing the character the character keyword while they're alive but making them all one unit but if we can't do that I was looking at alternatives.
Also, thinking of unit placement, I sincerely hope that GW makes the GSC crossfire and exposed rules core mechanics. Making positioning important to shooting again would be great, and I feel that it's a better option than what we've seen with people talking about returning to having vehicle facings again.
AnomanderRake wrote: left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).
I can see that coming in to play, so long as the aura stayed to the model. The 4th Edition Marine Characters and Command Squads prior to Dark Angels had rules like that.
"All may lead a Command squad. The character and the unit area a single HQ choice. The character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the (rest of the) squad is destroyed, the character may operate independently."
You could even add in a Chaplain and Librarian in to it (or just a Chaplain for Black Templars) and they would all be one unit and squad until the Command Squad models were destroyed.
A good portion of other armies have units that would be able to do that as well, and some have added units since those old days that could fit in, like the Lychguard, for example.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
Thats where terrain, transports or just large models come in
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
Thats where terrain, transports or just large models come in
Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL
Star Wars Legion has characters without "Look out Sir".
The way it handles it is that 'HQs' are almost as tough, as tough, or tougher, than their equivalent squads.
For example, a Rebel squad might have 4-6 models and a 5+ save. A Rebel Officer has 4 wounds and a 5+ save.
A Jedi has 6 wounds and a 3/4+ save plus further damage mitigation abilities.
In Legion, Bodyguards have a special "Guardian" ability, which allows you to pawn off hits on the character to the bodyguard.
TBH, this is already what "heroic" characters like Space Marine Captains enjoy in 40k. Except they get character protection as well.
So the theory can work, absolutely.
Except there's one notable difference, Star Wars Legion is substantially less lethal than 40k. A standard Legion game is probably about comparable to a 1000pts 40k game in terms of what's on the board, and ranges/mobility is much reduced.
It's simply not possible to focus the same level of firepower in SWL as it is in 40k. But in 40k if you want a particular unit dead there's very little they can do to stop you between move+advance+shoot+charge+ignore LoS+whatever else.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
Thats where terrain, transports or just large models come in
Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL
EviscerationPlague 803436 11320223 wrote:
Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL
Before DE dethroned them from being the best army in 9th ed, the whole faction was known for swarms of vehicles and jetbikes and doing drive by thanks to open topped rules being very good, if you have good guns.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
Okay, and...?
Nowhere did I suggest that we shouldn't either:
A) Add bodyguard units
or
B) Make adjustments to account for it.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
As if them being able to get a "Look Out, Sir!" doesn't already do that?
There's other ways to add survivability without just letting them pass wounds off elsewhere. Things like adding a limitation as to how far away it can be shot from as an off-the-cuff example.
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.
The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.
Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.
Okay, and...?
Nowhere did I suggest that we shouldn't either:
A) Add bodyguard units
or
B) Make adjustments to account for it.
It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.
As if them being able to get a "Look Out, Sir!" doesn't already do that?
There's other ways to add survivability without just letting them pass wounds off elsewhere. Things like adding a limitation as to how far away it can be shot from as an off-the-cuff example.
You're right, you didn't suggest that we shouldn't do those things. But nor did you offer any practical solutions.
Adding bodyguard units does not solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes.
This might be slightly less of an issue if there was some way for a character to leave a depleted bodyguard unit and instead join a different unit for protection. If only rules of that sort existed.
As for the Solitaire (and similar characters), I agree that the current rules are not ideal for them either. In fact, that was one of the complaints I made about 9th in that the decision seemed to be the worst of both worlds. Characters lost their much-touted independence (as they have to be in the armpits of at least one other unit to be protected), yet were still stuck as uninspired aura buff-bots. But while the current rules are bad for those characters, the rules you're proposing would be even worse. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.
I think if you really want this sort of thing, you need to first dial the lethality in the game way down.
You're right, you didn't suggest that we shouldn't do those things. But nor did you offer any practical solutions.
Adding bodyguard units does not solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes.
This might be slightly less of an issue if there was some way for a character to leave a depleted bodyguard unit and instead join a different unit for protection. If only rules of that sort existed.
That doesn't solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes though...
Frankly, there are extremely few armies that do not have some type of bodyguard unit via the fluff. Craftworlders have the Seer Councils, Warlock Conclaves, and Courts of the Young King as immediate mentions. Drukhari have all kinds of stuff. Tau literally have Crisis Suit Bodyguards as a unit now. Necrons have the Lychguard and Praetorians. Tyranid have the Hive and Tyrant Guard. Orks have Gretchin(more meatshield than bodyguards, to be fair). Chaos Marines have Chosen(bodyguards) or Cultists(meatshields). Guard have Command Squads and literal Ogryn Bodyguards. Mechanicus should have Servitors fulfilling that role for the Techpriests and a "Skitarii Command Squad" for the Marshals.
As for the Solitaire (and similar characters), I agree that the current rules are not ideal for them either.
There's extremely few examples of "similar characters" to the Solitaire though. It's basically just the Imperial Assassins and the GSC Assassins. These things are meant to be literal glass cannons. They're assassin types, not leader types.
In fact, that was one of the complaints I made about 9th in that the decision seemed to be the worst of both worlds. Characters lost their much-touted independence (as they have to be in the armpits of at least one other unit to be protected), yet were still stuck as uninspired aura buff-bots.
Horsecrap. That's been a problem for editions for some armies, yet now when it occurs to others it's a "problem" for the entirety of the game?
Guard players have been talking about that for at least a decade. AdMech characters are the same way and have been since their introduction.
But while the current rules are bad for those characters, the rules you're proposing would be even worse. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.
You're welcome to your opinion. My experiences with attempting things differently have taught me otherwise.
I think if you really want this sort of thing, you need to first dial the lethality in the game way down.
I think that ,at least rules wise, GW wants or wanted to make a difference between units that are hyper aware of the battlefield and are able to shield their designated target and a CSM champion standing in a throng of cultists.
Grot Shields should be a 100% baseline ability, tied to screening non-Warboss and non-Vehicle characters.
Sure, let's bastardize the entire faction's lore to have the biggest and strongest members unable to survive without bringing weedy gretchin to save them.
And apparently warbosses should just go die. I guess that means captains, chaos lords, tau commanders and autarchs should also be shootable from across the board?
Sure, let's bastardize the entire faction's lore to have the biggest and strongest members unable to survive without bringing weedy gretchin to save them.
That's not what I said, but I can understand why you might believe that.
Gretchin should be able to bodyguard for anything short of a Warboss.
And apparently warbosses should just go die.
No, they just should not be screenable with Gretchin as a default mechanism. Warbosses are supposed to be at the forefront, the biggest of the biggest Orks. They'll take the damn hits and keep on Waagh'ing their way to victory. If this means giving them more wounds? I'm 100% for it.
Adding a "bodyguard" mechanism to Nobs when they're near a Warboss would also not be a wildly unacceptable method to go for.
I guess that means captains, chaos lords, tau commanders and autarchs should also be shootable from across the board?
Are you taking an Honor Guard, Chosen Bodyguard, Crisis Bodyguards, or a Court of the Young King?
Characters need some protection outside of "Look Out Sir" and "Bodyguard". Things like Vindicares and Death Jesters shouldn't be shackled to friendly units.
Hecaton wrote: Still waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong about a tournament in Cherokee being relevant.
Hecaton wrote: Still waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong about a tournament in Cherokee being relevant.
I'm still waiting for him to answer why Eldar players should suck it up with the Autarch issue but his Infantry sergeants having Lasguns is way more important.
I believe the character durability issue is tied to the lethality issue. As much fun as it would be for a chapter master running around with the same amount of wounds as a squad of Marines, or a Warboss having the wounds count of a horde of boyz, I feel like the game would just skew to compensate.
Honestly I don't have a great answer to balance the lethality down without a massive rework.
I still stand by the idea of a better modifier system to-hit and a better terrain system. For example of some thoughts I have:
A unit of Intercessors are shooting at a unit of Orks in heavy cover. The Orks are 20" away so they're more than the half range of the Bolt Rifle giving the Marines -1 to hit. Additionally the Ork Boyz are wholly inside of area terrain and can be assumed to ducking out of the way of fire behind the cover (or using the terrain to otherwise obscure them) giving them an additional -1. Lastly because the terrain is heavy cover (like a reinforced wall) the Orks get +1 to their armor save bringing them to a 5+ armour save.
In practice this means the Intercessors would hit on 5+, and even with a -1 AP from the bolt rifles the Orks would have a 6+ save. For comparison the Orks would currently take 2.22 wounds on average against 10 unbuffed Intercessors but would only take .93 average wounds in the above example.
I admit this is not a fast system, but I feel like it pushes a strong emphasis for positioning (being over half range incurs a penalty for example) and buffs terrain (by giving it a defensive bonus, and even adding rules that buff models inside of terrain by offering other kinds of bonuses.
And if the game continues to keep rules about objectives not being inside of terrain this means units have to choose between the bonuses of terrain and scoring points which I believe adds an interesting dynamic as well.
That said, I feel at minimum rules like doctrines should go away completely. They stack too much onto the game in a way that doesn't actually make the game more fun to play.
They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".
EviscerationPlague wrote: They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".
I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.
That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.
That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.
Considering other games I've played with to-hit mods on d6s (Bolt Action, Mordheim, old-WHFB, Necromunda...) they tend to work best when the to-hit values are usually 3+ or 4+ (which means you'd have to rethink nailing Orks to BS5+) and when the to-hit mods are entirely environmental conditions (range, cover, moving) rather than special rules on units, since making hit-mod special rules on units allows you to stack modifiers much more easily.
AnomanderRake wrote: Considering other games I've played with to-hit mods on d6s (Bolt Action, Mordheim, old-WHFB, Necromunda...) they tend to work best when the to-hit values are usually 3+ or 4+ (which means you'd have to rethink nailing Orks to BS5+) and when the to-hit mods are entirely environmental conditions (range, cover, moving) rather than special rules on units, since making hit-mod special rules on units allows you to stack modifiers much more easily.
That's largely what I was thinking of myself. I love systems like that, though I get that GW wants to also try and push narrative into the models which may mean we should see other mechanics such as maybe the unit stands still and performs an action to get +1 because they took careful aim for longer ranged shots, or Orks don't suffer pentalties to hit because they're not really aiming anyways (but Grots do because they do try to aim).
EviscerationPlague wrote: They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".
I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.
That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.
That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.
Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".
I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.
That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.
That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.
Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.
I was thinking of positive modifiers being more of a way to negate the negatives than to buff units. To keep them operating at their respective peak, not giving you the ability to buff Guardsmen to a 2+ to hit.
ClockworkZion wrote: I believe the character durability issue is tied to the lethality issue. As much fun as it would be for a chapter master running around with the same amount of wounds as a squad of Marines, or a Warboss having the wounds count of a horde of boyz, I feel like the game would just skew to compensate.
It sounds like you're describing the phenomenon known as Hero Hammer. They've done this here and there in the past. I think it was 5th edition of Fantasy, a little bit of 2nd edition in 40K.
I'm OK with Look Out Sir!, and I'm OK with Grots shielding a warboss. I can't imagine many people would blink twice at a mechanic for a warboss throwing a grot into the path of a missile to save himself with an order to "Go git dat!". All the new bodyguard rule does is enforce bodyguarding in a better mechanic than Transferring Mortal Wounds.
I think limiting buffs is a mistake. Layering buffs is a great mechanism and I love how, for example in Warmachine, I can use it to make action outcome almost surely a success. It feels like I am owning this success instead of it being dependant on blind luck. It is also satisfying, even when it's overkill, to pull it off, like firing a super powerful weapon you crafted in a video game.
The only thing that can go wrong IMO is if this layering buffs is too easy. Then instead of a success you deserved because you worked for it you get an auto solution on a silver platter. To avoid this you need short ranges, punishing order of activation requirements, extra conditions to satisfy, managing a tightly limited resource or relevant opportunity cost to make the process more demanding when it comes to planning it out. (generally I think building in as many "opportunities for mistake" as possible should be a cornerstone of all game design as it creates this range of skill and experience between players based on how many of these traps they have learned to avoid)
that was definitely 2nd ed 40K. In 5th only a couple characters across every army had more than 3 wounds (it maxed at 4 for marines and it was only 2 or 3 of the named characters) and many characters only had 2.
Cyel wrote: I think limiting buffs is a mistake. Layering buffs is a great mechanism and I love how, for example in Warmachine, I can use it to make action outcome almost surely a success. It feels like I am owning this success instead of it being dependant on blind luck. It is also satisfying, even when it's overkill, to pull it off, like firing a super powerful weapon you crafted in a video game.
The only thing that can go wrong IMO is if this layering buffs is too easy. Then instead of a success you deserved because you worked for it you get an auto solution on a silver platter. To avoid this you need short ranges, punishing order of activation requirements, extra conditions to satisfy, managing a tightly limited resource or relevant opportunity cost to make the process more demanding when it comes to planning it out. (generally I think building in as many "opportunities for mistake" as possible should be a cornerstone of all game design as it creates this range of skill and experience between players based on how many of these traps they have learned to avoid)
Honestly I've seen how abusive and jank layered buffs can get. I get that some people like them, but I'm less of a fan.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".
I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.
That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.
That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.
Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.
I was thinking of positive modifiers being more of a way to negate the negatives than to buff units. To keep them operating at their respective peak, not giving you the ability to buff Guardsmen to a 2+ to hit.
Infantry should be able to hit on a 2+ in certain circumstances. There's a unit pinned, they got their inspiring Commander nearby, they're on higher ground......it's the perfect storm.
Breton wrote: I'm OK with Look Out Sir!, and I'm OK with Grots shielding a warboss. I can't imagine many people would blink twice at a mechanic for a warboss throwing a grot into the path of a missile to save himself with an order to "Go git dat!". All the new bodyguard rule does is enforce bodyguarding in a better mechanic than Transferring Mortal Wounds.
Heck, GW has literally stated that this happens in some cases with the LOS rule, in both 40K and Fantasy.
The Helbrute and Cultists formation literally did that as well.
Back onto what 40k "should" be something that has crossed my mind a few times is that I sometimes wish 40k did the whole tier thing you see in Blood Bowl. Like tell us what armies are supposed to be bonkers good versus the stunty armies (which I assume would include Guard).
I don't mean this as a cheapshot at anyone's army, (heck I'm working on a Catachan army ATM) but I almost wonder if setting expectations early by saying "this is roughly where your army sits in terms of power by design" would help smooth things over in the community.
For those who are curious: in Blood Bowl the best teams tend to have few special rules to start with but have very good stats and cost a lot to field, while as you move down the tiers the stats get worse but the teams tend to pick up extra rules and are cheaper so you get more models on your team. This brings you down to the stunties who get a slew of rules and are basically the easiest to spam a large number of models but are slow and generally have poor stats (basically if you hit a stunty they're probably injured or dead) and sometimes have access to relatively strong options that only exist for a single drive when fielded because they're technically illegal in universe.
I know the idea isn't super popular with the more diehard comp crowd who wants every army to fall into that 45%-55% win rate range, but I still wonder sometimes if it'd promote a healthier game overall.
I mean just look at Blood Bowl which is a fairly competetive game despite saying "some teams are better or worse than others on purpose".
ClockworkZion wrote: The Helbrute and Cultists formation literally did that as well.
Back onto what 40k "should" be something that has crossed my mind a few times is that I sometimes wish 40k did the whole tier thing you see in Blood Bowl. Like tell us what armies are supposed to be bonkers good versus the stunty armies (which I assume would include Guard).
I don't mean this as a cheapshot at anyone's army, (heck I'm working on a Catachan army ATM) but I almost wonder if setting expectations early by saying "this is roughly where your army sits in terms of power by design" would help smooth things over in the community.
For those who are curious: in Blood Bowl the best teams tend to have few special rules to start with but have very good stats and cost a lot to field, while as you move down the tiers the stats get worse but the teams tend to pick up extra rules and are cheaper so you get more models on your team. This brings you down to the stunties who get a slew of rules and are basically the easiest to spam a large number of models but are slow and generally have poor stats (basically if you hit a stunty they're probably injured or dead) and sometimes have access to relatively strong options that only exist for a single drive when fielded because they're technically illegal in universe.
I know the idea isn't super popular with the more diehard comp crowd who wants every army to fall into that 45%-55% win rate range, but I still wonder sometimes if it'd promote a healthier game overall.
I mean just look at Blood Bowl which is a fairly competetive game despite saying "some teams are better or worse than others on purpose".
I don't think this is a good idea for a whole host of reasons completely independent of the comp crowd; if you're trying to be a 'model company' telling people who want to play with their cool toys "oh, no, the stuff you like is low-tier on purpose, don't expect to have interesting games unless you buy different models" is a recipe for even more frustration and complaining than you get already because people will realize that their stuff is crap on purpose faster. Not to mention that GW's business model relies on armies fluctuating from the top tier to the bottom tier and back again, so trying to implement an official tier system would still require that they dramatically alter their release model, unless you're expecting people to not be grouchy when their top-tier army gets pushed to the bottom tier by age and inattention.
You say that but look at Blood Bowl. Heck, people even go out of their eays to play bad teams on purpose there, and really it's more "strong, average, weak" split than "best, good, worst" split with the biggest component being based around the innate stats of the army with the weakest teams getting the most rules to ignore rules (like dodging at no penalty) to balance their weaker statlines.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Helbrute and Cultists formation literally did that as well.
Back onto what 40k "should" be something that has crossed my mind a few times is that I sometimes wish 40k did the whole tier thing you see in Blood Bowl. Like tell us what armies are supposed to be bonkers good versus the stunty armies (which I assume would include Guard).
I don't mean this as a cheapshot at anyone's army, (heck I'm working on a Catachan army ATM) but I almost wonder if setting expectations early by saying "this is roughly where your army sits in terms of power by design" would help smooth things over in the community.
For those who are curious: in Blood Bowl the best teams tend to have few special rules to start with but have very good stats and cost a lot to field, while as you move down the tiers the stats get worse but the teams tend to pick up extra rules and are cheaper so you get more models on your team. This brings you down to the stunties who get a slew of rules and are basically the easiest to spam a large number of models but are slow and generally have poor stats (basically if you hit a stunty they're probably injured or dead) and sometimes have access to relatively strong options that only exist for a single drive when fielded because they're technically illegal in universe.
I know the idea isn't super popular with the more diehard comp crowd who wants every army to fall into that 45%-55% win rate range, but I still wonder sometimes if it'd promote a healthier game overall.
I mean just look at Blood Bowl which is a fairly competetive game despite saying "some teams are better or worse than others on purpose".
That would require GW to both know their game well enough to do so, and admit that not all factions are equal.
...That sounds like you're proposing making the job of balancing 40k dramatically harder by adding a whole extra layer of nuance to the tier designations, as well as telling customers "no, the minis you like are deliberately weak on purpose".
I think they know how they intend the game to be played fine, thst judt tuns counter to the "optimize the he'll out of it" approach people take when the limiters are off.
If anything it's the transparency on army balance that is the real hurdle.
I think it works for Bloodbowl because teams are small, cheap, and easy.
You can dip into and out of teams for £20 and a weekend, easily, for fully painted. There's no hard feelings if your favourite team sucks because little was invested into them.
If you get bored of having your favourite Halflings pasted, it's not big deal to paint up some Dwarfs and go smash some people for a couple of games.
But for 40k you're looking at £hundreds and months of work. You're easily looking at 10x the investment of Bloodbowl, if not 20x.
That's waaay too much to turn around and tell someone "sorry, they're supposed to suck, they always will suck. If you don't like sucking - do all of that again for this other army".
AnomanderRake wrote: ...That sounds like you're proposing making the job of balancing 40k dramatically harder by adding a whole extra layer of nuance to the tier designations, as well as telling customers "no, the minis you like are deliberately weak on purpose".
I think you misunderstand.
What I'm saying is something that could be applied right now AND would tighten design focus.
So points are already half of this system, but the other half is special rules. The stronger the average statline on a Blood Bowl team is (passing, movement, agility, toughness, armout, ect) the less bonus rules that team starts with (there is a whole levelling system for playing in a season which allows teams to improve and the strong teams often have the modt positional players who can learn a wide range of skills versus the weaker teams who don't have nearly as many positional players). The weakest teams are typically the Stunty teams (Snotlings, Goblins, Halflings) who have the slowest movement, are the easiest to injure and have some the lowest skill based stats of all the teams. But they also get a bunch of extra rules making them harder to actually tackle as they run it up the field.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
Yes, this means admitting that there is a reasonable expectation players should have to win with an army because it's statline isn't as strong but they get rules than can help them in different ways (Goblins are great at employing weapons and fouling for example, and Halflings are pretty good at getting thrown by their Freeman teammates allowing them to get up the board faster).
Basically playing stunty is going in to play the underdog and knowing your games will be uphill battles against foes stronger, faster and better equipped than you. Kind of sounds like playing the Guard honestly.
What I'm saying is something that could be applied right now AND would tighten design focus.
It _might_ tighten design focus on the factions that are 'supposed' to matter, but it would obviously have the opposite effect on whichever poor schlubs don't make the cut. That isn't a reasonable approach to game design.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
Here's your first point of failure. Nothing is designed like that. The more layers of special rules, the more likely the army is to have absurd exploits.
I have a solution: Go to a D12 system in 10th. That was GW can still sell it's stupid D6 dice, but we now predominately roll off a d12 system. So now GW gets to sell us all new dice, and we get a system that is doubled the possibility for balance and refinement. Now instead of 3s to hit, it would be 6s. And Guard Laspistols would wound Titans on a 12+, etc.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
So how will you make the "strong" armies feel unique, do things that you'd expect those forces to be doing, if you don't give them the special rules to do it.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
So how will you make the "strong" armies feel unique, do things that you'd expect those forces to be doing, if you don't give them the special rules to do it.
Different stat focuses, different comp and different base abilities of the few that they get mainly.
How would you even determine which armies are supposed to be strong and which armies are supposed to be weak?
I mean, based on my admittedly biased reading of the lore, the weak armies should be the Imperial ones, Tau and Eldar. The IoM because their whole thing is that they are facing the End of Times, Tau because they are the newbies, and Eldar because they are almost extinct.
Now try to sell that to Space Marines players, and I can guarantee that you will get a shitstorm. And I don't expect Tau players to accept it any better (Eldar are used to getting gak on though).
ClockworkZion wrote: I think they know how they intend the game to be played fine, thst judt tuns counter to the "optimize the he'll out of it" approach people take when the limiters are off.
Sure, but they also seem indignant to the idea of actually putting in the work to make the game play like their vision. That's entitlement on GW's part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: What I'm saying is something that could be applied right now AND would tighten design focus.
It would also make 40k a vastly shittier game. Players like fairness. Outright telling people that army X is supposed to beat you for less effort will make people mad; that's what happened when Ward said that about the Chaos Demons codex/Army book.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have a solution: Go to a D12 system in 10th. That was GW can still sell it's stupid D6 dice, but we now predominately roll off a d12 system. So now GW gets to sell us all new dice, and we get a system that is doubled the possibility for balance and refinement. Now instead of 3s to hit, it would be 6s. And Guard Laspistols would wound Titans on a 12+, etc.
GW's issue really isn't the limitations of the d6 system. Double the possibility is useless when the current issues don't stem from the dice but all the extra gak piled on top.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Hecaton: you say that it'd make people mad, but is there anything that GW does that doesn't actually make them mad?
And I stand by that it'd at least lean into the lore better considering.
Also, war games don't have to be "fair". Asymmetrical design can work if it's intentionally designed for.
There's a difference between asymmetrical mission design, and "Your army is worse than your friend's army. Deal with it."
I think there is a drastic misunderstanding of my point, much less what I'm trying to describe (more than likely my fault because I suspect most of the 40k community hasn't tried Blood Bowl).
So to try and clear things things up let me share how the Blood Bowl book describes tiers:
Now I'd like people to think about the lore of the setting and tell me that all armies really feel like they fit into the same tier. Points go a long way to try and smooth the curve, but it's never given the finer tweaks needed to really smooth things by enough to really strike a real balance.And I don't mean to imply different tiers can't play and have a good game. Part of how they balance this is through Team Values which give the weaker team bonus resources (namely gold) to help give them a leg up through the purchase of extra re-rolls, apothecaries, booze, star players, ect that give them bonuses to the game to allow the weaker team things to help them out.
Conceptually I'd rather see something similar in 40k where the team designs around an army fitting into different tiers and admitting that armies like Orks or Guard aren't going to have the same innate power as Marines or Eldar. The lore doesn't support armies being on the same level (heck, lore wise every Marine should basically be it's own unit on the table able to solo multiple squads of Guardsmen with ease but I honestly don't want to push the game to that point), and retooling Power Level to be the tool we use to compare army strength at set up and let the weaker army have a leg up through things they can purchase (such as re-rolls) would smooth the curve quite a bit more while the tier system would tell people which armies are easier or harder to play.
But I also know this was a thought that was not likely to get a lot of traction because it's obvious people like the idea that every army should be exactly equal, even if the game has never managed that and I don't think it ever realistically will.
...Conceptually I'd rather see something similar in 40k where the team designs around an army fitting into different tiers and admitting that armies like Orks or Guard aren't going to have the same innate power as Marines or Eldar. The lore doesn't support armies being on the same level (heck, lore wise every Marine should basically be it's own unit on the table able to solo multiple squads of Guardsmen with ease but I honestly don't want to push the game to that point)...
I see where you're coming from, but I think that this kind of misses the point. A Guardsman shouldn't be able to go toe to toe with a Space Marine (not unless Big E himself comes down to punt the Marine in the ghoulies), but that doesn't mean that Guardsmen can't or shouldn't be on the same level as Space Marines. That's kind of the whole raison d'être of points (and squad sizes, and bespoke systems like Orders, and many other balancing/mechanical systems) - a Space Marine is worth multiple Guardsmen, but there's multiple Guardsmen per Space Marine on the tabletop.
Also, remember: the lore's a double-edged sword. Sure, Chaos Space Marines are capable of soloing Guardsmen en masse in the Chaos books, but swap over to the IG books and suddenly they're getting picked apart by a few Guardsmen, some clever traps, and a whole lot of Poisoned Weapons.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Now I'd like people to think about the lore of the setting and tell me that all armies really feel like they fit into the same tier...
The lore, the setting, and the power tier of the armies isn't in any way fixed. Write a tier list now, then write a tier list in a year, lots of things will have flipped around. Write a tier list now, and compare it to a tier list from 4e, and they might have nothing in common. Trying to nail the game to a fixed tier list would pretty much require GW to burn their business model down.
(Before you start talking to me about the lore I will remind you that everyone's army book is written 100% as in-universe "THESE ARE THE STRONGEST THING IN THE GALAXY!" marketing propaganda, and trying to use the lore to create power tiers is purely nonsense.)
Every faction should be capable of creating 2000 point armies roughly combat-potential-equivalent to other 2000 point armies, with high potential for asymmetry in how that's achieved.
I mean just look at Blood Bowl which is a fairly competetive game despite saying "some teams are better or worse than others on purpose".
I don't like how blood bowl does it either, and while it is a fairly competitive game, you also tend to see the same teams repeated over and over for a reason. Those are the good teams.
I've run leagues in BB for 20 odd years and 75-85% of the league rosters are the same small subset of teams.
I'd rather every team or faction be viable because I don't want every game or league or season to be against the same subset of teams / factions every single time.
40k is already a garbage fire of bad balance, so them saying "these factions are supposed to be weak and these factions are supposed to pwn your face" I don't think really solves much of anything other than "if you play this faction we intend for you to be playing on nightmare difficulty while the rest of your opponents know to grab easy-mode armies". Thats what happens in Blood Bowl as well. You DO get the random player that decides the halfling or vampire teams are fun and plays them despite the fact they suck, and they end up winning maybe one or two games if they are lucky and then bow out for playoffs while the rest of the guys that played easy-mode teams go to the playoffs year in year out.
Thats akin to having a Madden league where you get to pick whatever team you want and copies of the same team can exist.
You get a 30 team league with the same 4 nfl teams repeated over and over with the random one or two others thrown in for lolz. Tom Brady would exist like 6-8 times in that league lol.
Thats not a fun league there, not a fun time in BB when everyone is playing dwarfs and orcs and chaos over and over again, and not a fun time in 40k when so many really cool models and factions sit on a shelf while everyone plays the same builds over and over again claiming skill in list building for copy/pasting what they found here or reddit or wherever or had some GT winner build their list for $200 on their site building website.
...Conceptually I'd rather see something similar in 40k where the team designs around an army fitting into different tiers and admitting that armies like Orks or Guard aren't going to have the same innate power as Marines or Eldar. The lore doesn't support armies being on the same level (heck, lore wise every Marine should basically be it's own unit on the table able to solo multiple squads of Guardsmen with ease but I honestly don't want to push the game to that point)...
I see where you're coming from, but I think that this kind of misses the point. A Guardsman shouldn't be able to go toe to toe with a Space Marine (not unless Big E himself comes down to punt the Marine in the ghoulies), but that doesn't mean that Guardsmen can't or shouldn't be on the same level as Space Marines. That's kind of the whole raison d'être of points (and squad sizes, and bespoke systems like Orders, and many other balancing/mechanical systems) - a Space Marine is worth multiple Guardsmen, but there's multiple Guardsmen per Space Marine on the tabletop.
Also, remember: the lore's a double-edged sword. Sure, Chaos Space Marines are capable of soloing Guardsmen en masse in the Chaos books, but swap over to the IG books and suddenly they're getting picked apart by a few Guardsmen, some clever traps, and a whole lot of Poisoned Weapons.
I spose a big factor here as well really is the kind of culture around playing the game isnt it? you could argue its a bit like choosing a list you know isnt optimized for maximum effectiveness but you think fits into the lore or is just fun to play. I think there is fun to be had playing with a handicap personally even in competitive games.
I mean I wouldnt often just pick a totally handicapped list but I would often think "I want to use X unit/s, how do I do this most effectively?"
kirotheavenger wrote: I think it works for Bloodbowl because teams are small, cheap, and easy.
You can dip into and out of teams for £20 and a weekend, easily, for fully painted. There's no hard feelings if your favourite team sucks because little was invested into them.
If you get bored of having your favourite Halflings pasted, it's not big deal to paint up some Dwarfs and go smash some people for a couple of games.
But for 40k you're looking at £hundreds and months of work. You're easily looking at 10x the investment of Bloodbowl, if not 20x.
That's waaay too much to turn around and tell someone "sorry, they're supposed to suck, they always will suck. If you don't like sucking - do all of that again for this other army".
Yeah. Deliberately gimping hundreds of £'s army just for fun of it is...Might just as well make army legends at that point.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
So how will you make the "strong" armies feel unique, do things that you'd expect those forces to be doing, if you don't give them the special rules to do it.
It's GW style to have illusion that you need special rules to be unique.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think it works for Bloodbowl because teams are small, cheap, and easy.
You can dip into and out of teams for £20 and a weekend, easily, for fully painted. There's no hard feelings if your favourite team sucks because little was invested into them.
If you get bored of having your favourite Halflings pasted, it's not big deal to paint up some Dwarfs and go smash some people for a couple of games.
But for 40k you're looking at £hundreds and months of work. You're easily looking at 10x the investment of Bloodbowl, if not 20x.
That's waaay too much to turn around and tell someone "sorry, they're supposed to suck, they always will suck. If you don't like sucking - do all of that again for this other army".
Yeah. Deliberately gimping hundreds of £'s army just for fun of it is...Might just as well make army legends at that point.
40k could take the same design ethos where strong statline armies could have the smallest number of bonus rules, while armies like Guard have more bonuses due to how weak their statlines are.
So how will you make the "strong" armies feel unique, do things that you'd expect those forces to be doing, if you don't give them the special rules to do it.
It's GW style to have illusion that you need special rules to be unique.
Well then, they're in good company. It is the rare game indeed that can make unique units with no special rules attached to them. And 40k is definitely not one of them.
GW takes it to extremes though.
My favourite example is the Ork buggy - the model has a grot hanging off the side with a pistol.
So the vehicle has an extra special rule allowing it to shoot a pistol on top of everything else as an exception to the normal rules.
For a S3 AP- pistol. Genuinely, who cares? Why bother? The time spent rolling that dice isn't worth the damage it does, let alone the ink used to print the rule.
Any sane game would have just left that grot as a cute little piece of decoration and character.
I spose a big factor here as well really is the kind of culture around playing the game isnt it? you could argue its a bit like choosing a list you know isnt optimized for maximum effectiveness but you think fits into the lore or is just fun to play. I think there is fun to be had playing with a handicap personally even in competitive games.
I mean I wouldnt often just pick a totally handicapped list but I would often think "I want to use X unit/s, how do I do this most effectively?"
Well the anwser to armies with a limited pool of good units is often that you do not take them, and if you do you will have a very bad time. No idea how GK lists looked before 8th, but since 8th ed the army has been all about 3 units NDKs, Strikes and Interceptors. Everything else is at best very niche and in most cases very bad. this creates a situation where if someone were to decide that they really trust the whole , play what you like, mythos and have an army with a Librarian, GK not in NDK armour and a ton of termintors and paladins, they may as well not come to play vs half the field. And it gets even worse when the person gets the advice that their army can easily be made good, they just need to buy 4 boxs of NDKs and 6 boxs of power armoured troops, and never use the units they like, and everything should be fun for them. Well at least till the army gets nerfed and then when the 2-3 good units get removed you end up with a bad codex, with a bad army and no units to replace the bad stuff.
GW takes it to extremes though.
My favourite example is the Ork buggy - the model has a grot hanging off the side with a pistol.
So the vehicle has an extra special rule allowing it to shoot a pistol on top of everything else as an exception to the normal rules.
For a S3 AP- pistol. Genuinely, who cares? Why bother? The time spent rolling that dice isn't worth the damage it does, let alone the ink used to print the rule.
Any sane game would have just left that grot as a cute little piece of decoration and character.
That's a great example of how GW ignores the quality of actual User Experience in their games and designs them to be a tedious slog.
moreorless wrote: I spose a big factor here as well really is the kind of culture around playing the game isnt it? you could argue its a bit like choosing a list you know isnt optimized for maximum effectiveness but you think fits into the lore or is just fun to play. I think there is fun to be had playing with a handicap personally even in competitive games.
I mean I wouldnt often just pick a totally handicapped list but I would often think "I want to use X unit/s, how do I do this most effectively?"
For that to work well, balance needs to be in a somewhat decent state, both internally and externally. Until Drukhari were released this kind of was the case for 9th, but afterwards even slightly handicapping yourself meant that you would have a non-game against certain codices because even an army of "units I think are cool" would completely overpower you and end the game by the bottom of turn 2.
As the game is right now, either the weak codices are forced to play optimized lists in narrative to even have a chance of not getting tabled (no units, no story told), or the powerful codices have to actively hamstring themselves to get anything out of the game (no story told with the opponent being dead for three turns either).
Either way, people are not able to play what they think fits the lore or is fun to play because of how unhinged the game is right now. The crusade rules coming apart at the poorly sewn seams due to all that lethality doesn't help either.
I'm currently trying to mitigate that by only matching armies of similar tiers (similar to what ClockworkZion is suggesting) in our campaign, but this is nothing but a band-aid. People will start complaining about having the same match-ups all the time, and unlike with bloodbowl, you can't just switch armies by buying a box or two and painting it in a weeks worth of work.
GW takes it to extremes though.
My favourite example is the Ork buggy - the model has a grot hanging off the side with a pistol.
So the vehicle has an extra special rule allowing it to shoot a pistol on top of everything else as an exception to the normal rules.
For a S3 AP- pistol. Genuinely, who cares? Why bother? The time spent rolling that dice isn't worth the damage it does, let alone the ink used to print the rule.
Any sane game would have just left that grot as a cute little piece of decoration and character.
It's just one extra color of dice you are rolling in addition to the pile of dice the buggy is rolling anyways. It's not really that different from the random bolters and grenade launchers stapled to every imperial vehicle.
Of course, they could have made the grenades and grot blasters assault and skip the special rule.
If you actually want to complain about needlessly complex rules, look at the squighogs. Outside of edge cases writing them as just having 5 Attacks with as single S6 AP-2 D2 weapon would have been absolutely equivalent.
That's a great example of how GW ignores the quality of actual User Experience in their games and designs them to be a tedious slog.
But what if some other company starts making models for grots hanging off buggies, and GW can't prove that they are the sole and only owners of every depiction of a goblinoid with a pistol handing ?
Or that they somehow think that having a grot with a pistol on the buggy will confused the players, there is a pistol why doesn't it get to attack? While at the same time full expecting a new player to have 100% control and knowladge of 5 tier deep stratagem and aura interactions, which as we all know are so easy and clear to understand and remember that they can never confuse anyone.
I think the issue is just that someone in GW thinks its cool/fun that a Grot can lean out of the Mad Max style buggy and blam someone. It forges a narrative, even if its pointless 90%+ of the time.
Same story with Squighogs. Its "fun" to know the Hogs (or Saddlegit) got the kills rather than the Boyz.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Hecaton: you say that it'd make people mad, but is there anything that GW does that doesn't actually make them mad?
And I stand by that it'd at least lean into the lore better considering.
Also, war games don't have to be "fair". Asymmetrical design can work if it's intentionally designed for.
Well then what's the point of the points system? It's supposed to provide an (approximately) even fight.
GW can make cool minis and publish balanced, flavorful rules, and people won't get mad. There are some people who complain to complain, but not me.
War games don't have to be fair - but asymmetrical design typically implies fairness, so it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Moreover, if a wargame isn't fair, people aren't going to want to play it. "I won because I chose to spend money on the army the designers said was more powerful, and you lost because you chose to spend money on the army the designers said was less powerful" does not a fun game make.
The reason Blood Bowl works differently is that instead of points, there's a limitation to the amount of players that can be on the field (I know your roster has a "points" cap but you're limited to what can be on the field at a given time). 40k doesn't have that limitation; Custodes vs. Infantry-focused IG will have vastly different numbers of troops on the opposite sides, but the possibility exists for it to be a fair fight regardless.
I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
Some armies, e.g. Marines, are pretty straightforward to play, have lots of redundancy built-in, and are easier to recover from gameplay mistakes and mishaps (poor positioning, etc.) since the units are pretty tough overall.
Other armies can require more finesses and careful planning to get the most out of them, and more importantly if fail to plan ahead accordingly there isn't as much leeway for mistakes.
I think the above is the point to be reiterated about army selection.
I also feel like these differences haven't translated as well to modern era, and were probably more distinctive in older editions.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
Some armies, e.g. Marines, are pretty straightforward to play, have lots of redundancy built-in, and are easier to recover from gameplay mistakes and mishaps (poor positioning, etc.) since the units are pretty tough overall.
Other armies can require more finesses and careful planning to get the most out of them, and more importantly if fail to plan ahead accordingly there isn't as much leeway for mistakes.
I think the above is the point to be reiterated about army selection.
I also feel like these differences haven't translated as well to modern era, and were probably more distinctive in older editions.
Said it better than I did.
Points don't reflect complexity, just relative strength on paper (and that is rarely a fixed thing). Some armies have better statlines and are easier to pilot to a win than others, even when both armies have been updated at the same time. Compare Grey Knights to Thousand Sons for example. Thousand Sons are more complex compared to the more straightforward Grey Knights and struggled to make a splash in the meta as a result.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
And it's due to that logic we'd have people defending the game if GW priced Termagaunts at 10 points per model. L2P has always been a garbage argument.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
And it's due to that logic we'd have people defending the game if GW priced Termagaunts at 10 points per model. L2P has always been a garbage argument.
That wasn't what the point about tiers was about.
The idea was that GW could level the playing field further while also setting expectations for players by saying "this army is easier to win with than that army, so here's some bonuses to the army that is harder to win with".
ClockworkZion wrote: The idea was that GW could level the playing field further while also setting expectations for players by saying "this army is easier to win with than that army, so here's some bonuses to the army that is harder to win with".
That's a great example of how GW ignores the quality of actual User Experience in their games and designs them to be a tedious slog.
But what if some other company starts making models for grots hanging off buggies, and GW can't prove that they are the sole and only owners of every depiction of a goblinoid with a pistol handing ?
Or that they somehow think that having a grot with a pistol on the buggy will confused the players, there is a pistol why doesn't it get to attack? While at the same time full expecting a new player to have 100% control and knowladge of 5 tier deep stratagem and aura interactions, which as we all know are so easy and clear to understand and remember that they can never confuse anyone.
Yeah, burdening players with irrelevant minutiae like these is what makes this game feel like a slow-paced, tedious chore.
I think game design is like programming. Any idiot can keep adding lines upon lines of code, but it takes a smart person to actually make code shorter but still working as intended.
I'll echo a point about apparent player skill. A faction like Custodes caters to people who don't really like rules, or phases, or regular styles of play. There is only one style of play really for Custodes. Get in close and deck 'em in the schnoz. Rinse, and Repeat. Psykers? Can your Grade A psyker stop my size 15 boot from being inserted into your rear? Shooting? Sure we can shoot, but that's not what we are best at. Our Shooting just softens up the mobs for getting punched.
I would honestly wonder, if all the players getting top places right now with Custodes could do the same with Dark Eldar, or Space Marines, or Nids. Likely not. Custodes is basically babies first 40k faction. We're catered to less talented players, who don't like confusing codexes with lots of rules and text. We worry about two things. How fast can I get there, and how hard can I hit it with my weapon?
We've never had a time where the simplest most newb friendly faction is this powerful. Of course we are seeing droves or good placings. Because a lot of dumb dumbs out there are running with the simple easy mode lists. Im actually on the Nerf Custodes bandwagon, and they're my faction.
I just want to be able to have fun playing them. If you nerf them, just leave us something fun.
Ah yes, because DE require genius level of skills to play. Same with the stamped nids. Saves on saves, -1D multi wound models. Same with GK , 5 NDK -1D, inv and psychic powers.
Now ad mecha, that is an army which requires someone of the , likes to fill out his own tax forms, mind set.
The more I listen to custodes rants, the more it looks like the IH end of 8th ed rants. People hate them, because it is not their army which is at the top and it costs less then what they spend on their army. And the better the army, the higher win rate it had pre custodes arriving the higher the lack of acceptance for custodes being good. And no wait and see for 6-9 months, like with DEs or Inari in 8. No they are suppose to be nerfed in to the ground now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague 803436 11323417 wrote:
And it's due to that logic we'd have people defending the game if GW priced Termagaunts at 10 points per model. L2P has always been a garbage argument.
Okey, but when the illusion of play what you want is being drawn, how would you name all the pitfalls, bad armies, bad units etc factions in w40k have?
Learn to play is a nice of way of saying, if you don't buy and play with x, y and z and stay away from faction a, b and c, you are going to have a hell lot of bad time and a ton of , I wasted my money, feelings.
Custodes literally don't have a Psyker phase, and more than 10 actual units, with a host of different abilities. By the nature of them even having a psychic phase, they are inherently more complicated than Custodes. Stop grasping at straws. This isn't even an argument that Custodes are the simpleton faction.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
Well, they were the ones using terms like strong and weak.
If they wanted their point to be understood, then they should have used the correct terms.
I was using it in reference to stats but people spun that out to mean the entire army or that I meant that people should be told their army can't win.
The point was that there some armies will always be easier to win with over others due to the innate advantages a good statline gives an army. Add in rules complexity (like Guard orders) and the deck starts stacking in favor of armies like Marines and Custodes.
I'm not saying that tiers should say "your army sucks" but rather say "your army is easier/harder to win with and as such we offer additional bonuses to balance those uneven match ups".
I know some people think that points are a magic bandaid to sort this but there is no mathematical way to point everything out perfectly for every match up and combination. Some match ups are going to be more unfair to one army than the other by the simple way the mechanics pile up (not even touching on how players gravitate towards optimizing the heck out of their armies to boot) and recognizing it and building it a system to try and flatten the curve on those match ups to create a more interesting game.
Plus it'd make it easier for new players to a faction to know what kind of experiance they're looking at. Are they getting an army like Custodes or Marines that are fairly straightforward and strong because of how their buffs work in a straightforward manner to mitigate bad rolls, or are they getting GSC or Thousand Sons who have to work to get their bonuses and require more finesse and a bad turn can pull the whole army apart? I feel like recognizing that there are differences in what kind of experiance you're looking at would make people feel less bad about jumping into an army only to find out it's got a harsher learning curve than they expected.
And maybe GW could sort this by stripping the game down to statblocks and limiting the game to one faction bonus and no more than one rule per datasheet, double all the points base and refine it from there, but with the design team trying to dial into the lore of the setting in how the armies play I feel they should look at setting expectations from the outset in terms of the complexity of the armies, the differences in strength provided by their statline and the bonuses given to the armies.
Failing all that, then at the very least a designer's introduction on what they designed the army to play like would go a long way for setting intent and allowing players to get a better feel for an army before they buy it.
To be frank, they could also market armies in terms of their "complexity" as a way to get at the difficulty of piloting question. More complex armies with a lot of moving parts at work, tend to require more mental overhead to pilot well, since there are more plates you need to keep spinning in the air. It would be an easy shorthand way to talk about it too.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
And it's due to that logic we'd have people defending the game if GW priced Termagaunts at 10 points per model. L2P has always been a garbage argument.
That wasn't what the point about tiers was about.
The idea was that GW could level the playing field further while also setting expectations for players by saying "this army is easier to win with than that army, so here's some bonuses to the army that is harder to win with".
Which would require leveling the playing field. Which they're not interested in doing and would require them to dramatically alter their business model to achieve.
Mezmorki wrote: I think people are missing ClockworkZion's point.....
This isn't about good/bad or strong/weak, it's about how difficult it is to pilot the army well.
And it's due to that logic we'd have people defending the game if GW priced Termagaunts at 10 points per model. L2P has always been a garbage argument.
That wasn't what the point about tiers was about.
The idea was that GW could level the playing field further while also setting expectations for players by saying "this army is easier to win with than that army, so here's some bonuses to the army that is harder to win with".
Which would require leveling the playing field. Which they're not interested in doing and would require them to dramatically alter their business model to achieve.
Not really an arguement against it in a topic called "What 40k SHOULD be".
Mezmorki wrote: To be frank, they could also market armies in terms of their "complexity" as a way to get at the difficulty of piloting question. More complex armies with a lot of moving parts at work, tend to require more mental overhead to pilot well, since there are more plates you need to keep spinning in the air. It would be an easy shorthand way to talk about it too.
One of my favorite board games, BattleCON, does this - it ranks the characters by their complexity, not their power level. Some of the very "simple" characters (CADENZA) can win games, but their mechanics are relatively straightforward, whereas others (Tanis Trilives) are like a puzzle to play, or to play against.
If GW wanted to make all-Primaris Astartes a very simple army to play, but kept its power level in line with other factions, that'd be a great way to get people into the game. As it stands the power level is too volatile (though they'll almost certainly get pushed to the moon when the new codex comes out).
Hecaton wrote: Yeah, this could all be done with points.
As I've been saying to years: Points are not the great leveller. They certainly help, but they are not the one-stop solution to all problems.
GW's issues like with the constant addition of layered rules, and escalating rules. It comes down to there being no standardisation and no scalability built into 40k: Everything is bespoke, meaning that they just make it up as they go along, introducing new mechanics, or the same mechanics done slightly differently, with each new book (and sometimes within a book).
I think the special rule on the Buggy that lets the Grot fire a single shot is a great example of the problems with GW rules. This single special rule could be a universal rule, easily applied to all manner of things. But instead of that, this one buggy has this one rule that is unique to it, and no amount of points fiddling is ever going to reflect that (or anything like it).
Hecaton wrote: Yeah, this could all be done with points.
As I've been saying to years: Points are not the great leveller. They certainly help, but they are not the one-stop solution to all problems.
GW's issues like with the constant addition of layered rules, and escalating rules. It comes down to there being no standardisation and no scalability built into 40k: Everything is bespoke, meaning that they just make it up as they go along, introducing new mechanics, or the same mechanics done slightly differently, with each new book (and sometimes within a book).
I think the special rule on the Buggy that lets the Grot fire a single shot is a great example of the problems with GW rules. This single special rule could be a universal rule, easily applied to all manner of things. But instead of that, this one buggy has this one rule that is unique to it, and no amount of points fiddling is ever going to reflect that (or anything like it).
With what I was replying to specifically, yes it could. Just give "low tier" armies 20% more points or whatever.
Hecaton wrote: Yeah, this could all be done with points.
As I've been saying to years: Points are not the great leveller. They certainly help, but they are not the one-stop solution to all problems.
GW's issues like with the constant addition of layered rules, and escalating rules. It comes down to there being no standardisation and no scalability built into 40k: Everything is bespoke, meaning that they just make it up as they go along, introducing new mechanics, or the same mechanics done slightly differently, with each new book (and sometimes within a book).
I think the special rule on the Buggy that lets the Grot fire a single shot is a great example of the problems with GW rules. This single special rule could be a universal rule, easily applied to all manner of things. But instead of that, this one buggy has this one rule that is unique to it, and no amount of points fiddling is ever going to reflect that (or anything like it).
With what I was replying to specifically, yes it could. Just give "low tier" armies 20% more points or whatever.
That's effectively the same as a points drop and no, we do not need to keep dropping points. And not every problem can be solved with points.
I agree points alone won't fix the game, but they are a great tool for fixing imbalances.
If a unit is overperforming increasing it's points is an easy way to bring it back in line unless there's something really weird/crazy going on.
In those situations it's best to nerf those things in particular (it might be a strategem or a particular buff interaction).
But buy and large points work well enough as a quick fix.
and your example very well shows how point adjustments can work
on a small scale to solve minor imbalance
if an army is outperformed on all levels, it means that it misses the tools to work with
not that those tools are too expensive
and no, giving them 20% more points is not the same as point drops on individual units unless all units/models/wargear is reduced by 20%
but we are running into the same problem with KillTeam at the moment, if a faction does not have the right tools to play well, giving them more tools that do not work does not help
the problem of a Intercessor KillTeam being that those are all the same models, and the solution is to give them one more instead of allow a mixed team
Although I would also add "Superior listbuilding"="copying tournament winning lists from the internet".
.
