Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 21:36:27


Post by: Harlech Quinn


Buckle up: This is going to be rather long. But I will try to be as brief as possible.
Disclaimer: For a long time I took part in the hobby only in a passive manner. I watched battle reports but did not play. During the pandemic and the advent of a new edition me and a relative discovered that we both loved to watch these battle reports (especially the videos from the people at Tabletop Tactics) and decided we would start our own armies. 9th edition looked very promising so he started a space marine army. Me, I always loved the Tau models (though i did not like how they operated in 8th). However the more I learn about the system the more I think there are fundamental flaws in the it.
The way I see it these flaws are as follows:

1. Too many moving parts
There are simply too many armies and models to achieve any sort of reasonable balance. The fact that GW makes its money through sale of new models incentivises them to constantly add to a system which is already too large to give every faction a distinctive playstyle while keeping them on roughly the same efficiency.

2. Economy of actions
The second biggest flaw is the fact that there are different armies that can take part at different phases of the game. A battleround (or a game for that matter) is a representation of a set time period. However the amount of actions every unit can take during that time is dependant on the phases in which it can act. This will always favor units and armies that can and want to act in as many phases as possible because there is literally no downside to it. Performing a psychic action is not affecting the ability to act in the shooting phase.
This is not only affecting game balance it also breaks the simultaion aspect of the game. Because it is illogical that in the time a unit is channeling the warp another unit would not be using this time to interact with the battlefield in another way (like for example pulling the trigger of its gun a few more times). Yet the unit who is only partaking in one phase does not gain any actions in other phases. While the psychic phase is - for the most part - relative negligible because most armies only have a few token units that can act in the psychic phase the same cannot be said for the charge and combat phases. Which leads me to my third problem:

3. Melee is a weightstone around the neck of this game
The aforementioned problem is heavily exarcebated in the way melee combat is forced in a game of guns, deathrays and artillery (and 9th edition is showing this flaw more than the previous editions). In order to make melee work in 40k the last two phases of the game give you a plathora of additional actions without any cost associated with it. Your average infanty unit is moving 6 inches (some more some less). If this unit using all of its actions during a battle round to cover as much gound as possible it will move 6 plus 1d6 inches. However if the very same unit partakes in the charge and fight phases it does not forgo its shooting, it charges an additional 1d6 (in comparison to the advance roll) and is able to make several attacks with its melee weapons. To add to that it is also given several free move actions along the way (consolidate and pile in movement). This means that a unit that partakes in the melee phase is not only given essentially free attack it is also up to three times as mobile as a unit that is not acting in those phases. In an edition where movement is king, this constitutes a bonus that is not reflected in its point cost.

I could elaborate on many of these points ( and I may in subsequent posts) but if you got to this point you deserve a break from my lacking english and thank you for your indulgence.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 21:55:05


Post by: Deikov


Counterpoint: In basically all previous editions, armies that specialized in Melee had to deal with the fact that armies specialized in ranged attacks could consistently and reliably annihilate them through weight of fire / excessive firepower, leading to a situation where the without-fail-best-option more often than not was to bring a static gunline.
Realistic? Yeah, sure.
Fun? Not for a lot of people.

But, it looks like you're saying you didn't play in previous editions, and while you watched some battle reports, that's not quite the same thing and so I'm afraid the people who will most agree with your stance are the ones who would prefer to only play static gunlines. And those are boring. Just.... so.... boring....


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 22:07:26


Post by: PenitentJake


Well, not to sound rude, but this game has existed for 33 years with both psychic and melee phases as a significant part of the game. If you watched batreps before playing you knew that.

There are other games without psychic phases. There are probably games without melee phases. You could have chosen to play one of those games. You didn't.

As for too many armies, they've built up over 33 years. Sorry you weren't there in the beginning, but those of us who were have been waiting a huge chunk of those 33 years for the army we've wanted since 1987. Now that we have it, no, we don't want to give it up to make life easier for you. For example, there's a thread in Dakka right now about how Deathwatch shouldn't exist. But the Death Watch were supposed to get a Codex in 2003, but some jackass decided a new edition was a better idea, and Deathwatch got swept under the rug for 15 years.

And so yeah, those of us who waited those 15 years aren't willing to let the army go for that guy either.

Funny how many people in the 40k general discussion don't play or actively hate 40k.

There are other games. Play them. Be happy. Leave the rest of us alone.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 22:14:06


Post by: Vaktathi


 Deikov wrote:
Counterpoint: In basically all previous editions, armies that specialized in Melee had to deal with the fact that armies specialized in ranged attacks could consistently and reliably annihilate them through weight of fire / excessive firepower, leading to a situation where the without-fail-best-option more often than not was to bring a static gunline.
Realistic? Yeah, sure.
Fun? Not for a lot of people.

But, it looks like you're saying you didn't play in previous editions, and while you watched some battle reports, that's not quite the same thing and so I'm afraid the people who will most agree with your stance are the ones who would prefer to only play static gunlines. And those are boring. Just.... so.... boring....
Melee and mobile shooting armies tended to dominate previous editions such as 3rd and 4th for sure, and as the archetypal static shooting army the Imperial Guard has rarely been among the power lists in most editions. Many armies built around CC did astoundingly well in 5th/6th/7th.

Melee functionality however has been mucked with in a way that's been hard to adjust for. In older editions, melee units didn't need to physically kill every model to destroy a unit, winning combat by 1 wound was sufficient to force a morale test that could result in running down and destroying the enemy unit, or in the case of Fearless units, forcing additional saves/wounds onto them and doubling damage output. Units are much faster now, and have a lot more gimmicks and movement (turn 1 charges and assaulting out of deep strike from reserves that guaranteed arrive turn 2 exactly where you want them without scattering or that can potentially cover 24"+ in a turn and dive into CC are insanely broken in the contexts of these older editions) but often can feel rather pillow fisted next to shooting.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 22:17:30


Post by: Selfcontrol


Your very first message and it's another "Why 40K is BAD !".

You're gonna feel right at home on Dakkadakka.

*Yawns*


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 22:35:42


Post by: Harlech Quinn


Well I thought that the last point would not be percieved so well. So let me clarify some points

First: By no means do I want to tell anybody how to play and what to play. I realise that a lot of armies rely on melee and that there is no way to change something that is so deeply ingrained in the system. This is from a perspective from someone who likes a lot of aspects of this game but is right now trying to figure out if this system is for him or not. So I made this threat to get other perspectives on the thoughts I have. That does not mean I want to change the system to my needs.

Watching and playing the game is different: entirely correct

Melee armies were decimated in previuos editions: Also entirely correct. It seems to me that this aspect of the game seems to always to be either totally restricting to the melee armies o to the shooting armies. Either melee armies get shot of the board while the player is desperately trying to get in contact or it is to the detriment of the shooting army. Neither option seems to be much fun for the players involved. But during the brief phase I was "involved" with 40k (7th to 9th) there seems to have be no balance between these two extremes. I guess my question to those of you who are here is if there was a balance at any point.

As for the boring gunline part: I agree. As long as there are no meaningful options other than shooting to kill ( for example flanking, supression etc.) static gunlines are boring as hell. Which is exactly why I did not like Tau in 8th. I really hope 9th edition would change that by way of its objectives. But it just seems to have swung to the other extreme again.

Now I do not know if any of my ramblings have the potential for a fruitful discussion. You can certainly take the "Hey if you dont like it you can sod off" approach. Or ignore this thread altogether. However if you have a different perspective and want to share...maybe I might see things differently


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Selfcontrol wrote:
Your very first message and it's another "Why 40K is BAD !".

You're gonna feel right at home on Dakkadakka.

*Yawns*


Yeah I guess I deserved that. No I do not think 40 is the BAAD. If so I would not have started it. It has many aspects that I love. The dedication with which people build and paint their armies. The social aspect of it. The models and the tables. All of it is great and I do not want to minimise the fun any of you had or has with this game. But there seem some aspects that work rather less well. The fact that some of you "suffered" through previous editions (not your quote) seems to give creedence to my third point.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 23:03:36


Post by: Lance845


Your not entirely wrong about the game being big and bloated and terrible and GW keeps making it worse.

If you and your friend are interested in the idea of getting a 2k point army I would recommend you instead look at apocalypse as a rule set. 1) you don't need to buy codexes. 2) the rules are much better. 3) the balance between shooting and melee is actually pretty great without any of the baggage. 3) it works great playing a roughly regular sized game of 40k.

The downside is it is not updated very often (it has received 1 update since release) and as a result a lot of the new shiny toys that have been released recently are not in apoc yet (if ever).



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 23:11:21


Post by: BrianDavion


 Harlech Quinn wrote:
Buckle up: This is going to be rather long. But I will try to be as brief as possible.
Disclaimer: For a long time I took part in the hobby only in a passive manner. I watched battle reports but did not play. During the pandemic and the advent of a new edition me and a relative discovered that we both loved to watch these battle reports (especially the videos from the people at Tabletop Tactics) and decided we would start our own armies. 9th edition looked very promising so he started a space marine army. Me, I always loved the Tau models (though i did not like how they operated in 8th). However the more I learn about the system the more I think there are fundamental flaws in the it.
The way I see it these flaws are as follows:
.


relevant part of the post is highlighted and increased in size. Let's break this down to what the post REALLY is shall we.

"Dear Dakkadakka, I started playing 40k recently, my friend recently started space marines and I recently started Tau, it absolutely sucks that he beat me and I blame the existance of psykers, which I don't have, and melee which I effectively don't have for this, 40k needs to get rid of it"


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 23:15:20


Post by: Super Ready


I almost didn't post in this thread at all... for the topic's sake, while you make some decent points, it's an unusual choice of first post but at least you have the grace to recognise why people would be defensive.
The real reason I posted? ...was to say that your English is exceptional. Far from lacking at all.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/03 23:40:18


Post by: a_typical_hero



I have to say I read your points before your disclaimer and I thought "this comes from a Tau player"

The truth is, you picked the wrong army at the wrong time. Tau don't work in this edition, yet. It has nothing inherently to do with the action economy, as Tau could never participate meaningfully in more than the shooting phase since their first codex in 3rd edition, but were competitive nonetheless. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

This edition is simply not made for their current rooster of units. On the other side you have Marines, who can play every phase well. For a beginner, I would really really not recommend Tau at the moment. Hopefully they get their fix with a new codex, but nobody knows when or if that will be.

My best advice for you is to put Tau on hold and get a better rounded army, if you want to play 40k.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 00:04:05


Post by: Harlech Quinn


 Super Ready wrote:
I almost didn't post in this thread at all... for the topic's sake, while you make some decent points, it's an unusual choice of first post but at least you have the grace to recognise why people would be defensive.
The real reason I posted? ...was to say that your English is exceptional. Far from lacking at all.


Very kind. Thank you. And yes I kind of feel bad that this is my first contribution and I get why people would not react well. Like I said, I am trying to decide if this is the hobby for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:

I have to say I read your points before your disclaimer and I thought "this comes from a Tau player"

(snip)

My best advice for you is to put Tau on hold and get a better rounded army, if you want to play 40k.


Yes I am certainly not unbiased in this respect.
Thanks for the advise. I might do that.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 00:49:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


PenitentJake wrote:
...Funny how many people in the 40k general discussion don't play or actively hate 40k.

There are other games. Play them. Be happy. Leave the rest of us alone.


The reason the 40k discussion is full of people who don't play/actively hate 40k is that they'd really rather play something else, but nobody plays anything else, because everyone assumes that people only play current tournament-standard 40k and refuse to consider trying anything else. If you want the grumblers to go play something they like and leave you alone someone has to come along and break 40k's stranglehold on the market that leaves them with nothing else to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
...Relevant part of the post is highlighted and increased in size. Let's break this down to what the post REALLY is shall we.

"Dear Dakkadakka, I started playing 40k recently, my friend recently started space marines and I recently started Tau, it absolutely sucks that he beat me and I blame the existance of psykers, which I don't have, and melee which I effectively don't have for this, 40k needs to get rid of it"


...Which is there because GW decided to make an entire Codex that can't participate in a huge chunk of the game, whose power fluctuates wildly depending on whether the people working on the core rulebook remembered they did that once. If this thread was being written in the height of the 6e/7e leafblower era it'd be the other way around, the Marine player would be here grumbling about why he has to pay for all these melee stats when the Tau just blast him off the table.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 00:54:33


Post by: Overread


I think the best move when you encounter problems/issues/challenges within a game or venture, especially when you are new to it, is not to consider that the venture itself is at fault.


That is not to say there are no faults within the game, but that if its your first instinct then there is a high chance that you might be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Or that you might even be missing some key elements which is causing some more minor imbalances/issues to be greatly magnified.




I'm by no means saying 40K is perfect, nor that your points don't have merit. However at the same time if I were starting a new strategy game and was encounter problems my first thoughts would be to try and find resolutions/solutions. These might be models to take; different ways the terrain is setup; different strategic options during the game. There are many aspects and any one or several could be contributing.

Basically I'd arm myself with the best understanding I could find to meet the challenge rather than admit defeat and say that its the system that is at fault.




Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 00:55:03


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Harlech Quinn wrote:
...Yes I am certainly not unbiased in this respect.
Thanks for the advise. I might do that.


Be aware that the "I buy models I like, and then discover that they're absolutely useless and I need to toss them and buy something completely different" is a core part of the 40k experience.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 01:10:14


Post by: Overread


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Harlech Quinn wrote:
...Yes I am certainly not unbiased in this respect.
Thanks for the advise. I might do that.


Be aware that the "I buy models I like, and then discover that they're absolutely useless and I need to toss them and buy something completely different" is a core part of the 40k experience.


I should note the tossing of models is purely optional and not an advised step. Besides with building and painting being quite time consuming stages (especially as you get a bit more skilled and experiment more so) the whole hobby side of building models is part of the experience unto itself. There are even those who never play, yet spend hours building and painting. So never consider it time wasted.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 01:18:28


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
...Funny how many people in the 40k general discussion don't play or actively hate 40k.

There are other games. Play them. Be happy. Leave the rest of us alone.


The reason the 40k discussion is full of people who don't play/actively hate 40k is that they'd really rather play something else, but nobody plays anything else, because everyone assumes that people only play current tournament-standard 40k and refuse to consider trying anything else. If you want the grumblers to go play something they like and leave you alone someone has to come along and break 40k's stranglehold on the market that leaves them with nothing else to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
...Relevant part of the post is highlighted and increased in size. Let's break this down to what the post REALLY is shall we.

"Dear Dakkadakka, I started playing 40k recently, my friend recently started space marines and I recently started Tau, it absolutely sucks that he beat me and I blame the existance of psykers, which I don't have, and melee which I effectively don't have for this, 40k needs to get rid of it"


...Which is there because GW decided to make an entire Codex that can't participate in a huge chunk of the game, whose power fluctuates wildly depending on whether the people working on the core rulebook remembered they did that once. If this thread was being written in the height of the 6e/7e leafblower era it'd be the other way around, the Marine player would be here grumbling about why he has to pay for all these melee stats when the Tau just blast him off the table.


on that I agree with, Tau are a poorly designed faction and that needs to be addressed. IMHO the easiest way to do this would be for GW to lean back into non-Tau auxilleries. and give some some psykic and melee auxilleries.
ohh here's a random idea.. take the Megarachinids from the horus Heresy and make them a member of the Tau empire!


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 01:21:21


Post by: Sledgehammer


When the game itself is so dependant on which models, and codexes you use, and there are literally a thousand of them, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to know the game.

So many of the games interactions are ONLY found in a single codex. How can you expect anyone to know them all, how they interact with each other, or if your opponent is reading their rules correctly or not?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 01:23:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Overread wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Harlech Quinn wrote:
...Yes I am certainly not unbiased in this respect.
Thanks for the advise. I might do that.


Be aware that the "I buy models I like, and then discover that they're absolutely useless and I need to toss them and buy something completely different" is a core part of the 40k experience.


I should note the tossing of models is purely optional and not an advised step. Besides with building and painting being quite time consuming stages (especially as you get a bit more skilled and experiment more so) the whole hobby side of building models is part of the experience unto itself. There are even those who never play, yet spend hours building and painting. So never consider it time wasted.


I will clarify: I use "toss" in the hyperbolic sense. I do not advocate buying models you like, painting them, putting them on the table, discovering they're garbage, and then throwing them away, I seek to use that as an example of the worst-case scenario to be avoided. If you want to play 9e be aware that external balance between Codexes is awful (it is entirely possible to pick the "wrong army") and internal balance within Codexes is still awful (even the "right army" will have pointless units). If you want to put models down on the table and play be prepared to do research ahead of time to figure out whether you're just going to get stomped every game before buying minis. If you want to buy minis you like instead of being beholden to the netlists either be prepared to gain enough system expertise to houserule fixes yourself, dig up rules from older editions of the game, or leave them on a shelf gathering dust for years until you get a new army book or a new edition comes along and suddenly they're useful.

I'm aware I sound pessimistic here. I am very pessimistic. I've played 40k for fifteen years (see comment above about nobody ever wanting to try anything different), I've had most of the armies in the game at one point or another, and pick-up game balance has only gotten worse over that time. People gushing about how 8e/9e are bold new directions for the game and GW is really fixing all the things they used to be crap at are tournament players. 9e is great for competitive people who are prepared to do their research, build their lists, masticate them over with other people, then go buy models and play a competitive game. It is terrible for people who want to buy models they like and go play random pick-up games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
...Tau are a poorly designed faction and that needs to be addressed. IMHO the easiest way to do this would be for GW to lean back into non-Tau auxilleries. and give some some psykic and melee auxilleries.
ohh here's a random idea.. take the Megarachinids from the horus Heresy and make them a member of the Tau empire!


My quick patch for my own homebrew rules is to give Breachers and Crisis/Stealth teams melee profiles on some of their guns. It gives a new role to the old battlesuits that are really getting overshadowed by the big suits these days, makes the Tau do something instead of nothing in melee, and there's canon/semi-canon precedent in the Fusion Blades and the DoW commander.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 02:35:32


Post by: Lance845


 AnomanderRake wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
...Funny how many people in the 40k general discussion don't play or actively hate 40k.

There are other games. Play them. Be happy. Leave the rest of us alone.


The reason the 40k discussion is full of people who don't play/actively hate 40k is that they'd really rather play something else, but nobody plays anything else, because everyone assumes that people only play current tournament-standard 40k and refuse to consider trying anything else. If you want the grumblers to go play something they like and leave you alone someone has to come along and break 40k's stranglehold on the market that leaves them with nothing else to play.


Some people love the fluff and models and wish they had a better game to round out their hobby. Some enjoy the army options and wish the game was better. Some can only find 40k opponents. I like analyzing game systems, finding problems and then devising solutions. I imagine there are a great many reasons people are on these forums.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 03:05:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Overread wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Harlech Quinn wrote:
...Yes I am certainly not unbiased in this respect.
Thanks for the advise. I might do that.


Be aware that the "I buy models I like, and then discover that they're absolutely useless and I need to toss them and buy something completely different" is a core part of the 40k experience.


I should note the tossing of models is purely optional and not an advised step. Besides with building and painting being quite time consuming stages (especially as you get a bit more skilled and experiment more so) the whole hobby side of building models is part of the experience unto itself. There are even those who never play, yet spend hours building and painting. So never consider it time wasted.

Not to mention the fact that a unit that's bad now might be great once gw swings their pendulum back the other way, once they release the next codex, FAQ, CA, etc.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 03:42:08


Post by: dominuschao


OP- My advice would be to keep playing, to learn every army and to play several or at least as many as you can. The last will allow you to ride out bad editions for a particular army, in my case dark eldar. Honestly pretty much all your assertions are not correct, or at least pretty over stated. The game is far to nuanced to have any of those issues be a consistent deciding factor. Psykers in particular have a huge down side now to the point of exclusion. Skill is by far the most influential factor in this game and that includes list building to greater and lesser degrees.

Anyway as a player that's been playing since 3rd and owned well over 20 armies I can tell you this is a good edition. Maybe not my favorite but definitely worth continuing.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 04:01:52


Post by: Sledgehammer


dominuschao wrote:
OP- My advice would be to keep playing, to learn every army and to play several or at least as many as you can. The last will allow you to ride out bad editions for a particular army, in my case dark eldar. Honestly pretty much all your assertions are not correct, or at least pretty over stated. The game is far to nuanced to have any of those issues be a consistent deciding factor. Psykers in particular have a huge down side now to the point of exclusion. Skill is by far the most influential factor in this game and that includes list building to greater and lesser degrees.

Anyway as a player that's been playing since 3rd and owned well over 20 armies I can tell you this is a good edition. Maybe not my favorite but definitely worth continuing.
so in other words..... buy all the codexes, buy a lot of armies and read and study the game as much as possible, then pick the units and factions that work so that you have a chance of having a good time. That is not worth neither the time nor the investment. What that is, is a fundamental problem.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 06:34:42


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Don't put your army on hold because the internet says so or your first games went badly. Try to improve with your army, write some narrative missions or apply Handicaps if you really feel the balance is off. Since 8th edition the balance of 40K has vastly improved and FAQs and points adjustments are pumped out faster than you can paint a riptide. So if Tau seem to be at a bad spot when playing the standard eternal war missions, either wait a bit or make up different ways to play. Eternal War is really just okay for a tournament setting, outside of that you should find more interesting ways. Overall 40K should be treated more like a roleplay really, that's why the fluff aspect is the most important one for many players.
I'm just saying if Tau are your first love stick to them, you won't have more fun with an army that you just choose for the rules that are about to change in half a year anyway.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 06:40:36


Post by: dominuschao


 Sledgehammer wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
OP- My advice would be to keep playing, to learn every army and to play several or at least as many as you can. The last will allow you to ride out bad editions for a particular army, in my case dark eldar. Honestly pretty much all your assertions are not correct, or at least pretty over stated. The game is far to nuanced to have any of those issues be a consistent deciding factor. Psykers in particular have a huge down side now to the point of exclusion. Skill is by far the most influential factor in this game and that includes list building to greater and lesser degrees.

Anyway as a player that's been playing since 3rd and owned well over 20 armies I can tell you this is a good edition. Maybe not my favorite but definitely worth continuing.
so in other words..... buy all the codexes, buy a lot of armies and read and study the game as much as possible, then pick the units and factions that work so that you have a chance of having a good time. That is not worth neither the time nor the investment. What that is, is a fundamental problem.

However you wanna interpret it man.
The game isn't that far off but sometimes there are a few stinkers. Is what it is.
The fact is the game isn't balanced each edition it's balanced across the spectrum of editions. Sometimes an army is good sometimes it's not. You wanna have a decent experience each edition? Own more than 1 army.
Personally I don't buy most books I buy a few and I "borrow" the rest online.. but then that's another topic.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 07:20:14


Post by: Moriarty


OP: GW had a perfectly good system in Space Marine - the 2nd edition of the Epic series. It had workable ‘orders’ , simplified shooting, scalable between infantry & Titan combat, integrated flyers and a morale system that was relevant. It works today in 40k scale, with the addition of an ‘infantry saves vs infantry weapons’ rule and converting vehicle units to ‘hit points’ for a single model.

Of course, there is no chance of the company resurrecting it - but it’s nice to see they can get it right sometimes :-)


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 07:41:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


dominuschao wrote:
...You wanna have a decent experience each edition? Own more than 1 army...


Qualifier on the "more than one": I have six armies right now. One of them is playable without needing to buy entirely new minis.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 08:31:37


Post by: Roleplayer


I disagree with the people saying don't play Tau.

If you enjoy their look, and enjoy building and painting them, play whatever.

Just play with your mates and ask them to bring silly fluffy lists and have some fun.

Its better to buy, model, paint and play with an army you love then chase whats 'good'.

As someone who has played this game since the 80s....


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 08:37:03


Post by: Sunny Side Up


I think the obvious solution for GW would be to make different games that cater to different things.

Make more competitive games with
- smaller model counts on smaller boards / play time that are e-sport/twitch/streaming-friendly,
- where 10 or 15 or more rounds can be played in a day, best of 3-games formats are possible,
- perhaps no variable options to make multiple factions easy to balance without the exponential escalation of rules-interaction of many options across many factions,
- maybe use a MtG-style card deck, both being more familiar to the competitive crowd,
- where you can rotate through official seasons to keep things interesting
- where models move and ranged are measured on hexes or squares to avoid ambiguities of tape measures, etc..
- etc

And a more casual / hobbyist-oriented game,
- where people can throw down giant Knight warmachine or perhaps 100 or even 200+ models for Ork / Tyranid hordes or fluff-models with super-silly rules like Primarchs you probably cannot reasonably balance for a balanced game
- where games can take upwards of 2 or even 3 hours, as competitive game is less of an issue
- where emulating the fluff and giving players the ability to customize their toy soldiers takes precedence over balance
- where you play the game on model-terrain you make yourself for a more immersive look, eschewing things like hexes, etc.. for the sake of aesthetics / hobby-creativity of the battlefield
- etc..


Bang. Best of both worlds for whatever type of game any given player prefers (and some might possibly play both).


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 09:37:58


Post by: Cyel


I am not surprised new players may be dissatisified with the game, as GW's propaganda of success is not clear about what WH40K is about.

New editions are advertised as "deeply tactical", the sheer amount of rules gives an ilussion of something deep and complex, so when it turns out WH40K is more like playing with a doll house (albeit with chainswords and explosive rounds rather than cups and combs) than playing a strategy game, disappointment is understandable.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 10:00:00


Post by: A.T.


Cyel wrote:
New editions are advertised as "deeply tactical", the sheer amount of rules gives an ilussion of something deep and complex
I don't think the complexity is an illusion - combinations of units, auras, traits, relics, and stratagems with some factions having 50+ units is complex.

But combined with a great many rolls, rerolls, additional rolls, layered rolls, added effects on rolls, modifiers, and additional circumstantial variants of all of the above makes it more difficult for players to approach the game with a good sense of cause and effect, which is also not helped by increased speed and lethality requiring players to account for yet more variables and outcomes.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 10:15:14


Post by: Harlech Quinn


Good morning

Thank you all for the different solutions on how to deal with the problems we have.

I say we, because the space marine player also feels that the balance is off. I don´t know if his analysis of the game fundamentals is quite the same as mine.
Also we are not above switching armies. So this was never I thread meant to buff my army and make space marines suck. If GW were to buff the living hell out of Tau half a year from now, and Tau would shoot Marines off the Table by round 3 consistently, we would be in the exact same position as we are now.

But there have been many solid suggestions in this thread. From tweaking the armies, tweaking the system and maybe have a small second army each. I sure as hell will not strive to own 5 to 6 armies. But maybe a second might be possible. At least for me, because I don´t have kids. He does.
So between making our own terrain and our own armies, it might not be realistic for him to paint anything except for his marines.

Going apoc is also a fine suggestion, provided they update it for all the new units space marines are getting.

Ultimatly I think it comes down to the question if the art aspect of painting the minis and seeing them on the table is enough enjoyment all by itself. And you know: it might be.

So thanks to all suggestions and critique (including the people who just flat out disagree with my analysis of the core system)

Peace


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 11:13:16


Post by: mrFickle


I think 40ks main problem is GWs absolute to provide balance versus their desire to sell certain new releases and to adjust the game to keep the “community happy”

If they weren’t so desperate to sell over priced rule booked they could deliver all the rules to the whole community digitally and update the game as they test and provide a good balance without having to re launch the game every few years and end up with rules books that are out of date even in the edition that they were released.

I also find the system of FAQs to be ridiculous in 2020.

If they modernised and put all the rules in the app (or a good app) for a subscription fee and did away with rule books the game would open up to becoming much more balanced, assuming they are capable of delivering this.

The only thing that really has been modernised at GW is their marketing strategy and their thinking around maintaining income streams by creating a sort of desperation for new products


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 11:29:06


Post by: Cyel


A.T. wrote:
Cyel wrote:
New editions are advertised as "deeply tactical", the sheer amount of rules gives an illusion of something deep and complex
I don't think the complexity is an illusion - combinations of units, auras, traits, relics, and stratagems with some factions having 50+ units is complex.

But combined with a great many rolls, rerolls, additional rolls, layered rolls, added effects on rolls, modifiers, and additional circumstantial variants of all of the above makes it more difficult for players to approach the game with a good sense of cause and effect, which is also not helped by increased speed and lethality requiring players to account for yet more variables and outcomes.


You're right! In this case I wasn't clear about how I understand complexity. In games complexity and complication are different things for me (just like the fact that a game is "wide" doesn't mean it's deep). The multitude of things you mention increase the game's complication but do not really create any complex boardstates that require careful dismantling. It's still just a straightforward race of who rolls more high-powered attacks the fastest just with a heavy burden of irrelevant memorisation.

On another end of the spectrum are games which are not complicated at all, but board states can get incredibly complex, with few pieces, but many dependancies and relations between them, like in Go or Chess.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 11:35:14


Post by: Spoletta


OP keep in mind that marines are designed as an easy to play faction, while the xenos armies (like Tau) are designed for advanced players. Playing correctly a xeno army is harder. Every mistake you make will cost a lot.

If you start the hobby together with other players and some of them take the marines, they will easily win all the first games. There isn't much you can do about that except persevering and learning.

The 9th edition is the most skill based edition since maybe 5th. The better player will win regularly. Dices and lists can influence this, but barring some horribly done lists, the player is the most important factor in who wins and who loses.

If player's experience is similar (as is the case with a group starting from scratch) the easier to play factions will win. Simple as that.

Marines are no longer this absurd boogyman that they were one year ago, they have been brought in line. They still have some outrageous power spikes here and there (hello eradicators), but if the opponent isn't purposely trying to bank on the OP rules/interactions, then you can have a good game.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 11:36:24


Post by: Lance845


When a lot of people talk about complexity what they mean is depth. You can have a great deal of strategic and tactical depth with very simple mechanical systems. 40k has immense complexity but is a very shallow experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
OP keep in mind that marines are designed as an easy to play faction, while the xenos armies (like Tau) are designed for advanced players. Playing correctly a xeno army is harder. Every mistake you make will cost a lot.


I don't think thats true. You are attributing to GW a level of design that they frankly don't have the track record to support. Things currently are that way. But that is because SM are basically 2 armies in one now.

If you start the hobby together with other players and some of them take the marines, they will easily win all the first games. There isn't much you can do about that except persevering and learning.

The 9th edition is the most skill based edition since maybe 5th. The better player will win regularly. Dices and lists can influence this, but barring some horribly done lists, the player is the most important factor in who wins and who loses.


Factually untrue. First turn advantage is alive and well in 9th.

If player's experience is similar (as is the case with a group starting from scratch) the easier to play factions will win. Simple as that.

Marines are no longer this absurd boogyman that they were one year ago, they have been brought in line. They still have some outrageous power spikes here and there (hello eradicators), but if the opponent isn't purposely trying to bank on the OP rules/interactions, then you can have a good game.


Also untrue.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 12:45:03


Post by: Spoletta


I'll concede that I didn't consider the first turn advantage.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 12:46:27


Post by: Ice_can


Also just incase you need information

Marines have a 49.9% win ratio currently
But that's 57% going first and 44% going second
Tau have 39.2% win ratio over all
Thats 48% going first and only 29%going second.

Though that does seem to imply if the Tau go first every game that should shore up the balance between your factions currently.

The issue is always going second/first is a rediculously huge buff to have to use to balance out 2 factions


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 12:49:47


Post by: Lance845


Ice_can wrote:
Also just incase you need information

Marines have a 49.9% win ratio currently
But that's 57% going first and 44% going second
Tau have 39.2% win ratio over all
Thats 48% going first and only 29%going second.

Though that does seem to imply if the Tau go first every game that should shore up the balance between your factions currently.

The issue is always going second/first is a rediculously huge buff to have to use to balance out 2 factions


Also, the marine win ratio (from my understanding) has not removed mirror matches. Without mirror matches I think their win rate is closer to 80%. I could very easily be wrong about that but that was the last thing I remember reading.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 12:59:38


Post by: Spoletta


Mirror matches don't count in this case.

Mirror matches can affect a result if you see that the final number is above or below 50%.

If it is above 50% then the amount of "Draws" that the mirror matches bring, have impacted negatively the percentage, which is actually higher.

If it is below 50%, then the faction actually is performing worse than what the percentage implies.

If like in this case the percentage is exactly 50%, then including or not the mirror matches has no impact on the final result.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 13:00:20


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Lance845 wrote:
Also, the marine win ratio (from my understanding) has not removed mirror matches. Without mirror matches I think their win rate is closer to 80%. I could very easily be wrong about that but that was the last thing I remember reading.

This certainly needs a citation.

I would rather link to the specific post, but I don't know how, so here is the relevant link again from the thread "Get you some data":
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/40k_H2H_Faction_10-2020_FIXED.png




Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 13:01:43


Post by: Ice_can


 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Also just incase you need information

Marines have a 49.9% win ratio currently
But that's 57% going first and 44% going second
Tau have 39.2% win ratio over all
Thats 48% going first and only 29%going second.

Though that does seem to imply if the Tau go first every game that should shore up the balance between your factions currently.

The issue is always going second/first is a rediculously huge buff to have to use to balance out 2 factions


Also, the marine win ratio (from my understanding) has not removed mirror matches. Without mirror matches I think their win rate is closer to 80%. I could very easily be wrong about that but that was the last thing I remember reading.

I haven't found anyone doing non mirror matchup ratio's yet but so far marines have played 3500+ games of 9th the next highest us custodes apparently with 1500 games.

Like slaneshy win ratios look mental untill its 90 games of a list that's being played by probably by what sub 10 people who I'm guessing know how to win with. I certainly doubt you have the equivalent of people taking their 3 indomitous sets.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 13:01:53


Post by: Lance845


a_typical_hero wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Also, the marine win ratio (from my understanding) has not removed mirror matches. Without mirror matches I think their win rate is closer to 80%. I could very easily be wrong about that but that was the last thing I remember reading.

This certainly needs a citation.

I would rather link to the specific post, but I don't know how, so here is the relevant link again from the thread "Get you some data":
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/40k_H2H_Faction_10-2020_FIXED.png




I open the thread in a new tab. Click quote on the post I want to quote. Copy all the text and paste it back into the thread where I want it to show up.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/04 14:02:15


Post by: Jidmah


Cyel wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Cyel wrote:
New editions are advertised as "deeply tactical", the sheer amount of rules gives an illusion of something deep and complex
I don't think the complexity is an illusion - combinations of units, auras, traits, relics, and stratagems with some factions having 50+ units is complex.

But combined with a great many rolls, rerolls, additional rolls, layered rolls, added effects on rolls, modifiers, and additional circumstantial variants of all of the above makes it more difficult for players to approach the game with a good sense of cause and effect, which is also not helped by increased speed and lethality requiring players to account for yet more variables and outcomes.


You're right! In this case I wasn't clear about how I understand complexity. In games complexity and complication are different things for me (just like the fact that a game is "wide" doesn't mean it's deep). The multitude of things you mention increase the game's complication but do not really create any complex boardstates that require careful dismantling. It's still just a straightforward race of who rolls more high-powered attacks the fastest just with a heavy burden of irrelevant memorisation.

On another end of the spectrum are games which are not complicated at all, but board states can get incredibly complex, with few pieces, but many dependancies and relations between them, like in Go or Chess.


I agree, and to further your point, most of the tactical depth I perceive in 9th that hasn't been there in 8th is the direct result of the new missions, dense and obscuring terrain and smaller tables. The entirety of all stratagems in every book just barely add as much depth to the game as these few pages of rules while making the game vastly more complex.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/05 21:31:38


Post by: BlackLobster


Play fun and casual, not competitive, and you'll find that you'll have a more enjoyable game. Leave the competitive side of it to tournaments and store events.


Warhammer 40K has never been a very balanced game though, except perhaps for it's Rogue Trader days, when there was little competitive elements. Back in the days of 4th edition, when my local club was set up, close combat dominated (khorne berzerkers, tyranids/genestealers, scorpions/banshees) far too much but at the same time armies that relied on gun lines (space marines, guard and tau) were too strong in shooting. It has swung back and forth over the last fifteen years but I think the new 8th and 9th editions have generally, not in every case, balanced both out quite nicely. They just need a few tweaks.

That's based on my experiences though so yours may vary.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 13:45:21


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


 Harlech Quinn wrote:
Buckle up: This is going to be rather long. But I will try to be as brief as possible.
Disclaimer: For a long time I took part in the hobby only in a passive manner. I watched battle reports but did not play. During the pandemic and the advent of a new edition me and a relative discovered that we both loved to watch these battle reports (especially the videos from the people at Tabletop Tactics) and decided we would start our own armies. 9th edition looked very promising so he started a space marine army. Me, I always loved the Tau models (though i did not like how they operated in 8th). However the more I learn about the system the more I think there are fundamental flaws in the it.
The way I see it these flaws are as follows:

1. Too many moving parts
There are simply too many armies and models to achieve any sort of reasonable balance. The fact that GW makes its money through sale of new models incentivises them to constantly add to a system which is already too large to give every faction a distinctive playstyle while keeping them on roughly the same efficiency.
[…]

I don’t think the game is unbalanced because there are too many armies, but because the GW don't thinks very much (or don't care) about what they are doing when they write the rulebooks and the codexes. Look for example the rules for the space marines tactical squads of all the chapters: they are a pretty useless unit because they don’t have good weapons: except for the sergeant, who can have the melta bombs and two marines, who can have a special weapon or a heavy weapon, all the others don’t have any really useful weapon. Give to their boltweapons the possibility to choose if shoot a three round burst (whit a -1 to their ballistic skill) or a single shoot (without penalties) and a power sword and you will see how good they will become.

 Harlech Quinn wrote:
[…]
2. Economy of actions
The second biggest flaw is the fact that there are different armies that can take part at different phases of the game. A battleround (or a game for that matter) is a representation of a set time period. However the amount of actions every unit can take during that time is dependant on the phases in which it can act. This will always favor units and armies that can and want to act in as many phases as possible because there is literally no downside to it. Performing a psychic action is not affecting the ability to act in the shooting phase.
This is not only affecting game balance it also breaks the simultaion aspect of the game. Because it is illogical that in the time a unit is channeling the warp another unit would not be using this time to interact with the battlefield in another way (like for example pulling the trigger of its gun a few more times). Yet the unit who is only partaking in one phase does not gain any actions in other phases. While the psychic phase is - for the most part - relative negligible because most armies only have a few token units that can act in the psychic phase the same cannot be said for the charge and combat phases. Which leads me to my third problem:
[…]

Here I totally agree with you and in my opinion the solution is pretty simple: give to the various units the possibility to do only one action in each turn. In this way the game would gain in dynamism, because the time of inactivity of each player would be shorter, it would gain in tactical depth, because the opponent player could react immediately to every action of his adversary and the lack of psykers in one army would be less problematic, because they wouldn't longer able to shoot and psychically attack in the same turn.
And I played the Eldar, which (if I remember well) aren't exactly the army with the weakest psykers in the game, so if that dynamic was frustrating for me, I can imagine how can be frustrating for players who play with armies less psychically powerful.

 Harlech Quinn wrote:
[…]
3. Melee is a weightstone around the neck of this game
The aforementioned problem is heavily exarcebated in the way melee combat is forced in a game of guns, deathrays and artillery (and 9th edition is showing this flaw more than the previous editions). In order to make melee work in 40k the last two phases of the game give you a plathora of additional actions without any cost associated with it. Your average infanty unit is moving 6 inches (some more some less). If this unit using all of its actions during a battle round to cover as much gound as possible it will move 6 plus 1d6 inches. However if the very same unit partakes in the charge and fight phases it does not forgo its shooting, it charges an additional 1d6 (in comparison to the advance roll) and is able to make several attacks with its melee weapons. To add to that it is also given several free move actions along the way (consolidate and pile in movement). This means that a unit that partakes in the melee phase is not only given essentially free attack it is also up to three times as mobile as a unit that is not acting in those phases. In an edition where movement is king, this constitutes a bonus that is not reflected in its point cost.

I could elaborate on many of these points ( and I may in subsequent posts) but if you got to this point you deserve a break from my lacking english and thank you for your indulgence.

The part in bold is a good example of another "age-old" issue of Warhammer 40.000: the GW often tries to solve the various issue of its game adding more and more gimmicks, instead to create a game with rational and credible rules. But in my humble opinion you can't create a good strategic game, if you don't know (and don't care to know) nothing about how a war really works.

P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have an advantage; for example in the chess (the strategic game par excellence) the white, which always has the first move, wins the 53% of the matches.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:02:06


Post by: Aenar


You started Tau because you like how they look? Stick with the army and use this time to paint and assemble minis.
Rules change way too quickly, tossing away an army just because of how it plays is not a smart thing to do.

Look at Necrons: subpar (even bad) for all of 8th ed, they got a major revamp and new rules in 9th.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:26:45


Post by: Nurglitch


I think there's a problem with the development of the Warhammer game and the Warhammer product. The thing is that Warhammer is in a constant mode of expansion, particularly since the renaissance of the 8th edition, the advent of the Warhammer Community site, and the weekly release schedule.

That they have such a pipeline of products is amazing, from a production point of view, and in terms of content (pictures, words, models) they're a firehose. This has several advantages, in that if some segment of the market is underserved one week, they'll be served the next, and the constant income from the collectors and whales keeps things afloat. Obviously there are customers feeling under-served, but on the whole the revenue stream and its profitability seems to be working pretty well for GW. Primaris solved the problem of how many Battle Companies-worth of Space Marines a person can buy, and branching out into other games allows them to sell large boxes like Burning of Prospero and so on for relatively marginal products while maintaining an efficient production schedule.

Game-wise, it means that while the pie is growing, the slices of that pie need to be continually cut thinner and thinner, and the requirement for precision becomes higher and higher. Too simple and soon either the new product is just a retread of a previous release, and too many moving parts and the game becomes unplayable. I haven't played since summer of 2019 when I couldn't face playing in another Warhammer tournament, or really play another game again. I don't really know why, but I'd had my fill of Warhammer, and having really enjoyed 8th I'd been trying to figure out why.

For the main part I think it's because the game doesn't work for me anymore. Despite all the extra rules and whatnot, it gets to be a bit of a repetitive experience, and it takes so long, even in a tournament. I want a game that only lasts for an hour, and is more dynamic, with combinatorial game-play rather than the stochastic fiddling with dice. Maybe it's because I don't want to play games with dice anymore?

I think what would be best for me is if certain parts of the game were simplified, so that GW could release a new set of Space Marines and I could decide to buy them because they look good and I wanted to collect an army of them, rather than because they were new and improved. So make a Devastator, Assault, Tactical, Intercessors, whatever, effectively the same and leave specific models to people's imagination and preference. So far as I can tell most people who buy the models buy them because they're gorgeous and look cool rather than how they work in the game.

Game-wise the problem is that there aren't that many live choices in the game, for all the bells and whistles. You need to kill the other guy first, survive better than him, and move to claim objectives better. Target priority is pretty procedural, and so is movement despite the wiggle room that the D6 advance gives. It's both very easy to play both sides of the table, and kind of tedious.

Like I said, I fell off the game in 8th despite my enjoyment of the game increasing since 4th edition. I don't pretend to know the secret sauce. Maybe it's just not for me anymore and I need to work harder on moving on?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:27:43


Post by: A.T.


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have always an advantage.
5th edition objective games, especially earlier in the power creep cycle of the edition.

Reactive deployment and final move were powerful to the point of choosing 2nd turn and even refusing to seize, though the last-gasp wins nature had significant drawbacks in of itself.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:34:30


Post by: kodos


the last standing model being able to capture the objective and win the game was a nice balance point for first turn advantage

sad thing was just that a lot of people did not like that and ignored the Missions/Scenarios and just played "who kills more wins"


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:35:15


Post by: Nurglitch


A.T. wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:
P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have always an advantage.
5th edition objective games, especially earlier in the power creep cycle of the edition.

Reactive deployment and final move were powerful to the point of choosing 2nd turn and even refusing to seize, though the last-gasp wins nature had significant drawbacks in of itself.

Wasn't 5th edition the first edition to have a variable game length to deal with exactly that problem in 4th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
the last standing model being able to capture the objective and win the game was a nice balance point for first turn advantage

sad thing was just that a lot of people did not like that and ignored the Missions/Scenarios and just played "who kills more wins"

Not exactly surprising when the main game-play loop is "Try to kill the other guy first." There were two phases dedicated to kill the other dudes (shooting, and close combat) and one phase dedicated to improving how you kill the other dudes (movement).


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:43:54


Post by: kodos


may not be surprising, yet playing Scenarios or Missions like now was unthinkable for a lot by that time

because that the last standing unit with ObSec can still win the game even if you killed everything else in first turn was on the level of "this is not true 40k any more"

and 5th was not that deadly, there were a lot of options for deployment and cover rules that gave you the option for playing the Scenario and building the list to win by kills or build it to win by missions was an option


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 14:50:27


Post by: catbarf


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have an advantage; for example in the chess (the strategic game par excellence) the white, which always has the first move, wins the 53% of the matches.


It absolutely is not true that 'in every strategy game the first player has an advantage'. There's only an advantage if you give zero compensation to the going-second player, which is the case in chess.

The late-8th CA missions where the player who would be going first had to deploy all their forces first- allowing the going-second player to counter-deploy- had near parity on the win rates for going first and going second. Giving the going-second player the option to get a cover save to all units was also a move to balance out the first-turn advantage.

First-turn advantage is hardly an inescapable maxim of game design- there are tons of ways to offset it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 16:15:03


Post by: A.T.


 kodos wrote:
the last standing model being able to capture the objective and win the game was a nice balance point for first turn advantage
Deploy and counter deploy was also significant. Being able to place your units so that they were screened or out of LoS of the opponents limited, expensive and usually immobile heavy shooting units, deploying entirely to the opposite flank, or in some cases not deploying at all helped, and the speed and range of most units in the game meant the player going first could often be moving their units into range of devastating weapons (i.e. demolishers) and assault units while having no opportunity to use the same on their own list.

Of course GW went and messed it up almost right out of the gate with the guard, but even so the current alternating unit placement is a benefit to the player going first.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 16:28:33


Post by: Jidmah


 kodos wrote:
the last standing model being able to capture the objective and win the game was a nice balance point for first turn advantage

sad thing was just that a lot of people did not like that and ignored the Missions/Scenarios and just played "who kills more wins"


To be fair, some armies "captured" those objectives by simply tank-shocking onto them with objective secured tanks with no way to prevent that besides killing them all.

In general, my ork's game plan in 5th always was to wipe out my opponents and only started worrying about objectives in turn 4 if wiping out was unlikely.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 16:30:31


Post by: kodos


A.T. wrote:
 kodos wrote:
the last standing model being able to capture the objective and win the game was a nice balance point for first turn advantage
Deploy and counter deploy was also significant.

"stealing" first turn on a 6 made this not as significant as playing safe was a thing as well

but yes, the one who deploys first always has to take the first turn is significant in helping to prevent Alpha Strikes


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 16:36:27


Post by: Blastaar


@Harlech Quinn

I see that your thoughts have elicited negativity right off the bat.

Your perspective as a new player is a valuable one- most of us here have been around GW for a long time. I agree with your points.

1. There are too many armies, especially subfaction "armies." GW has wasted resources attempting to force different SM chapters, craftworlds, etc., etc., to be "unique" by slapping band-aid chapter "tactics" and stratagems on them. It is a symptom of the shallow core rules. They do not provide enough mechanically for different armies built from the same codex to play in different ways. Play Saim-hann? Take bikes and skimmers. Iyanden? Wraiths. Your custom CW? Whatever you want! No CTs needed!

This is especially problematic with marines. There are vanilla marines, SW, BA, DW, and DA. The latter 4 all have unique units and/or organization, but they're still space marines. I think vanilla marines are a bigger problem, though. Want to play RG? Welp, here's you stratagem and pasted-on rule for -1, +1, or reroll! Like IF gunlines? Here's a different stratagem, and some -1, +1 to other stuff! How unique!

Wolves, angels and DW could all fit in that book, too. All you'd need are separate force organization for them, with different unit availability, and their wargear lists.

2.Yes. Yes. Yes! IGOUGO is terrible for this game, the primary reason there is so little tactical depth. An AA system would be a boon.

An activation could be:

Move and shoot.

Stand and shoot.

Double move.

Charge (double move to melee range and make attacks)

Move and cast psychic power.

Stand and cast long psychic power.

Go to ground.

3. Melee is a puzzle. 40k needs melee. Sword fights in the future is part of the cool, and adds to the visceral setting and nature of combat. Locked in combat sucks. Hard. Spending multiple turns rolling for attacks is neither tactical, nor fun.

I'd like to see melee reworked to: A unit charges, all models make attacks, done. "But melee units will die" you say? This is where a suppression system, better terrain and los rules, and rules, come in. Along with the fact that your opponent only gets to activate a few units before it's your turn again.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 16:56:00


Post by: PenitentJake


I think it's a bit silly to have discussions about balance when only two armies have codices, and have had them for less than a month. This is why I hate new editions, even when they are better than the previous edition.

We all have to wait and wade through the BS of GW releasing the next ten codices for 9th time each before any of us can judge squat.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 17:36:45


Post by: AnomanderRake


PenitentJake wrote:
I think it's a bit silly to have discussions about balance when only two armies have codices, and have had them for less than a month. This is why I hate new editions, even when they are better than the previous edition.

We all have to wait and wade through the BS of GW releasing the next ten codices for 9th time each before any of us can judge squat.


And then six months later 10th edition will come along and we'll have to wait and wade through more Codexes before any of us can judge squat?

I feel comfortable in saying that GW yet again decided they couldn't be bothered to make the game work properly now, I don't need to see ten more Codexes of bloat before I can make that call.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 18:10:17


Post by: kodos


PenitentJake wrote:
I think it's a bit silly to have discussions about balance when only two armies have codices, and have had them for less than a month. This is why I hate new editions, even when they are better than the previous edition.


of course we can just wait and judge the game by the 6-12 months between 2 Editions were the it is fine (when enough Codices are there but the "written with the new Edition in mind" stuff is not released yet)


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/06 19:06:59


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


A.T. wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:
P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have always an advantage.
5th edition objective games, especially earlier in the power creep cycle of the edition.

Reactive deployment and final move were powerful to the point of choosing 2nd turn and even refusing to seize, though the last-gasp wins nature had significant drawbacks in of itself.

I don't know: I never played the fifth edition, but those seems those kind of gimmicks I was talking about and in my humble opinion the idea to let the various units do only an action (move or charge or shoot or recharge the weapon or use the psychic powers) is a best solution: it is easier to implement in the game mechanics and it allows to the opponent player to react immediately, partially nullifying the advantage to have the initiative. Moreover this solution would exalt the tactical abilities of the players the game, because their capability to predict the opponent's future moves and mislead him would become more important.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 00:14:37


Post by: Fluid_Fox


A.T. wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:
P.S. In every strategy game the first player has and always will have always an advantage.
5th edition objective games, especially earlier in the power creep cycle of the edition.

Reactive deployment and final move were powerful to the point of choosing 2nd turn and even refusing to seize, though the last-gasp wins nature had significant drawbacks in of itself.


I agree 100%. I often chose to go second in 5th for a variety of situations, and it worked perfectly.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 00:46:55


Post by: Harlech Quinn


Nurglitch wrote:
.....

Game-wise, it means that while the pie is growing, the slices of that pie need to be continually cut thinner and thinner, and the requirement for precision becomes higher and higher. Too simple and soon either the new product is just a retread of a previous release, and too many moving parts and the game becomes unplayable. I haven't played since summer of 2019 when I couldn't face playing in another Warhammer tournament, or really play another game again. I don't really know why, but I'd had my fill of Warhammer, and having really enjoyed 8th I'd been trying to figure out why.

For the main part I think it's because the game doesn't work for me anymore. Despite all the extra rules and whatnot, it gets to be a bit of a repetitive experience, and it takes so long, even in a tournament. I want a game that only lasts for an hour, and is more dynamic, with combinatorial game-play rather than the stochastic fiddling with dice. Maybe it's because I don't want to play games with dice anymore?

......

Like I said, I fell off the game in 8th despite my enjoyment of the game increasing since 4th edition. I don't pretend to know the secret sauce. Maybe it's just not for me anymore and I need to work harder on moving on?


Funny

For me it was the other way round. I got really fed up with PC gaming. I used to draw a lot when I was younger. But somehow I couldn´t get myself to draw or spray just for drawings sake. 40k seemed to be a nice way to combine some art and strategy board game aspects. Maybe thats why it is not so easy to adjust. 40k is a whole different animal compared to most PC strategy games. Though it seems to close the gap with some "balance update" every half year. Frankly I would not have started it if GW would still not bother to update a codes for several edition like they used to.
Anyway maybe you just need a break as well.

Hope you´ll get back and enjoy it at a later time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
@Harlech Quinn

I see that your thoughts have elicited negativity right off the bat.

Your perspective as a new player is a valuable one- most of us here have been around GW for a long time. I agree with your points.

1. There are too many armies, especially subfaction "armies." GW has wasted resources attempting to force different SM chapters, craftworlds, etc., etc., to be "unique" by slapping band-aid chapter "tactics" and stratagems on them. It is a symptom of the shallow core rules. They do not provide enough mechanically for different armies built from the same codex to play in different ways. Play Saim-hann? Take bikes and skimmers. Iyanden? Wraiths. Your custom CW? Whatever you want! No CTs needed!

This is especially problematic with marines. There are vanilla marines, SW, BA, DW, and DA. The latter 4 all have unique units and/or organization, but they're still space marines. I think vanilla marines are a bigger problem, though. Want to play RG? Welp, here's you stratagem and pasted-on rule for -1, +1, or reroll! Like IF gunlines? Here's a different stratagem, and some -1, +1 to other stuff! How unique!

Wolves, angels and DW could all fit in that book, too. All you'd need are separate force organization for them, with different unit availability, and their wargear lists.

2.Yes. Yes. Yes! IGOUGO is terrible for this game, the primary reason there is so little tactical depth. An AA system would be a boon.

An activation could be:

Move and shoot.

Stand and shoot.

Double move.

Charge (double move to melee range and make attacks)

Move and cast psychic power.

Stand and cast long psychic power.

Go to ground.

3. Melee is a puzzle. 40k needs melee. Sword fights in the future is part of the cool, and adds to the visceral setting and nature of combat. Locked in combat sucks. Hard. Spending multiple turns rolling for attacks is neither tactical, nor fun.

I'd like to see melee reworked to: A unit charges, all models make attacks, done. "But melee units will die" you say? This is where a suppression system, better terrain and los rules, and rules, come in. Along with the fact that your opponent only gets to activate a few units before it's your turn again.


I too think that the game could benefit from dividing the activations into smaller pieces. Whether that is by alternate activation or just allow units less actions in a single turn and increase the number of turns in a game. Since every unit is only going to act 5 times in a single game the natural instinct is to frontload as much destruction in a single turn as possible. Especially if yout army is not resilient enough to tank the enemy offensive power. It would be nice if you would have more options of forgoing offensive actions for a benefit in a later turn. Or as was mentioned earlier, have the option to fire for another effect than just removing the enemies models. Maybe allow some form of limited interrupt outside the melee phase.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 11:12:08


Post by: Jidmah


I do think that while you aren't completely wrong, your view is heavily warped by playing an army which really only gets to play in a single phase. The design of the tau army is (and always has been) multiplying issues of the core game. If shooting became too strong, they have been horrible overbearing, when shooting dropped off in power they were struggling to hold their own.

GW really needs to put some thought into tau to find a middle ground between point&click to delete unit and getting slaughtered in combat. For example, all the smaller suits should have some way to interact with melee combatants in an interesting way by using their guns in melee rather than dedicated melee weapons.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 11:37:23


Post by: Harlech Quinn


 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that while you aren't completely wrong, your view is heavily warped by playing an army which really only gets to play in a single phase. The design of the tau army is (and always has been) multiplying issues of the core game. If shooting became too strong, they have been horrible overbearing, when shooting dropped off in power they were struggling to hold their own.

GW really needs to put some thought into tau to find a middle ground between point&click to delete unit and getting slaughtered in combat. For example, all the smaller suits should have some way to interact with melee combatants in an interesting way by using their guns in melee rather than dedicated melee weapons.


I would be finde with something like this. Unfortunatly the recent Armor Compendium updates don´t show anything like this on any of the suits.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 11:49:10


Post by: Humble82


I must agree with the OP. By the end of 7th, rules bloat was ridiculous and when 8th came along, it effectively wiped the slate to a much simpler game. By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.

AOS in contrast is a far, far simpler game.

This is not to say we should apply AOS to 40k, but their path of ever-increasing complexity has one big downside - you're going to lose your appeal to new players.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 12:02:11


Post by: Jidmah


Humble82 wrote:
By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.


The only reason to believe this is because you have lost track of how bloated 7th had gotten in the end.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 12:36:55


Post by: Lance845


 Jidmah wrote:
Humble82 wrote:
By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.


The only reason to believe this is because you have lost track of how bloated 7th had gotten in the end.


I agree in part, until you look at the SM dex and realize there are doctrines, super doctrines, angles of death, bolter discipline, chapter tactics, auras... How many different 7th ed special rules is that equivalent too?

I don't think 9th as a whole is AS bloated. But it's running towards it as fast as it can.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 12:45:50


Post by: Blackie


If you play a former standalone chapter (BA, SW, DA) current 40k is extremely bloated. And it's just the first months of the edition, do we really think that SM will keep these rules for 3ish years?

Other factions should be ok though, 7th was really a mess.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 12:50:42


Post by: Gnarlly


My suggestion regarding the issues repeated in this thread and many other similar threads is to take some time away from the GW roller coaster of new editions and codex updates, and instead use your models to play one of the following better rule sets with static rules:

Apocalypse
Kill Team
8th edition Indexes only (preferably with points from Chapter Approved 2019)
4th/5th edition hybrid

I play all of these now instead and enjoy them much more than the bloated stratagem card game that 40k has turned into.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 13:13:01


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:
Humble82 wrote:
By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.


The only reason to believe this is because you have lost track of how bloated 7th had gotten in the end.


I think it can also depend on the army you are playing. From what I understand GK for example didn't even have a 7th ed supplement book. So for a 7th ed GK player the end of 8th and start of 9th could feel like there is bucket loads of books and rules to buy.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 13:28:28


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Humble82 wrote:
By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.


The only reason to believe this is because you have lost track of how bloated 7th had gotten in the end.


I think it can also depend on the army you are playing. From what I understand GK for example didn't even have a 7th ed supplement book. So for a 7th ed GK player the end of 8th and start of 9th could feel like there is bucket loads of books and rules to buy.


Nope, sorry.

As GK right now, you need to buy two books currently plus whatever your basic ruleset is to have all the rules.

In 7th you had to get Codex:GK, the Angel of Death Supplement, Blood Oath, Imperial Agents and Gathering Storm III, assuming you didn't want to include things like assassins. And I'm actually not sure where you'd get Voldus' rules from, but it wasn't in the codex.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 13:36:36


Post by: Karol


From what I have been told in 7th GK were so bad comparing to other factions, that it didn't matter what you actualy got, because the good armies were so much better, meaning you could very well survive on a rulebook. Or the GK lists was some sort of soup list that felt more like marine list with GK added just to have Gate for a big unit making up most of the army.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 13:42:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The bloat isn't in number of books in 9th, that's a deceptive comparison.

The bloat is in number of rules.

Whether you had the GK from Imperial Agents, Gathering Storm 3, or the codex, they had a consistent set of special rules:
- Psyker (ML X)
- Universal Force Weapons
- Deep Strike

etc.

modern 40k, those same GK still are psykers, but force weapons work differently (d3 damage, right)? and not all of them have Deep Strike, iirc. But there's a gazillion stratagems to also remember (they have Transhuman or something like it, right? Do they have a "you can't fall back from me" stratagem or is that regular Marines? How does their anti-Daemon stratagem work, or do they not have one the way Deathwatch has specific anti-Xenos stratagems? And do GK get Superdoctrines? I honestly don't know. What about Shock Assault? I guess they do, but the rules aren't on the datasheet so I'm literally just guessing because they're "Adeptus Astartes" etc)

They may not have lots of books going on, but especially with Marines it's a ton of stuff to keep track of, i.e. bloat. There's what, 180 Space Marine stratagems?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 14:16:13


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
From what I have been told in 7th GK were so bad comparing to other factions, that it didn't matter what you actualy got, because the good armies were so much better, meaning you could very well survive on a rulebook. Or the GK lists was some sort of soup list that felt more like marine list with GK added just to have Gate for a big unit making up most of the army.

No ruleset is bloated if you chose to ignore the vast majority of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The bloat isn't in number of books in 9th, that's a deceptive comparison.

The bloat is in number of rules.

Even by that metric, 7th far outpaced 9th.

modern 40k, those same GK still are psykers, but force weapons work differently (d3 damage, right)?

Force weapons being regular weapons with regular statlines is a reduction in bloat, not an increase.

and not all of them have Deep Strike, iirc. But there's a gazillion stratagems to also remember (they have Transhuman or something like it, right? Do they have a "you can't fall back from me" stratagem or is that regular Marines? How does their anti-Daemon stratagem work, or do they not have one the way Deathwatch has specific anti-Xenos stratagems? And do GK get Superdoctrines? I honestly don't know. What about Shock Assault? I guess they do, but the rules aren't on the datasheet so I'm literally just guessing because they're "Adeptus Astartes" etc)

All of those questions only arise because you haven't concerned yourself with GK rules. You would have just as many questions in 7th if you hadn't read any GK rules, except you would have no way of finding out how many exist in what books.

They may not have lots of books going on, but especially with Marines it's a ton of stuff to keep track of, i.e. bloat. There's what, 180 Space Marine stratagems?

34 Stratagems, plus up to 16 from a supplement. Grey Knights have 31. These include the default stuff everyone has(like relics) and any unit upgrades.

In 7th Grey Knights had access to 35 psychic powers and "Angel of Death" added another 28 psychic powers.

I actually tried to count the number of formations available to space marines to provide facts, but I found it impossible to do without wasting my entire afternoon on tracking down and reading all the documents.
1d4 chan lists 47 across all chapters and publications.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/07 23:12:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Ok, 7th bloat was bad. 9th is getting bad though. Knowing what an army is capable of is still a lot.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 00:03:06


Post by: Jidmah


Honestly, it doesn't feel that way though. I have little to no knowledge about armies I rarely or never face (Dark Eldar, Sisters, Ad Mech or Blood Angels, for example), but in general the game has gotten much more consistent, so even if I don't know all the stratagems, I know what to ask for so I don't run into gotcha moments. There are few stratagems or unit rules which do something completely unexpected, and even if there is, I won't get caught by them a second time or I have at least heard about them before.
I couldn't tell you what defensive stratagems marines or eldar have for which units off the top of my head, but I do know that they have some, so I can ask for them.

Many stratagems are also linked to a specific unit or only make sense to use with a small hand full of units. Those are basically just abilities of that unit's datasheet which require CP to use. And really, they should just be printed that way.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 00:13:08


Post by: Lance845


More and more I think Stratagems and CP are the formations of the post 7th ed world. Those things are a pox on the game.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 08:26:43


Post by: Cyel


The problem is that once you remove the haze of the rules bloat it becomes glaringly obvious how bland, shallow and uniteresting the underlying, basic game is.

With a solid, interlocking net of player-driven relations in the basic rules, you can add as much or as little extra rules bloat and still get an engaging game. Simpler or more complex, depending on what you want the game to be, but in both cases an interesting puzzle to unlock.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 08:45:14


Post by: DarknessEternal


Games are for fun.

40k is a game.

It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

Until then, try something else.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 11:14:40


Post by: Jidmah


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.

40k is a game.

It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

Until then, try something else.


I'd like to point out that you are telling people they are having fun the wrong way.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 11:30:10


Post by: kodos


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.


now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 11:34:12


Post by: Lance845


Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

40k does = game.
40k does not necessarily = fun.

It's not inherent. 40k actually has to do the job first.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 11:59:48


Post by: Blackie


The point is that people seek different things from the same game. Yes it's bloated, there are conflicts in the rules and some factions are more powerful than other ones but if you play the game against a long time buddy (or even a semi-stranger that shares the same attitude) toning up or down the lists in order to have a balanced match all those issues actually don't exist.

Some people instead want to play against a random opponent and prove their skills. It's a completely different mentality and leads to a completely different idea of having fun playing the game.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 12:04:38


Post by: Lance845


 Blackie wrote:
The point is that people seek different things from the same game. Yes it's bloated, there are conflicts in the rules and some factions are more powerful than other ones but if you play the game against a long time buddy (or even a semi-stranger that shares the same attitude) toning up or down the lists in order to have a balanced match all those issues actually don't exist.

Some people instead want to play against a random opponent and prove their skills. It's a completely different mentality and leads to a completely different idea of having fun playing the game.


Different people do seek different things. My issues with the game are deeply rooted in the mechanics. It's not bloat and it's not opponents. The game itself just isn't good.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 14:26:48


Post by: Tyel


 Jidmah wrote:
I'd like to point out that you are telling people they are having fun the wrong way.


I think its more the counter to the miserabilist comments we get here which seem to amount to "I've hated 40k for 5, 10, 20 years, but somehow I still regularly spend time posting about it online".

I don't feel 9th is that bloated - and, for a time at least - it may grow less so as PA is incorporated or dismissed into new faction codexes. (Until the inevitable "PA2, we want £30 for 4 competitive stratagems")


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 14:42:06


Post by: aphyon


Lance845 wrote:More and more I think Stratagems and CP are the formations of the post 7th ed world. Those things are a pox on the game.

Yes they are, formation broke 7th edition, stratagems/CP are what is breaking the current game.
40K was always the fun, fast and simpler game to play. it had to be once it became an army game in 3rd ed. skirmish games cannot scale up and stay with the same complex rules.
9th ed has to much to keep track of, and there are many things that unreasonably bog/slow the game down. there doesn't need to be 7 phases to a game turn that used to have everything intuitively wrapped up in 3

Gnarlly wrote:My suggestion regarding the issues repeated in this thread and many other similar threads is to take some time away from the GW roller coaster of new editions and codex updates, and instead use your models to play one of the following better rule sets with static rules:

Apocalypse
Kill Team
8th edition Indexes only (preferably with points from Chapter Approved 2019)
4th/5th edition hybrid

I play all of these now instead and enjoy them much more than the bloated stratagem card game that 40k has turned into.


Bingo!-that's why i have a dedicated topic on all things older 40K editions/specialist games

Lance845 wrote:Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

40k does = game.
40k does not necessarily = fun.

It's not inherent. 40k actually has to do the job first.


It is the same as it has always been. fun for some people is assembly and painting, or converting models (the hobby aspect) fun for others is game play or immersion in the universe through it. some more competitive players only find it fun to utterly crush their opponents so if they loose a game they are not having "fun" .


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 14:42:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Building a 40k army has lots of temporal, emotional, and finanical investment.

Saying "just don't play, durr" when someone has a problem with the direction the game is heading is unhelpful. It's like telling someone "just sell your house, durr" when they complain that their ancestral home has bad insulation or something.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 14:44:28


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


Tyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I'd like to point out that you are telling people they are having fun the wrong way.


I think its more the counter to the miserabilist comments we get here which seem to amount to "I've hated 40k for 5, 10, 20 years, but somehow I still regularly spend time posting about it online".

I don't feel 9th is that bloated - and, for a time at least - it may grow less so as PA is incorporated or dismissed into new faction codexes. (Until the inevitable "PA2, we want £30 for 4 competitive stratagems")

I would say: «I have loved 40k for 5, 10, 20 years, but somehow I still unable to accept it isn't a game good like I would love».
I knew some true W40k haters and trust me: no one of them is able to articulate critics like the ones made by Harlech Queen. Those kind of critics can't come from an hater, they come from a lover who isn't able to enjoy the object of his love.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 15:34:10


Post by: Eldarsif


Humble82 wrote:
I must agree with the OP. By the end of 7th, rules bloat was ridiculous and when 8th came along, it effectively wiped the slate to a much simpler game. By the start of 9th, the bloat is much bigger than 7th ever was and the more recent codexes have continued that trend.

AOS in contrast is a far, far simpler game.

This is not to say we should apply AOS to 40k, but their path of ever-increasing complexity has one big downside - you're going to lose your appeal to new players.


One of the more important differences I find in AoS is that a lot of the units get their "unit specific stratagems" assigned to their datasheets as bespoke abilities that can cost command points. 40k, for some reason, decided to take all those abilities and make them into stratagems which just creates a sea of stratagems where only a percentage of them can actually be applied in a more agnostic manner. It creates excessive bookkeeping for players and designers appear to add stratagems at a whim as they don't appear aware of all the existing stratagems.

Take for example the stratagems in War of the Spider. A few of them explicitly say "Pick Plague Marine unit" so they could just as easily been an ability on the Death Guard Plague Marine sheet. Now, whether the datasheet itself becomes too big if all the stratagems gets added is another discussion, but I think it would better illustrate the excessive bloat in abilities some units get in comparison to other.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 16:55:23


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Building a 40k army has lots of temporal, emotional, and finanical investment.

Saying "just don't play, durr" when someone has a problem with the direction the game is heading is unhelpful. It's like telling someone "just sell your house, durr" when they complain that their ancestral home has bad insulation or something.


However, also telling a player that maybe they should change the insulation (such as house-ruling) is often met with as vitriol as stop playing. There are a few Dakkanuats that would argue that the ancestral home should have had good insulation from the beginning. Games Workshops games have been pretty consistent in their quality, or lack of, for much of the decade or so I have been aware of them. While 8th and 9th are better for platoon/company sized games to 7th (which I think would be fine at more a squad level which all its micromanaging), it still pales to pretty much any other miniatures war game I have played.

And I am fine with that for the most part. I certainly understand what I am getting into playing it. For the most part 40k and AoS give the run-of-the-mill armies I and my opponents play a fighting chance to win. Sometimes that fighting chance is more uphill than other times. Other times it isn't there at all. Which is a shame and shouldn't be there. I am fortunate that I play with a group that if someone's army is taking a beating the rest of the group will try and figure out ways to make the next game more balanced. My Primaris space marine army was down to 15-20% less points, no supplements and sometimes no roll-off to determine who when first with my opponent deciding when I was playing the second 8th ed C:SM. If that didn't work, I could always play my Chaos Space Marine army. Or if an opponent really wanted 40k on easy mode, I could break out my GSC army which is a combination of poor rules, a weak model collection and me competing for the worst GSC player in the world title.

I am sure pretty much everyone gets that their ancestral home has bad installation and for almost everyone the only real installers are the same that put the original bad stuff in. It would take great effort and money to get better, out-of-town installers to replace it. Which really isn't feasible for most. At the same time, I don't think it is healthy to endless gripe every winter and every summer about how it is too cold and hot. Especially, since GW games aren't actual necessities and should be fun, and griping endlessly apparently hasn't affected any change. Nor does it look like it ever really will to a large degree. So the best I can tell you is put on an extra sweater in the winter and open up all the windows and get some fans for the summer if you can't move on or afford to get a new installation company in your home town.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 18:22:56


Post by: DarknessEternal


 kodos wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.


now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 18:41:57


Post by: kodos


 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.
The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.


you are working for EA?
it is the players who are wrong and not enjoying the games and never something wrong with game itself

sound like plump marketing or kind of victim blaming
people not having fun with 40k having a mental illness


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 19:06:37


Post by: Lance845


 DarknessEternal wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.


now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.


Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:03:13


Post by: Castozor


 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:10:26


Post by: BrianDavion


 Castozor wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.


maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:16:24


Post by: Charistoph


Lance845 wrote:Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

Not entirely true. Games can be used for education. That's actually how wargames started in the first place.

Though, in the case of 40K, it is a hobby game, and those are for finding enjoyment.

Lance845 wrote:Different people do seek different things. My issues with the game are deeply rooted in the mechanics. It's not bloat and it's not opponents. The game itself just isn't good.

I have to disagree. The mechanics are not the biggest issue, but the lack of foresight and cross-examination when writing the rules beyond the basic mechanics.

It's like having an Ikea kit, but the pictures are vague and you only the Swedish instructions came in the set. The basics are sound, but everything else they give you to make it work is less-effective in implementing it.

aphyon wrote:Yes they are, formation broke 7th edition, stratagems/CP are what is breaking the current game.
40K was always the fun, fast and simpler game to play. it had to be once it became an army game in 3rd ed. skirmish games cannot scale up and stay with the same complex rules.
9th ed has to much to keep track of, and there are many things that unreasonably bog/slow the game down. there doesn't need to be 7 phases to a game turn that used to have everything intuitively wrapped up in 3

I think the theories were sound behind Formations, CP, and Strategems, but as I mentioned above, GW has a hard time with KISS, and go overboard with their sloppy rule writing.

aphyon wrote:It is the same as it has always been. fun for some people is assembly and painting, or converting models (the hobby aspect) fun for others is game play or immersion in the universe through it. some more competitive players only find it fun to utterly crush their opponents so if they loose a game they are not having "fun" .

This much is very true. But it could be said that the game could be balanced better and the rule writing not so dysfunctional, even though the hobby side is doing quite well.

Lance845 wrote:Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.

Technically that is true. There are thrill seekers that would be looking for their surf board when they hear of a tsunami, or try to stand up to hurricane winds. There are the anarchists who seek to destroy the culture they live in just for the power thrill.

However, I do agree with where I believe you were sarcastically pointing out that most people prefer having their lives to be a bit more balanced and not so swing-heavy, even in their games.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:40:23


Post by: BertBert


GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: an excuse to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and spend a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:40:51


Post by: Harlech Quinn


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.

40k is a game.

It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.

Until then, try something else.


Except that this is not entirely true. 40k is a game, yes. It is also a product.
And as people have invested heavily in this product (both in terms of money, emotional investment and time) it would be against their self interest if they dind´t take an active interest in the way the product is developing.

As for the proposition of "hey if you do not like the product then just do not consume and just move on"-argument. You can do that, of course. But companies are spending millions every year to find out what their customers like and dislike.
So I´m not quite sure if this proposition would even be in the interest of the company that is producing the product in question.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:42:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:48:11


Post by: BrianDavion


 Lance845 wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
Games are for fun.
40k is a game.
It's truly a life changing realization when you come to understand this.


now just accept that people bought that game and invested a lot of money and now are pissed because that promise (40k is a game, and games are fun) did not hold true for them

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.


Hey man. If you're like... in the middle of a natural disaster and not having a good time that's just your choice. That's on you. The disaster itself has no bearing on your enjoyment of what you are currently a part of.



if I'm in the middle of a natural disaster I get out of it


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:55:19


Post by: aphyon


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.


Well the thing is, at one time they were not s*** and GW sold a bunch of them. now you have them all you don't need to buy more, so they will throw a nice big shiny new mini at you with super good rules *cough* eradicators *cough* (they did the same thing to carnifexes when they released the plastic trygon) that you need to keep playing the most recent version of the game.

And loads of players fall for it every time.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:56:00


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


BrianDavion wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.


maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.

Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 20:56:51


Post by: BertBert


 AnomanderRake wrote:


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.


AoS is a thing after all, so there is merit to that angle.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:18:06


Post by: BrianDavion


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:

Why would they have done such a thing? That sounds like mental illness which has nothing to do with 40k.

The decision to have fun with anything is an active choice. If you are choosing to not have fun with 40k, that's on you.

Man I know some GW whiteknights here are pretty radical, but that's a whole new level of delusion. It's hard for me to have a lot of this "fun" when my fluffy lists get blasted by my opponents fluffy list for no other reason than that GW is incapable of balancing their armies correctly. I personally thought this would not flag me as a mentally ill person but guess I'm wrong.


maybe, on the other hand the evidance thus far suggests the codices may be getting better, codices SOB marines and necrons all allow for fluffy lists while also being reasonably solid.

that said if I didn't find 40k fun I'd stop playing it and stop thinking about it. I certainly wouldn't spend YEARS trolling a 40k forum.

Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.


continuing to play a game if you actively hate the game is stupid. it's like slashing your self and complaining about being in pain.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:23:47


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:30:50


Post by: Overread


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.



I think the issue for many is not the highlighting of problems with the game system. It's the very repetitive nature of such comments being repeated by many people in many threads over and over again. Often with no real purpose other than to highlight the problems as problems that are insurmountable. As a result its the continual bombardment of negative comments which mostly end with "and GW should fix it".

A given comment we can all agree upon (when we can agree a problem is a problem and not simply a variation of opinion).

The issue is this gets brought up so often that it actually squashes other kinds of discussion. We leap for imbalance and GW got it wrong so fast that discussion about how to mitigate/tackle/approach the issue get pushed to the side so fast you miss them if you blink.


In short too many discussions about the game side of the game end up stuck in the quagmire of "GW imbalance" arguments which, once you've been on the site for a few weeks, are fairly predictable in how they unfold and don't generally lead anywhere productive.





For a site where people come to share in the joy of their hobby its a dash of ice cold water in the face. Personally I think there'd be less pushback if there was more push for some kind of structure, organisation and even collective group effort to "fix£ the issues and then present that information to GW. Or create a stand alone expansion to the game to run off - the Dakka rules modification etc... Ergo highlighting that there's an issue, identifying it and then finding a resolution that is beyond "GW fethed up GW should fix it".




This thread is a perfect example of someone new to the game asking questions relating to balance and we are already several pages in to a GW balance argument/discussion. The idea of presenting different tactical options; different builds; different movements or even a closer review of the OP's games beyond their early reports, are all out the window long long ago. And that's part of it - this happens over and over in this kind of thread. We are so swift to blame GW and use that as the beating stick that we drive out other discussion.

Imagine how poor our hobby painting would be if each time we got a painting question we harped on endlessly about how overpriced GW paints are and how their whites aren't perfect etc... If that dominated painting chatter then imagine how weak painting would be. Instead we have those as comments at times, but predominantly its put to one side and we have a vast wealth of people willing to help and painting guides, tutorials, videos etc...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:31:52


Post by: Jidmah


I quit them game when it wasn't fun anymore. I came back when it was fun again. Simple, would do it again.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:32:29


Post by: Lance845


 Charistoph wrote:
Lance845 wrote:Being a game means it is supposed to be fun. Games are little engines designed to produce fun. The problem is some little engines don't do their job.

Not entirely true. Games can be used for education. That's actually how wargames started in the first place.

Though, in the case of 40K, it is a hobby game, and those are for finding enjoyment.

Lance845 wrote:Different people do seek different things. My issues with the game are deeply rooted in the mechanics. It's not bloat and it's not opponents. The game itself just isn't good.

I have to disagree. The mechanics are not the biggest issue, but the lack of foresight and cross-examination when writing the rules beyond the basic mechanics.

It's like having an Ikea kit, but the pictures are vague and you only the Swedish instructions came in the set. The basics are sound, but everything else they give you to make it work is less-effective in implementing it.


Yes. Games can be used for education. The reason you use a game for education instead of say... a book. Is because the fun engine that is the game is supposed to help facilitate the learning experience with entertainment. It can do two things.

The mechanics are the only issue. From the basic mechanics of the game with the IGOUGO turn structure, through the bloat, to the poor rules writing language, to the poor balancing, to the poorly implemented things like CP and strats. It's all mechanics. And they are all the problem.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 21:36:25


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


 Overread wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.



I think the issue for many is not the highlighting of problems with the game system. It's the very repetitive nature of such comments being repeated by many people in many threads over and over again. Often with no real purpose other than to highlight the problems as problems that are insurmountable. As a result its the continual bombardment of negative comments which mostly end with "and GW should fix it".

A given comment we can all agree upon (when we can agree a problem is a problem and not simply a variation of opinion).

The issue is this gets brought up so often that it actually squashes other kinds of discussion. We leap for imbalance and GW got it wrong so fast that discussion about how to mitigate/tackle/approach the issue get pushed to the side so fast you miss them if you blink.


In short too many discussions about the game side of the game end up stuck in the quagmire of "GW imbalance" arguments which, once you've been on the site for a few weeks, are fairly predictable in how they unfold and don't generally lead anywhere productive.





For a site where people come to share in the joy of their hobby its a dash of ice cold water in the face. Personally I think there'd be less pushback if there was more push for some kind of structure, organisation and even collective group effort to "fix£ the issues and then present that information to GW. Or create a stand alone expansion to the game to run off - the Dakka rules modification etc... Ergo highlighting that there's an issue, identifying it and then finding a resolution that is beyond "GW fethed up GW should fix it".




This thread is a perfect example of someone new to the game asking questions relating to balance and we are already several pages in to a GW balance argument/discussion. The idea of presenting different tactical options; different builds; different movements or even a closer review of the OP's games beyond their early reports, are all out the window long long ago. And that's part of it - this happens over and over in this kind of thread. We are so swift to blame GW and use that as the beating stick that we drive out other discussion.

Imagine how poor our hobby painting would be if each time we got a painting question we harped on endlessly about how overpriced GW paints are and how their whites aren't perfect etc... If that dominated painting chatter then imagine how weak painting would be. Instead we have those as comments at times, but predominantly its put to one side and we have a vast wealth of people willing to help and painting guides, tutorials, videos etc...
About that I can agree and in fact I started to contribute to the project Oldhammer, because I don't love complain without try to change the things in better.
I don't know if I will be able to give some good contributor to the project, but I try.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 22:06:06


Post by: BrianDavion


 Jidmah wrote:
I quit them game when it wasn't fun anymore. I came back when it was fun again. Simple, would do it again.


thats the way to do it. if you spend all your time picking at the flaws of the game, not having any fun? then it's proably time to go play something else.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 23:43:36


Post by: Gnarlly


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
GW is in the business of selling miniature first and foremost, everything else is just a means to that end. This is an important thing to accept before engaging in any discussions about balance in 40k and GW's aspirations towards achieving it.

Yes, a more balanced and enjoyable game would further incentivise sales of their miniatures, but getting there involves certain efforts and expenses GW is not willing to make. Not to mention the resulting conflict of balance vs. power creep and the pushing of new releases through better rules.

40k becoming a competent game is not happening anytime soon, but that's fine if you can enjoy it for what it is meant to be: a reason to bring out those beautiful miniatures once in a while and have a nice afternoon with a couple of friends.


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.


*cough* (Apocalypse) *cough* (one page for all universal special rules; all factions' special rules covered in two pages; all minis get to participate in the battle for at least one turn; simplified rules that can be quickly learned, yet provide more tactical depth than the current 9th edition of 40k due to the detachment order system, timing of alternating activations, and an end-of-turn damage phase; "fluffy" game elements moved to a card system that adds flavor and unpredictability, yet the game can be played without the cards as well)

However sadly, many 40k "gamers" seem to want their chosen factions and individual minis to have a bunch of cool, unique rules to make their chosen minis feel "special." While they think this makes the game more interesting or "fluffy" it instead bogs the game down with rules upon rules for different faction abilities, subfaction perks, doctrines/protocols, super doctrines, warlord traits, and relics, not to mention the appropriate "gotcha!" stratagems from a list of dozens available per faction. GW has realized many players want additional rules to make their minis "special," and so gladly caters to them (while increasing GW's bottom line of course) by regularly feeding them new rules and abilities through supplement books, White Dwarf issues, and new codexes. And then what happens when the shine has worn off with all these awesome new rules? Well, GW then resets the game with a new edition and starts the cycle over again . . .

Bottom line, and back to the OP: If you enjoy the minis and fluff like many of us but don't care for the current game's rules, give some other game variations a chance (ex. Apoc, Kill Team, older editions).


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 23:52:24


Post by: AnomanderRake


 BertBert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Surely it'd be much easier for GW to move miniatures by making a simpler game in which you can use all their minis instead of making a bloated, overly-complicated game where at least half the minis in the game are s*** and not worth using at any given time.


AoS is a thing after all, so there is merit to that angle.


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/08 23:59:53


Post by: BertBert


 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 00:13:20


Post by: BrianDavion


 BertBert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.


and so was 8th edition 40k.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 00:17:33


Post by: AnomanderRake


 BertBert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.


And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 00:22:13


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.


And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.


that's not bloat.

I think some people seem to define "rules bloat" as "ANY RULES ADDED TO THE GAME EVER!"
and yeaaah.. in that case well. let's just burn the rules books and scream pew pew with our toy soldiers


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 01:46:15


Post by: Mezmorki


I haven't read everything here yet - but one option at least for the time being until the rest of the codexes for 9th are released, could be to just play older editions.

5th edition codexes and rule books can be found used for dirt cheap. I bought my nephews a stack of 5th edition codexes for a few bucks each.

Personally, I think the older editions (3rd - 5th) are much cleaner games. The core rules are a bit more complex than 9th in some respects, but the actually army lists are easier to understand and there is less stuff bolted onto the game system (ie no stratagems). It's a cleaner game I feel.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 13:24:17


Post by: Grimtuff


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


AoS is barely better on any of those metrics.


Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the current state of the game. My point was that AoS was very much a reset of WHFB with a reduction of complexity and bloat of its predecessor at its core.


And ended up increasing the bloat by taking all the special rules that were in the core book and offloading them onto individual datasheets.


that's not bloat.

I think some people seem to define "rules bloat" as "ANY RULES ADDED TO THE GAME EVER!"
and yeaaah.. in that case well. let's just burn the rules books and scream pew pew with our toy soldiers


It is bloat though. There is no reason to to condense several rules down into USRs and put them in the fething rulebook. You know, like every other game system out there does. Having to take a fine tooth comb through each and every individual datasheet just to check if there is a minute difference in seemingly identical rules just for the sake of being different is the very definition of bloat. They are different for no other reason than to be different.

Why have one rule describing deep strike when you can have tens? But why? Just to be different? Does the one previous USR not cover it, despite it being sufficient for 20 years prior? It is just bloat, plain and simple. You have fallen into an Egyptian river if you think otherwise.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 14:40:59


Post by: BrianDavion


personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 14:46:28


Post by: Tycho


personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.


Yeah - that was the worst. USRs that only existed to confer 5 other USRs ... and then the what? 12 full pages I think it was of USR listings? Nightmare. I feel like, if you're going to have true USRs, they need to be a very limited number, and none of them should exist solely to group other USRs under themselves ...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 14:59:30


Post by: Jidmah


BrianDavion wrote:
personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.



This. USR in a book you otherwise don't need is horrible, but having all deep strikes, FNP, explosions, bodyguards and whatnot key-worded and read the same? Sign me up.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 18:53:41


Post by: Deadnight


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.


It's not about absolutes though, that's the thing. It's not a case of 'you play this crap game' or gtfo. I mean, for the gangrene analogy people should also bear some of the responsibilities for their own health choices too - you know, eat healthily, don't smoke, watch how much you drink and all thst.

As you correctly point out, there are other projects out there. Heck, as a narrative player and enjoyer of game-building I take this as my default approach.

If there's better systems, use them. If you have better ideas bring them to the table. Then play them. Invest in, and develop the kind of community that will support this attitude. Biggest barrier if you ask me isn't Gw's shoddy rules. It's the community's insistence on adhering to and following said shoddy rules so slavishly and without question whilst doing nothing to help themselves. It's like a religion. Blind faith in a bitter, angry god but yet any dissent from unquestioning obedience is treated like unforgivable heresy. The cult of officieldom and it's blind adherence is the biggest issue in my mind.

Look, gw write barely functional rules, at best. The cold hard reality is that they won't change. Constantly repeating 'theres problems', whilst cathartic at first is a road to nowhere. Ok, theres problems. Fine. Now what? Personally I find a point is ofyen reached where someone just complaining about stuff constantly whilst doing nothing about it becomes as much of the problem themselves rather the victim. I mean, I'm a caring guy, but I only have so much sympathy for people whose problems are self inflicted or where they refuse to help themselves, repeat toxic or self destructive brhavious especially when the solutions are available and doable.

Take control of your own game.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.



If they love the game so much where is the positivity? Why aren't they helping themselves or even trying to acommodate the issues? All I see is complaints 'gw left jagged edges in the same' and fair point, but it's the players responsibility as well.when they take a dozen of those jagged edges and inflict them on their peers, whilst simultaneously trying to claim no responsibility for their actions.

Regarding what you say, what you describe right there is a toxic relationship. Imagige me approaching my wife like that, like a lot of gw 'fans' approach gw. 'i love you honey, I really do, bit I'm gonna spend all my time being furious with you, ridiculing everything about you, constantly dredging up every mistake and oversight from thr last twenty years, blaming you for everything that's wrong, tearing you down constantly and begrudging you even the slightest bit of praise or neutral commentary. I'll never be happy, I'm be er gonna do anything about it and it will always be your fault and your responsibility to fix'.

One evening of that and my lovely Scottish wife will have me in the ground, occupying several burial sites.




Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 20:14:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Deadnight wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.


It's not about absolutes though, that's the thing. It's not a case of 'you play this crap game' or gtfo. I mean, for the gangrene analogy people should also bear some of the responsibilities for their own health choices too - you know, eat healthily, don't smoke, watch how much you drink and all thst.

As you correctly point out, there are other projects out there. Heck, as a narrative player and enjoyer of game-building I take this as my default approach.

If there's better systems, use them. If you have better ideas bring them to the table. Then play them. Invest in, and develop the kind of community that will support this attitude. Biggest barrier if you ask me isn't Gw's shoddy rules. It's the community's insistence on adhering to and following said shoddy rules so slavishly and without question whilst doing nothing to help themselves. It's like a religion. Blind faith in a bitter, angry god but yet any dissent from unquestioning obedience is treated like unforgivable heresy. The cult of officieldom and it's blind adherence is the biggest issue in my mind.

Look, gw write barely functional rules, at best. The cold hard reality is that they won't change. Constantly repeating 'theres problems', whilst cathartic at first is a road to nowhere. Ok, theres problems. Fine. Now what? Personally I find a point is ofyen reached where someone just complaining about stuff constantly whilst doing nothing about it becomes as much of the problem themselves rather the victim.

Take control of your own game.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.



If they love the game so much where is the positivity? Why aren't they helping themselves or even trying to acommodate the issues? All I see is complaints 'gw left jagged edges in the same' and fair point, but it's the players responsibility as well.when they take a dozen of those jagged edges and inflict them on their peers, whilst simultaneously trying to claim no responsibility for their actions.

Regarding what you say, what you describe right there is a toxic relationship. Imagige me approaching my wife like that, like a lot of gw 'fans' approach gw. 'i love you honey, I really do, bit I'm gonna spend all my time being furious with you, ridiculing everything about you, constantly dredging up every mistake and oversight from thr last twenty years, blaming you for everything that's wrong, tearing you down constantly and begrudging you even the slightest bit of praise or neutral commentary. I'll never be happy, I'm be er gonna do anything about it and it will always be your fault and your responsibility to fix'.

One evening of that and my lovely Scottish wife will have me in the ground, occupying several burial sites.



The positivity is typically shared in person with friends.

On an internet forum, I'm going to generate discussion on what I think needs fixed in order to:
1) Spread ideas around. If the community as a whole is discussing an idea, GW is more likely to become aware of it - just like the FAQ agitation you see sometimes.
2) Discuss whether or not things are fine. If I am negative about something someone is positive about, that can cause me to change my opinion on things and realize that maybe what I was complaining about was silly.
3) Point out to others pitfalls to watchout for when playing their games.

It's worth noting that GW is a company, not a wife. I used my house analogy before, so I'll dredge it up again. A 40k army is like an ancestral home, in that it's got lots of temporal, emotional, and financial investment. If something is fucky, people are right to be upset, and the appropriate response isn't just "hur durr move out dingus"

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Building a 40k army has lots of temporal, emotional, and finanical investment.

Saying "just don't play, durr" when someone has a problem with the direction the game is heading is unhelpful. It's like telling someone "just sell your house, durr" when they complain that their ancestral home has bad insulation or something.


However, also telling a player that maybe they should change the insulation (such as house-ruling) is often met with as vitriol as stop playing. There are a few Dakkanuats that would argue that the ancestral home should have had good insulation from the beginning. Games Workshops games have been pretty consistent in their quality, or lack of, for much of the decade or so I have been aware of them. While 8th and 9th are better for platoon/company sized games to 7th (which I think would be fine at more a squad level which all its micromanaging), it still pales to pretty much any other miniatures war game I have played.

Some people are older players than a decade (in a game nearly 35 years old now), and 5th wasn't that bad of an edition. House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:And I am fine with that for the most part. I certainly understand what I am getting into playing it. For the most part 40k and AoS give the run-of-the-mill armies I and my opponents play a fighting chance to win. Sometimes that fighting chance is more uphill than other times. Other times it isn't there at all. Which is a shame and shouldn't be there. I am fortunate that I play with a group that if someone's army is taking a beating the rest of the group will try and figure out ways to make the next game more balanced. My Primaris space marine army was down to 15-20% less points, no supplements and sometimes no roll-off to determine who when first with my opponent deciding when I was playing the second 8th ed C:SM. If that didn't work, I could always play my Chaos Space Marine army. Or if an opponent really wanted 40k on easy mode, I could break out my GSC army which is a combination of poor rules, a weak model collection and me competing for the worst GSC player in the world title.

For people who are invested in their armies, it's not that easy. If I'm invested in my carnifex-spam Nids that functioned awesomely in 4th, and someone else is super invested in their Primaris Space Marine chapter that they recently fully painted and bought nameplates for the characters for... there shouldn't be a problem there. Neither person is "wrong". Whose fault is it when the Nid player gets irredeemably trounced by the SM player over and over and over and over again, until the SM player starts pulling their punches so the Nid player has a chance (which, by the way, feels awful for both players; the Nid player can tell the SM player is going easy on him, and the SM player oftentimes has to make unfluffy or tactically inane decisions in order to make the game function). That's GW's fault, and no one else's. The fact that you, personally, can play other armies doesn't mean that players who are invested in their current army should be forced to. Instead, the game should be actually good, at the price we pay for it.

"Go live in your summer home because your ancestral home has bad insulation" isn't actually a helpful response to people that only want to own one home, and should be able to do so if the home was built correctly in the first place.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am sure pretty much everyone gets that their ancestral home has bad installation and for almost everyone the only real installers are the same that put the original bad stuff in. It would take great effort and money to get better, out-of-town installers to replace it. Which really isn't feasible for most. At the same time, I don't think it is healthy to endless gripe every winter and every summer about how it is too cold and hot. Especially, since GW games aren't actual necessities and should be fun, and griping endlessly apparently hasn't affected any change. Nor does it look like it ever really will to a large degree. So the best I can tell you is put on an extra sweater in the winter and open up all the windows and get some fans for the summer if you can't move on or afford to get a new installation company in your home town.

I disagree with this 'inevitability' stuff. If you're suffering, you should agitate for change and always seek to make the situation better. You could take mitigating steps (e.g. wearing a sweater and adding fans) but you shouldn't stop agitating for things to improve. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you stop.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 20:58:36


Post by: Mezmorki


Just digging into a smaller part of the conversation, regarding house ruling.

I'm quite fortunate that I have a group that's willing, or even enthusiastic, about house ruling the 40K ruleset. Granted, 95% of the hard work of documenting our house rules falls on me, but I find that to be fun in its own right, so it is win-win.

After some time bemoaning the state of the game, we all just decided we liked things better back in 4th/5th era, albeit with some tweaking and refinements based on other editions. Lo and behold, we have a game system we all like a lot more and can get on with playing and enjoying ourselves.

Once you and a core group of fellow players step off the GW rat race, it's really quite liberating. No more pressure to "keep up" with the latest and greatest. If you all agree there are issued or problems with the rules or certain codex's, just make a collective decision to change it - and it it doesn't work out then change it back.

Obviously, if you're reliant on playing in GW stores or want to play in sanctioned events, it won't work as easily.

To points made above - don't wait for GW or someone else to "fix" it for you. If you can see the problems, discuss it with your group or player community and go for it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 20:59:06


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."...


I disagree. I think it's a critical mass problem. The more people are on here or in game stores advocating for homebrew rules the more they'll get used and the more they'll get accepted. Some people refuse to play homebrewed material on principle, yeah, but way more don't because they expect that they won't get to play games. If enough of us start saying "go home 9th, we're playing our own rules" and the idea starts to gain traction it makes things better for everyone. GW can sell minis that are useless trash in 9th, people with squatted minis can still use them, people who don't want to deal with the hardcore competitive aspects of 9th have something else to do with their minis, and people who like 9th can just go keep playing 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
...Obviously, if you're reliant on playing in GW stores or want to play in sanctioned events, it won't work as easily...


Do note that this depends on your GW store. I've been in stores that were fine with us playing our own rules so long as everything was painted GW minis.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 21:11:01


Post by: Charistoph


Lance845 wrote:The mechanics are the only issue. From the basic mechanics of the game with the IGOUGO turn structure, through the bloat, to the poor rules writing language, to the poor balancing, to the poorly implemented things like CP and strats. It's all mechanics. And they are all the problem.

I rather disagree. There is a lot in the base mechanics which is actually quite effective for the level of game that 40K seeks to achieve. This isn't to say there aren't problems, though.

Try Warmachine some time. It is manageable at 75 points where you're likely to have one super HQ running 3-5 machines or beasts with 2-3 units of about 10 models each being supported by about 3-4 characters. Its system takes as long to run at this level as a 1750-2000 point game of 40K (depending on Edition). This is because while there are unit activations, each model's interaction is usually still performed on a 1:1 basis. If I tried doing this game with the same number of models of a 40K tournament team, it starts approaching Apocalypse game time. It's still has the same turn concept as 40K, though.

Where GW's problem lies is always in rule implementation. Basic rules work, but when you start adding in everything extra, it really tears itself apart. Are they the best rules? No. However, no ruleset is ever going to be 100% perfect, so one has to make allowances for the chosen resources. A lot of people here prefer Bolt Action's system, while I'm a little more classic and prefer Battletech's turn system (which X-Wing resembles, if I understand it right), but I can understand why using a single D6 is preferable due to familiarity, availability, and fast rolling for units which is why 40K uses that.

Out of curiosity, what's the point size of an average Bolt Action game, and how many models does that usually include? Do you know? (I never see it played, so I don't know the expectations.)

personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.

If USRs were not in the rulebook, it would require copying and pasting them in to every unit's datasheet, exactly. This has not been proven to be a strong point of GW writing. The problem then comes in when they want to update the rule, so new codex is buffed/nerfed as a result until the FAQs roll out (if they even bother to do that right). That is one advantage of keeping these general rules all in one place.

That being said, I agree that GW's implementation is the sore spot. A unique rule that just offers a USR or multiple, is pointless when you can just list it. Even if it offers it under conditions also seems pointless. Also just having a USR just to have a USR also seems rather abusive. 5th Edition didn't have much, and 4th and 3rd had far fewer. 5ths was mostly okay in terms of size where there was enough to handle most of the work while also being small enough to have the one's for your army memorized after a few games.

But taking them out of the rulebook hasn't stopped all the rules from still showing up on the datasheets, which is where the rule bloat that is oft-mentioned is being applied.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 21:20:19


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Charistoph wrote:
...Out of curiosity, what's the point size of an average Bolt Action game, and how many models does that usually include? Do you know? (I never see it played, so I don't know the expectations.)...


750-1,250 was fairly normal at my FLGS. Warlord's 1,000pt starter boxes are usually 1-2 vehicles, 2-3 weapon teams, and 30-50 infantry.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 22:09:35


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some people are older players than a decade (in a game nearly 35 years old now), and 5th wasn't that bad of an edition. House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."


Not using house rules is on the players shoulders and certainly not an 'of course' issue. If they absolutely can't work things out and require a 3rd party to officiate for them even when they know that officiating is currently, historically and likely always will be bad that's on them. If there isn't even that level of trust to not screw over an opponent then why would I want to even spend to time to play a game around said person.

Even when I played Bolt Action a lot, I used house rules setup by tournament players when I went to the F, not very L,GS . When I played in garages with my friend we also played a different set of house rules for it, and when I taught people how to play it I stuck with the RAW. Sure, it was a little confusing, but I think it enriched my enjoyment (or at very least my opponent's) having the house rules in place. If a person's house is cold in the winter and has bad insulation, but they can't afford to turn up the heat yet refuse to put on a sweater, blanket or layers because of course they shouldn't have to, that is on them. I mean how much sympathy should someone have for another that just keeps cursing the dark when it is at least possible to light a candle?

But yes, it is likely you are going to have a smaller number of games. Then it is a matter of how many mediocre games equal a good game to you. Unfortunately, life often doesn't offer up options where there aren't any downsides. More often than I would prefer life often present only options with no upsides just less downsides. It sucks I know.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
For people who are invested in their armies, it's not that easy. If I'm invested in my carnifex-spam Nids that functioned awesomely in 4th, and someone else is super invested in their Primaris Space Marine chapter that they recently fully painted and bought nameplates for the characters for... there shouldn't be a problem there. Neither person is "wrong". Whose fault is it when the Nid player gets irredeemably trounced by the SM player over and over and over and over again, until the SM player starts pulling their punches so the Nid player has a chance (which, by the way, feels awful for both players; the Nid player can tell the SM player is going easy on him, and the SM player oftentimes has to make unfluffy or tactically inane decisions in order to make the game function). That's GW's fault, and no one else's. The fact that you, personally, can play other armies doesn't mean that players who are invested in their current army should be forced to. Instead, the game should be actually good, at the price we pay for it.


I have 3 massive Dust Warfare/Battlefield armies, 5 Bolt Action Armies and 3 40k armies, 2 Age of Sigmar armies and more skirmish miniatures games than I want to list. Nearly all of it painted. Do you not think I know of the investment of time and money involved? Me not playing Dust is due to mishandling of the game when it was at Fantasy Flight as I liked Dust Warfare the most. I continued to play Dust Battlefield not because I liked the game, though it was functional, but because I had some sunk cost and I enjoyed most of my opponent's company playing the game. However, when the Kickstarter completely went belly up the game essentially died to me leaving with tons of lovingly painted models I put into storage and have even looked at since. Bolt Action was my area's tournament game of choice through the latter half of 7th ed 40k. Those days 40k players were minority to even 1970's miniatures historicals. Then 8th ed 40k happened and Bolt Action disappeared in stores. I managed to get through an Eastern Front campaign but never got the chance to run through a Pacific island hopping campaign. Time moves on. Not in ways we want it to more often than not. If you don't want to ever change your army play games with pre-setup armies such as historicals or maybe even 'dead' games. Certainly don't play current GW games where every six months there is probably going to be a shake up. I think that is supposed to be a feature not a bug.


Conversely, take matters into your own hands. One of my primary opponents for full 40k (all opponents in my Kill Team group have 'nids) is a Tyranid player. And they have and enjoy running a bunch of the big Forgeworld bugs in their army. The first full game of C:SM 2.0 with my Primaris was against his Tyranids. I wiped the floor with his army. So the next time we played I only had 1750 points, allowed him to setup the table anyway they wanted, choose the mission and gave him the option to chose who went first if he wanted it. Sadly, it still wasn't enough, and don't let him read this, but he is a much better 40k player than me.

We both knew the space marines were completely over-tuned while his Forgeworld nids were the opposite. I don't think my opponent felt bad as this wasn't so much a handicap as it was a localized rebalancing. When my GSC faced his Dark Angels I was tabled by turn 2. We never got a chance for a re-match but I certainly wouldn't feel bad asking for an extra 500 points and/or the option to bring back via reserves (but no Deep Strike) Troop units that had totally been wiped out. And that's just so I can offer him a shred of challenge as I might just be the worst GSC player on the west coast of the U.S.

Someone can say that handicap matches aren't fair, but since we mostly agree that 40k's balance is bad, is it really a handicap? I see it more about players taking control of balance issues and applying their knowledge of the game and each other to create a more satisfying outcome. Should players have to do this? Probably not, but I also don't see GW repairing their games to meet my level of satisfaction either even if they put forth all their effort. Less so, since 40k players have complained about this sort things for the decade that I have been interacting with them. I want games that come down to the wire and am less and less concerned if the points say the opposing armies are 'balanced' against each other. We all do know that is about as true as professional wresting being real, right?

Should the issue be brought up to GW? Absolutely. At the same time, I am guessing the rules designers don't visit Dakka Dakka all that often looking for ways to make things better. So a lot this just isn't help to fix the issue be it positive or negative feedback. So all it really does is allow a person to get these issues off their chest. Which is fine in moderation. I would argue that far too many Dakkanaunts go way too far. The point their goal is to sour the experience of 40k for others. I don't think that works though. When I find Dakka Dakka too negative I just stop visiting Dakka Dakka and continue with the hobby at other venues. I keep coming back because I am a little internet old-fashioned and like the forum approach to discussing things over how Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and Discord do things. Not to mention that I do appreciate that Dakka Dakka is a little freer than other social media sites.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I disagree with this 'inevitability' stuff. If you're suffering, you should agitate for change and always seek to make the situation better. You could take mitigating steps (e.g. wearing a sweater and adding fans) but you shouldn't stop agitating for things to improve. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you stop.


I think you have me all wrong. You should try to make the situation better. Just accomplish within your loci of control. It seems to me too many Dakkanauts are waiting on sudden fair, balanced degrees to come out of GW when that has basically never happened and has absolutely no indication that it ever will. Or maybe they think near endlessly complaining is going to turn things around. Unfortunately, I think complaining about these issues on Dakka Dakka accomplishes as much as jumping into the air gets someone closer to the Sun.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/09 23:52:45


Post by: Slayer6


I'd say the issue isn't the current setup, it's rather the oversaturation of units. Let's look back at 3E, armies used to use a standard Force Organisation Chart (FOC). 1HQ, 2Troops, with up to 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Elites, 3 Heavy Support. Transports were essentially just taken as upgrades to existing units. 1 unit = 1 choice, and armies could more or less be themed around the FOC... So a basic list was a Marine Captain and 2 Tactical Squads of 6 with 2 Razorbacks. Perhaps adding a squad of 5 Terminators and a Predator with a Whirlwind, and a 10 man Assault Squad.

Then the Imperial Guard came along with it's unique Platoon system... Suddenly you could take a HQ in a Command Squad which had a built-in Light tank (Chimera), up to 6 heavy weapon squads (in various flavors with a limit of 2 each), and a bonus Sentinel squadron... Troops had a similar situation with their Platoon Command Squad and between 2 and 5 Infantry Squads... At least back then S3 could not damage T6 at all so special and heavy weapons were needed. Eventually other armies started gaining vehicle squadrons, where originally they only had one, and power creep did the rest...

Now you have the current system where literally power creep has resulted in these massive 'All or Nothing' lists - where versatility just does not cut it anymore...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 06:59:46


Post by: aphyon


where versatility just does not cut it anymore


Slayer6

It doesn't cut it anymore because nothing has an assigned role anymore in the game. in the current game where everything can hurt everything you just spam the most shots that do the most damage. then buff it to death with strats.

My lists for 5th are always built with "well rounded" in mind half for shooting and half for close combat for units or gear, so i could take on a bit of everything without having to tailor a list for a specific enemy.

It is also why it was such a draw to play a unique army lists where you could tweek the FOC by playing something different like a bike army such as saim hann for eldar, white scars and ravenwing for marines etc.. but each played very differently even though they were all built around bikes.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 08:05:27


Post by: Jidmah


Anyone who claims "everything can hurt everything" must not be playing the same game as I am. Just because your unit has a chance to plonk a wound off a tank doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 08:43:14


Post by: aphyon


The fact that it can negates the reason to have units with a dedicated anti-armor role. especially when the damage is now randomized.

When i play tested with primaris in early 8th before eradicators my rapid fire hellblasters literally killed everything with equal ease-multi-wound infantry, tanks, hordes etc...

The reality is that everything can hurt everything and massed attacks/fire + strats do the job just as well even with the restrictions put into 9th.

Previously if you ran say a X4 heavy bolter dev squad they had a job to do-deal with light vehicles and massed infantry(remembering that those editions had less overall shots making the heavy bolters rate of fire far more imposing) but they had a real problem dealing with high toughness monsters and literally could not hurt heavy armor...so you needed some other unit/option in the force to take on that role.

So you would see armies with a mix of units as Slayer6 gave examples of.

With the current edition i can spam 3 primaris unit types and a couple buffing characters and own anything my enemy puts on the table there is no need to diversify aside from aesthetics.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 08:46:51


Post by: Karol


But the fact that bolters are killing elite stuff like termintors is a thing. Everything maybe an overstatment, but everything that is actualy being run in armies that are good very much kills a majority of stuff. And I don't think a base of snotling should have a chance to put wounds on a wright lord. In general if a units job in game is to do something more then be a meat shield and sit on objectives or buff other units, then it very much wounds more or less everything. there is something wrong with the game where anti tank weapons to be even close to the ability of str 5-6 multi shot weapons, have to become multi shot themselfs.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 09:13:58


Post by: Jidmah


Hellblasters *are* a dedicated anti-tank unit though? And they also are expensive as sin, so you will struggle to get your points worth out of them if shoot them at light vehicles or infantry.

You could also make the same argument for rifleman dreads, hydras or psycannons in 5th. Those weapons could kill every unit in the game except for the mighty land-raider.

Just because you can hurt something, you are good at killing it. Heavy bolters still have a problem with dealing with armor or monsters, even after their buff to 2 damage.
If you have a squad of devastators with 5 heavy bolters and a vehicle or monster with T6+ and a 3+ save, you usually just get one or two wounds past their saves, hardly enough to shake something that had AV12 or more in 5th.
To kill a predator or a hive tyrant, you would be looking at something like 20 heavy bolters, which is 650 points worth of devastators. In 8th you needed twice as much.

If you want to kill tanks, you still need to bring anti-tank weapons. If you want to kill hordes, you need to bring something for that as well. And if you need to kill elite infantry, you have to bring something for that too. If spamming a single weapon type would be enough, I'm sure competitive lists would do so.

In the end, the game simply has changed. Instead of being unable to shoot small guns at hard targets, it's just very inefficient to do so. Just like shooting ork boyz with lascannons or plasma was inefficient in 5th.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 09:38:17


Post by: Blackie


Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

A few mid strenght weapons that used to be completely uselsess against tanks are now pretty efficient against the same targets, that's true. Heavy bolters in the heavy doctrine are S5 AP-2 D2 which is enough to strip a few wounds off a target that used to be AV14. Now we also have re-rolls, stratagems and other buffs that could improve damage from these weapons. And armies like sisters can spam dozens of HBs while being perfectly TAC.

Dis cannons used to be completely useless against AV12+, now they have almost the same efficiency than dark lances against those targets, while being way more efficient than lances against infantries or elites. For drukhari there's really no reason to take lances over dis cannons.

So there are some weapons that can actually hurt everything, can be spammed and don't cost so much. But they are a few exceptions; lasguns, AP0 bolters or shootas still won't really do anything against a Land Raider.

Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 10:47:06


Post by: aphyon


Hellblasters *are* a dedicated anti-tank unit though?

No they are not, notice i use the rapid fire rifles-they are anti-heavy infantry that also kill tanks as easy or did in 8th


And they also are expensive as sin, so you will struggle to get your points worth out of them if shoot them at light vehicles or infantry.

Irrelevant and spurious argument made by power gamers. earning points back is subjective at best. if they do the job i need them to do that's all that matters. and if they do almost EVERY job well, then it's one of those- no choice- choices.

You could also make the same argument for rifleman dreads, hydras or psycannons in 5th. Those weapons could kill every unit in the game except for the mighty land-raider.

Wrong
i love me the rifleman dread but a 2 shot per gun -even "twin linked" autocannon had very a very specific job. it helped against hoards in tandem with other weapons like the HB/AC pred but it's main job was using its high strength to wound mid level toughness things and kill AV 10 vehicles. shooting at terminators or any AV above 11 was almost a waste of time, unless you had nothing else to shoot it at, now in 8th it murders everything because of what i said previously-

If you have a squad of devastators with 5 heavy bolters and a vehicle or monster with T6+ and a 3+ save, you usually just get one or two wounds past their saves, hardly enough to shake something that had AV12 or more in 5th.


Well considering it's job in 5th was anti-light/medium infantry and it literally cannot hurt AV 12

To kill a predator or a hive tyrant, you would be looking at something like 20 heavy bolters, which is 650 points worth of devastators. In 8th you needed twice as much

1. can't hurt it from the front, bring a las cannon, missile launcher, multi-melta etc.. for that job, 2 tyrants used to have at most 5 wounds and a 2+ save. anti-tank guns reliably did 1 wound to them, volley fire weapons like when dealing with terminators are more likely to kill them outright from full health or to finish them off.

If you want to kill tanks, you still need to bring anti-tank weapons.

I have played 8th, you absolutely do not. AT weapons have high strength and sometimes longer range as their only benefit but the damage is random.
i have often used massed assault bolter fire (the baby heavy bolters) on inceptors and hellblasters to ruin things like riptides and tanks.

Much of that is due to the damage reduction system introduced in 8th. it's a terrible mechanic and i have always hated it, it was one of the reasons i didn't play fantasy. the less lethality/volume of fire, wounds and hard cover saves in previous editions are what balanced out the -have it/don't have it- armor save system.

If spamming a single weapon type would be enough, I'm sure competitive lists would do so.

I made that list and it would be 3 specific units, or something as silly as what i tried in 8th-
3 detachments with 3 venerable dreads(various loadouts) and 2 techmarines on bikes with conversion beamers each at 2K

it was stupid effective for a small elite army.



Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.


Yep, the lowly las gun was the bane of my deathwing army back in 3rd-5th. i could make that 5+ save on the occasional las cannon but i would roll a ton of 1s on massed flashlights.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 12:17:17


Post by: Karol


 Blackie wrote:


Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Not all loyalist space marines and termintors got the +1W. And not all termintors had access to storm shields. But even those that had 1 stormshield for the entire army, only because in the past GW didn't make any SS models for them other then a special character, did get their rules nerfed multiple times over 8th and 9th as if the every termintor in the faction was running around with one.

A 5 men termintor unit shouldn't be losing 2 models just because 20 guants are shoting at them or because they got engaged in a firefight with a 5 man squad of autobolt rifle intercessors.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 12:40:08


Post by: Blackie


You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 12:58:54


Post by: BrianDavion


Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Not all loyalist space marines and termintors got the +1W. And not all termintors had access to storm shields. But even those that had 1 stormshield for the entire army, only because in the past GW didn't make any SS models for them other then a special character, did get their rules nerfed multiple times over 8th and 9th as if the every termintor in the faction was running around with one.

A 5 men termintor unit shouldn't be losing 2 models just because 20 guants are shoting at them or because they got engaged in a firefight with a 5 man squad of autobolt rifle intercessors.


they don't YET but it's coming.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:32:47


Post by: Karol


You know, if it is the same way GK had to wait for a rules fix, then 3 years wait for me comes under the don't have and not under the soon situation. Maybe it is an age thing, but to me the GW fix speed is on a geological time line.

Most the people I started with quit before their armies ever got good rule sets for example.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:36:00


Post by: Jidmah


It's probably going to be two codices per month after all the marine supplements are done, you can calculate your worst case scenario from there.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:39:13


Post by: Karol


 Blackie wrote:
You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.


Who uses low rate of fire or single shot anti tank weapons? I also really don't understand all the orc examples. Orc win by spaming units and sitting on objectives having close to zero interaction with their opponent and having a loaded dice to roll for who goes first. Who cares if their anti tank weapon hurts or doesn't hurt a termintor game wise. Because in the lore a group of 5 termintors should be able to stop a warband from advancing for multiple days, and a formation of 40+ termintors should waddle through whole ork warbands.

Plus the extra wound on termintors doesn't seem to be enough, as termintors were always in 8th as inferior versions of basic intercessors. And that is the better loyalist termis which do have access to Stormshields and are much cheaper. Through out all the 8th ed I did not feel as if small weapon fire, with all its extra AP etc, had problems in turning my 40+pts termintors in to something that dies like a tactical marine or a scout that costs in teens of points.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:48:57


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.


Who uses low rate of fire or single shot anti tank weapons? I also really don't understand all the orc examples. Orc win by spaming units and sitting on objectives having close to zero interaction with their opponent and having a loaded dice to roll for who goes first. Who cares if their anti tank weapon hurts or doesn't hurt a termintor game wise. Because in the lore a group of 5 termintors should be able to stop a warband from advancing for multiple days, and a formation of 40+ termintors should waddle through whole ork warbands.

Plus the extra wound on termintors doesn't seem to be enough, as termintors were always in 8th as inferior versions of basic intercessors. And that is the better loyalist termis which do have access to Stormshields and are much cheaper. Through out all the 8th ed I did not feel as if small weapon fire, with all its extra AP etc, had problems in turning my 40+pts termintors in to something that dies like a tactical marine or a scout that costs in teens of points.

what are mek guns?
what are meltas?
Terminators don't actually die to regular bolter fire (4 0 1), they die to the intercessor bolters (4 -2 2).

And feth the lore. 5 termies shouldnt be able to solo an entire ork army just because of the bolterporn going on in the books.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:58:00


Post by: Nurglitch


Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 14:59:46


Post by: the_scotsman


One of the fundamental problems suffered by 40k is that it is at its heart a game where players purchase, build, and very slowly paint extremely expensive, massively detailed plastic models.

And the storyline surrounding that game almost exclusively consists of stories of how one particular faction that happens to have the least detailed, cheapest, fastest to paint models can best all the other factions outnumbered 100-to-1.

You can either have a game that functions as a game, where the former factions can stand a chance against the latter faction only spending 3x-4x as much money and time on their models, or you can have a game that functions according to the lore, where players are presented with the "choice" to "either" play as the conquering heroes of the setting or to spend 10-15x as much time and effort painting up a horde of faceless NPC goons with no individual character to be slaughtered.

Personally, I'm just glad that Imperial Knights exist as a faction so everyone who plays space marines can "enjoy" being the horde of goons running to the slaughter.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:02:08


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...


agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:23:11


Post by: Xenomancers


I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:24:56


Post by: SecondTime


 Xenomancers wrote:
I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.


Screens and desperate breakout really slow down melee.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:25:30


Post by: Xenomancers


Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...
Huh? how else should combatants address each other?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:32:56


Post by: Nurglitch


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...


agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...
Huh? how else should combatants address each other?

Suppression, intimidation, outflanking, misdirection, logistical interdiction, exhaustion...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 15:54:22


Post by: Xenomancers


Nurglitch wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...


agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...
Huh? how else should combatants address each other?

Suppression, intimidation, outflanking, misdirection, logistical interdiction, exhaustion...
Outflanking and misdirection are strategies. You outflank an enemy and put them in a crossfire typically they surrender - it is still a removal strategy though - if they didn't surrender - they would be annihilated. 40k doesn't give you any kind of bonus for outflanking but typically just by proximity and access to targets it gives you an advantage. Suppression and morale ill give you - I'm pretty sure this would negatively impact melee though. Peaking your head out to shoot from a hole is a lot easier to convince a solider to do with arty shells exploding around them than running across the battle field to engage in melee - so ofc - this rule can't exist or melee would be impossible. Exhaustion as well - as I mentioned above - would negatively impact melee. Literally nothing can interfere with melee. Just look at all the ignore overwatch abilities in the game. Can you imagine a unit that had the ability to ignore the melee phase? imagine the WW1 trenches with the ignore overwatch ability. LOL The war would have been won pretty quickly by any army that mastered that ability.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 16:00:49


Post by: Jidmah


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...


agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.


I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 16:05:29


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.



Hahahahahahahahaha what.

1) melee does not stop units from shooting NEARLY as much as in previous editions. Units in melee can still fire pistols, and non-INFANTRY units in melee can fire EVERYTHING that doesn't have blast.

2) I'm sorry, 40k is a magical fantasy universe where space travel exists, weapons that are on space ships that obliterate planets exist, and that magical fantasy is constructed such that most battle still takes place on land masses. The existence and relevance of Titans is WAY WAY WAY less "immersion-breaking" than the fact that melee combat is a thing. 40k has always been "Space Battles but we use swords and chainsaws." Go play any other science fiction game in the entire universe if you want melee to be basically irrelevant in favor of shooting.

3) can't walk through walls by default. Not in 9th edition. You have to move up and over walls.

4) Game of abstractions. Why does getting charged at mean your gun fires more shots? Why do I have to make a random test to see if I can charge you, and if I fail I just stand there? Why can you just walk away and I don't take any action to chop you up when you turn your back? It's a game.

40k will "move away from melee" when 1/2 of the units in the game stop being melee units. 7/9 editions melee combat has been suboptimal. Cry harder.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:17:56


Post by: Charistoph


Blackie wrote:Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

Not a misconception, but a statement regarding the changes of the system. A bolter had zero chance of doing anything against a Land Raider or a Monolith, and it took a Meltagun or better to do anything to them than annoy them for a while. Now it's no longer a zero chance, but a small chance. So "can" is perfectly appropriate. "Likely" is a very different story, but "Unlikely" is still better than "Impossible" depending on the situation.

Overall, I do agree with the premise that at some point just providing the possibility is a counter-productive with how they largely kept the weapons the same.

Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:26:34


Post by: SecondTime


Giving players like you hope is actually a nerf to bolters. Just introducing the idea that its going to get something done opens up more poor choices for the player. In other words, I WANT you shooting bolters at my tough stuff even though its mathematically superior to previous editions.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:27:15


Post by: Xenomancers


We can destroy the world 5 times over with out nuclear aresenal but we don't because it is impractical. The same impracticallity exist in 40k. We battle with small units because we want to take territory - no destroy it. Titans...much like battleships and aircraft carriers dominate the battlefield but we still have infantry doing there thing. On the why should units shoot at units when they get charged - the real question is why does your movement double or even triple because you are attacking in melee? Charges are literally a free move - it is a dumb mechanic and it shouldn't even exist. The issues I am speaking about are just about hoops jumped through to make melee good. Sure it needed some help but it's gotten to an absurd point. melee needs to go back to being high risk high reward or needing a strategy to pull it off effectively. Not auto include and unstoppable.

In the history of 40k the game has actually always been dominated by melee. So not really sure what you are speaking about suboptimal.

Titans with stomp attacks - melee WK. Superfriends. GK/BA in 5th (6th was basically a 5th clone) 4th eddition my marines were getting slaughters by DE in melee but I don't really remember too much from then. So from 5th to now it has always been melee. 8th was smash captains / spear stars / ogran stars/ melee DS bombs...what edition are you really referring to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Charistoph wrote:
Blackie wrote:Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

Not a misconception, but a statement regarding the changes of the system. A bolter had zero chance of doing anything against a Land Raider or a Monolith, and it took a Meltagun or better to do anything to them than annoy them for a while. Now it's no longer a zero chance, but a small chance. So "can" is perfectly appropriate. "Likely" is a very different story, but "Unlikely" is still better than "Impossible" depending on the situation.

Overall, I do agree with the premise that at some point just providing the possibility is a counter-productive with how they largely kept the weapons the same.

Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.
Never played warmachine except a few times just jacking around. It is known in that game that shooting is pretty weak from what I have been told. Could be worse isn't an excuse IMO.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:30:16


Post by: SecondTime


"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:34:02


Post by: Xenomancers


SecondTime wrote:
"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?

Can't we assume if they are sending ground forces instead of using WMD that there is a viable reason? Just because you can destroy a planet doesn't mean youll ever do it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:36:26


Post by: SecondTime


 Xenomancers wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
"The same impracticallity exist in 40k."

Not really. There are definitely times where WMDs would be superior option. Especially vs movie marines. Why bother fighting them?

Can't we assume if they are sending ground forces instead of using WMD that there is a viable reason? Just because you can destroy a planet doesn't mean youll ever do it.


I don't assume anything. If marines were indeed these world killers that the novels indicate, eradicating them would be priority one. Specifically, killing all the gene seed of a specific chapter. They are so small in number, that I don't need to wreck a whole planet. Not that factions like Necrons or Eldar would even care.

Ground troops are sent in because that's the game that GW is trying to sell. But sometimes the Dresden approach is the way to go instead. Plus, not all WMDs are the same.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:39:54


Post by: Tyel


You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:46:24


Post by: Cyel


 Charistoph wrote:

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 17:57:54


Post by: Xenomancers


Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cyel wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

Could be worse. Warmachine's average rifle range is 10", with the average Movement rate of 6" and 3" for a Charge bonus. Effectively translated, bolters and lasguns would have the range of Guardian shuriken catapults. So it could be much much worse.


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.
What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:07:03


Post by: Tyel


 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like a real battle to me.


Generally "real" battles aren't very fun.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:09:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:10:58


Post by: SecondTime


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:19:32


Post by: VladimirHerzog


SecondTime wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.


Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:24:43


Post by: Xenomancers


Tyel wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Sounds like a real battle to me.


Generally "real" battles aren't very fun.
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:30:09


Post by: SecondTime


"would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game"

I don't think its intentional. People use what's on hand. A lot of terrain still doesn't block LoS even in 9th.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:30:52


Post by: Xenomancers


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.


Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)
If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:46:53


Post by: Type40


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)


Totally agree with this. As is positioning in 40k feels a little lackluster. This would definitely change that. Makes threat ranges far more important to consider.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:47:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Xenomancers wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.


Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)
If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.


yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.

I could see it work in a game where ranges are wayy shorter (like, nothing able to shoot from one deployment to another) and with alternating activations.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 18:58:06


Post by: Tyel


 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.


I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:03:36


Post by: Xenomancers


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.



does it really? would armed forces really chose to fight in a position where there is no cover against long ranged weapons?


Sometimes there is no choice. LoS blocking terrain is very hard to balance around because it completely turns off shooting.


Oh i'm aware that sometimes there is no choice (D-day for example) but its still strange to me that someone would want to have planet bowling bowl in a game. I personally find it much more interesting when maneuvring means something.

(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)
If it were up to me we could blow up buildings in game and terrain would be randomly generated after you deploy your units to emulate the encounter battle aspect of the game.


yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.

I could see it work in a game where ranges are wayy shorter (like, nothing able to shoot from one deployment to another) and with alternating activations.

Just an idea about the random terrain - I would just say since we aren't choosing the battlefield - it shouldn't be ideal for ether side. Random is the best way to do this IMO. In an RTS (similar to a table top battle) part of the skill of the game is getting the opponent to fight you in an advantages position for you. So maps have a varied amount of terrain - some a tight spaces - some elevated - some wide open. Seriously I just don't understand how people can be so adamant about (tactics) but want the game to go against real military tactics like...taking high ground - moving in force - concentrating fire - fighting retreat (fallback and shoot). It really is - people wanting to fight with swords hating on units that have guns for the most part.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:07:27


Post by: Cyel


 Xenomancers wrote:

Cyel wrote:


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.


What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.


In WM&H, sure.

In WH40K, roll for first turn and then luck in dice or being rules-lawyered on some minor omission.

Someone in this or similar thread used a comparison that I like a lot. WM&H is like fencing, judging distances, estimating when to shorten said distance or when to stay away. You get at least one and often 2 turns before armies are even in range, so you choose your ground carefully. WH40K is like two guys hitting each other with hammers. No dodging, no parrying, no timing, pure DMG/sec comparison. Who is luckier to knock the other out first, wins (by a lucky hit or just having a better hammer/harder head).



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:11:38


Post by: Hecaton


 Jidmah wrote:
I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.


Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:13:06


Post by: aphyon


Type40 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


(if it were up to me, i'd halve the range on everything and make shooting the opponent more difficult.)


Totally agree with this. As is positioning in 40k feels a little lackluster. This would definitely change that. Makes threat ranges far more important to consider.

Try playing index 8th ed 40K in epic scale on a 6X4 table where all the normal ranges are halved for movement and shooting. we play epic that way and it really changes the way the game plays. maneuver, range, unit choices all change dramatically. some units you would never take in 28mm become indispensable




yeah, blowing up terrain is one that is also pretty high on the list of things i wish was in the game. Make my opponent spend a turn taking down the ruin my tank is hiding behind if he wants to get to it, that would reduce lethality. However, i would only allow certain weapons to damage terrain. A demolisher cannon or siege drills makes sense that it would raze a building, a lascannon or melta gun a bit less IMO (not to even mention shuriken/lasguns).

And i don't think the random terrain would work that well but it could be interesting to explore, i feel it wouldn't be that realistic since deployment would mean pretty much nothing and the game could be decided on a coin flip.


They had a level of this in previous editions, one of the few good things in 6th edition was the mysterious terrain rules. but prior to that bunkers, and obstacles could be reduced from immobile blocking LOS vehicles with an AV/transport capacity and impassible terrain with an AV to area terrain ruins and rough ground.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:15:40


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Xenomancers wrote:

Just an idea about the random terrain - I would just say since we aren't choosing the battlefield - it shouldn't be ideal for ether side. Random is the best way to do this IMO. In an RTS (similar to a table top battle) part of the skill of the game is getting the opponent to fight you in an advantages position for you. So maps have a varied amount of terrain - some a tight spaces - some elevated - some wide open. Seriously I just don't understand how people can be so adamant about (tactics) but want the game to go against real military tactics like...taking high ground - moving in force - concentrating fire - fighting retreat (fallback and shoot). It really is - people wanting to fight with swords hating on units that have guns for the most part.


Thats why i said i would rather see it with a global range reduction, so that the bolded part actually was a part of the game. IMO, movement to adapt to the map/opponent's action is the most interesting part in a wargame but 40k throws it all out the window with the sheer number of guns that effectively don't have a range.

Making bolters 12", lascannons 24" would already help a lot. I've literally never measured the range for most of my guns because getting in range is trivial.

Once basic movement to get into firing range is added to the game, add Alternating activations to really be able to react to your opponent, then add in various "actions" you could do like going to ground, suppressive fire, smoke grenades, etc.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:16:23


Post by: Xenomancers


Tyel wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.


I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.

It wouldn't be fun if the scales weren't balanced. Or youd have to make special scenarios with different objectives for each side. Survive the meat grinder for 5 turns and you win (starship troopers style). Or Break through...get a particular unit through an ambush. That kind of stuff. Even armies meeting on the field is just fun though. In general historically armies that weren't well matches wouldn't fight - so it make sense that we only battle in more even situations.

Anyways - my point remains the same. The game has too many silly rules and game design elements fighting to make melee viable while ignoring the fact melee is fundamentally inferior to range. It's why battleships fell to aircraft carriers. It's why the gun made the sword irrelevant. This game literally declares that battleships and carriers will fight within 15 miles of each other and the battleship gets to have twice the movement speed...just because. It fundamentally breaks any real strategy for what should be effective.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:17:02


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Hecaton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I like the idea of creating things with the obscuring trait in general. For example, ork exhaust clouds, tyranid spore clouds or smoke launchers could turn those units into obscuring obstacles, allowing you to shoot them, but not anything behind them.


Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.


yes, and even this isnt opressive because some of the more advanced-tech faction's elite units have goggles that can see through various type of grenades (basic smoke, nanomachine smokes, etc)


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:18:10


Post by: Type40


Cyel wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Cyel wrote:


It actually is one of the things that makes WM&H so much more interesting and tactical compared to WH40K. You have to put actual work into getting enemies into range and LOS, constantly think how to get this while denying the same to the enemy. In WH40K (simplifying a bit) you can move anywhere, appear out of nowhere, have range to most of the table. That's why your main tactical consideration is not manoeuver but whether you have bought models that give you more dice to roll than the enemy has.

What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.


In WM&H, sure.

In WH40K, roll for first turn and then luck in dice or being rules-lawyered on some minor omission.




I do agree that WarmaHordes is a more tactically focused game where minute placement, precise 2d LOS and exact threat ranges are incredibly important. Saying that, war hammer is a different game and tactically there are different priorities. I like both games. When I play warhammer my prioritization is on risk/resource management in the form of deciding what units should be doing what for any given mission (at least now in 9th) . I am also trying to entice or play my oponenet into targeting units that I don't want them to... again with a focus on the mission. 8th was a little worse for this but I really do think 9th has brought a lot of tactical decision making back t othe game.

Saying all of this, WarmaHordes is definitely MORE of a tactical game of chess then 40k but saying 40k has no tactics is just not true either. I like playing both. Sometimes I am in the mood for a game that cares about the minutia that gives little room for errors and when thats the case I play warmahrodes. Sometimes I want to play a game that feels a little bit more story oriented, casual, with room for some error and less, teeth grindy, 2dimensionalm intense tactical decisions. Then I play 40k.

I think their is room in the gaming world for both approaches to games and I honestly wouldn't want either to be exactly like the other.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 19:39:46


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.


I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.

It wouldn't be fun if the scales weren't balanced. Or youd have to make special scenarios with different objectives for each side. Survive the meat grinder for 5 turns and you win (starship troopers style). Or Break through...get a particular unit through an ambush. That kind of stuff. Even armies meeting on the field is just fun though. In general historically armies that weren't well matches wouldn't fight - so it make sense that we only battle in more even situations.

Anyways - my point remains the same. The game has too many silly rules and game design elements fighting to make melee viable while ignoring the fact melee is fundamentally inferior to range. It's why battleships fell to aircraft carriers. It's why the gun made the sword irrelevant. This game literally declares that battleships and carriers will fight within 15 miles of each other and the battleship gets to have twice the movement speed...just because. It fundamentally breaks any real strategy for what should be effective.


You are quite literally going to have to go and make your own wargame from scratch if you want to remove the melee from 40k.

I would hazard to say roughly 1/2 of the units in the game are melee focused or have at least some mixed capability.

Your solution here is effectively "Well, I think a third to a half of people who play the game should have their stuff be either deleted or actively bad on purpose" and it's just not gonna happen my dude, I'm sorry that you're mad that it isn't a game of napoleonic line up your cannons and shoot each other from across the board. 40k is never going to be that. Want it all you like.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 20:08:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.


Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.

These opinions are not shocking. You know, there's a reason Ultramarines and Tau are both blue right?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 20:28:52


Post by: Xenomancers


I never said melee should be removed. Far from it - melee can be an important aspect. It can't overly inflated like it is now opposed to ranged. You don't make melee viable by nerfing range and forcing all battles to be fought in a city fight. You don't make melee viable by changing how objectives are scored. You fix melee by making it cheaper or something. Plus - if this isn't a Napoleonic type battle why do we line up in deployment zones that look like battle lines? It's not like melee didnt exist in those times. Calvary was a huge part of those armies - they even used swords.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 20:39:02


Post by: AnomanderRake


Possibly because suppression doesn't exist and if you want to interact with a model in Warhammer the only way to do that is to kill it?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 22:00:41


Post by: a_typical_hero


There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 22:14:02


Post by: Mezmorki


a_typical_hero wrote:
There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.


I've always thought about it in nearly exactly these same terms.

Generally speaking too, the fielded of battle is pretty crowded with a lot of terrain and things move through it all relatively quickly all considered. The frantic nature of battle, explosions going off, the close quarters, the limited sight distances etc. are also contributing factors for why ranged combat isn't more deadly. Plus, you know, even the most basic guard unit probably juiced up on all sorts of crazy meds.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/10 22:20:16


Post by: Type40


a_typical_hero wrote:
There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.


I would also add how fast everything probably is. SMs are super fast, eldar are super fast, nids, orks, crons ...etc ... fast. And those who arn't (gaurd and tau) not so good in the melee . I think the idea is there is a lot of arms dodging as well. I wonder if modern warfare would still see line battles if soldiers were able to just dodge bullets all the time XD ... (I have been playing a lot of Holdfast lately ... XD line battles are silly but do in fact make a difference in that game)


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 00:10:36


Post by: Slayer6


Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts, and adding bonus rerolls to shot counts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 00:17:55


Post by: Hecaton


 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yes, and even this isnt opressive because some of the more advanced-tech faction's elite units have goggles that can see through various type of grenades (basic smoke, nanomachine smokes, etc)


Actually with the new edition every faction has the ability to see through it, albeit with a notable penalty.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 00:20:07


Post by: Type40


 Slayer6 wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) with rerolls to shot counts thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.


I like the idea of this.
Reminds me a bit of battletech.
However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.
I would totally love to play with this though.
I also really miss vehicle wrecks, its nice having game events change the battlefield. As a slight segue XD scatter dice were cool too, but i do understand how they increased game length in terms of extra measurement steps and potential debates.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 01:08:08


Post by: Nurglitch


 Slayer6 wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts, and adding bonus rerolls to shot counts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.

I figured something like a combination of the 5th edition rules and T/Sv+/W, so each time your vehicle/monster/character takes a wound they roll 1D6 with the following

1 - Shaken, must pass leadership to shoot
2 - Stunned, must pass leadership to move or shoot
3 - Immobilized, +1 if already immobilized
4 - Weapon Destroyed, +1 if all weapons destroyed
5 - Instant Death
6 - Instant Death - Explodes xDy mortal wounds

That's assuming most infantry would have W1.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 01:35:17


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Type40 wrote:


However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.


i think this is the core of why modern 40k feels so lackluster compared to other less popular wargames.
Evidently GW's business strategy is to bring in as many new players as possible , and its working very well. This coupled with the inertia the company has by being the wargaming company means its gonna keep being popular as it is.

This means that sadly we have to sacrifice any real depth the game could have and all these interesting suggestions that we have seen will be relegated to homebrews.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 01:52:07


Post by: Type40


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Type40 wrote:


However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.


i think this is the core of why modern 40k feels so lackluster compared to other less popular wargames.
Evidently GW's business strategy is to bring in as many new players as possible , and its working very well. This coupled with the inertia the company has by being the wargaming company means its gonna keep being popular as it is.

This means that sadly we have to sacrifice any real depth the game could have and all these interesting suggestions that we have seen will be relegated to homebrews.


I can totally relate to this perspective.
I guess in my mind, I have just filed current 40k in a category of "casual simplified table top army game" v.s. games like WM/H as "competitive precise table top game" v.s. games like battletech "highly detailed, high depth, battlefield simulation game"

I just kind of feel like,,, if I feel like playing the other kind of game,,, I'll play one of those other games... then when I feel like playing something a bit more casual or social that feels a bit less 'intense' and forgiving, I play current 40k.

I do get where your coming from though. I understand not wanting to lose the depth the game used to have. But I will be honest, I got back into 40k v.s. exclusively playing more indie tabletops because it fit a more casual, narrative and social category that those other games just weren't hitting for me.

So to me, the direction GW took the game has, for better or for worse, carved out a bit of a niche separate from the next most popular table top games, IMO.

I like the fine details and higher level granularity 40k used to have (and the cool features of the game that came with that like scatter dice, vehicles wrecks and etc)... but I also like the direction they are going in ...

I think there is room in the gaming world for all kinds of games, including current 40k... But I do understand the sentiment that you don't want 40k, the game you are most invested in(I assume), to go in a direction you didn't sign up for.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 05:03:23


Post by: Charistoph


SecondTime wrote:Giving players like you hope is actually a nerf to bolters. Just introducing the idea that its going to get something done opens up more poor choices for the player. In other words, I WANT you shooting bolters at my tough stuff even though its mathematically superior to previous editions.

I prefer to look at it as the Bolters will have a use even when there normal prey isn't available. The really bad part is that from 3rd through 7th, if you have an anti-Vehicle weapon in a squad, the Bolters were pretty much useless if you wanted/needed the AT to do its job. Now that they can all shoot in any direction they want is the time they can possibly hurt the Vehicles. GW implementation at its finest.

Xenomancers wrote: Never played warmachine except a few times just jacking around. It is known in that game that shooting is pretty weak from what I have been told. Could be worse isn't an excuse IMO.

Cute pun.

Could be worse is just a statement to counter a complaint. I rather disagree on the concept that the effective range of advanced firepower is within charge range. It rather defeats the purpose of ranged weaponry in the first place. For the most part I think 40K's ranges are in a good place. It isn't in the Charge range (for most weapons) but it isn't in Infinity's range where a lot of the weapons would be easier to just say "table".

Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.

Not to me. The closest we've had in modern warfare involves tank maneuvers in the deserts of North Africa and Asia Minor. Americans found out the hard way about how dangerous it is on a field with pre-modern weaponry, which lead to the trench warfare of WW1. And no field or desert is truly flat. Natural folds in the earth can provide a surprising amount of cover for infantry to maneuver with to say nothing about forest and cities.

Xenomancers wrote:What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.

A lot of that comes in with what is called "scenario play", where taking and holding areas and points is more useful than grinding the army or assassinating their lead character. The terrain is pretty sparse, though. Closer to Age of Sigmar than 40K. Playing a WMH scenario on an Infinity table would provide a lot more interesting concepts in positioning.

Of course the spells and Feats the Warcasters and Warlocks are the focus of those tactics.

Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 05:08:41


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 08:05:32


Post by: Hecaton


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.


XD I'm fething dying over here.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 08:41:51


Post by: Jidmah


Well, it's not like these things aren't exactly that for AoS.

Another thing I feel like it's underused is mines. There quite a few units which can lay mines, but doing so always feels like a waste of time.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 18:50:29


Post by: Charistoph


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.

Which only makes it MORE amazing that they haven't implemented it in two forms. "Grenade" form where it is thrown out to block and the "Smoke Launchers" version that has been on numerous editions of Imperium Vehicles over the years.

Maybe it's just because they KNOW people will use it, but substitute stretched out cotton swabs in their place. At most all they'll get is base sales out of it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/11 19:10:50


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


 Xenomancers wrote:
I never said melee should be removed. Far from it - melee can be an important aspect. It can't overly inflated like it is now opposed to ranged. You don't make melee viable by nerfing range and forcing all battles to be fought in a city fight. You don't make melee viable by changing how objectives are scored. You fix melee by making it cheaper or something. Plus - if this isn't a Napoleonic type battle why do we line up in deployment zones that look like battle lines? It's not like melee didnt exist in those times. Calvary was a huge part of those armies - they even used swords.

I think to have understood what you mean (correct me, if I'm worng): you would want a more credible game (credible, not realistic), in which the close combat phase doesn't seems artificially added "frustrating" the shooting phase, but intelligently integrated in the game system, "playing" with the possibility that the sci-fi setting of W40k gives us. For example one way to achieve that could be take advantage of the possibility to teleport a terminator squad directly in the middle of the enemy troops, another could be to give the infiltration to the assault squad, because in these way the assault troops could engage a close combat avoiding the enemy fire; obviously it should be necessary give to the various army the possibility to defend themselves by these kind of attacks.
Unfortunately you might achieve this result only getting rid of the GW's rules and create a new set of rules from scratch, because the W40k's mechanics aren't compatible with that kind of evolution of the game: you should also make other changes (like revolutionize the movement phase and/or use the Epic miniatures) and I have the feelings the W40k's gamers aren't interested in a so radical change.
If I'm right, it would be a kind of evolution that I would love to see.

P.S & O.T. Am I wrong or in the Imperial Guard Codex (eighth edition) there aren't Attilian Rouge Riders?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 13:25:57


Post by: Nurglitch


Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 14:47:34


Post by: Deadnight


Build the scenarios and table set up to allow the viability of melee.

Planet bowling ball? Shooting paradise.

Claustrophobic hive Warren? dark passages, dead ends, sharp turns, limited visibility, plenty places to hide and spring an ambush? Perfect. The kind of territory where pistols, knives, knuckledusters shotguns and the occasional stubber have more value than a titan that can vaporise a city from twelve miles distance.

Tbf probably works better for necromunda or kill team than the 'army games'.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 16:33:18


Post by: Jidmah


It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 18:37:19


Post by: Blastaar


 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 18:54:36


Post by: Xenomancers


Nurglitch wrote:
Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.
Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.

Assault weapons for example should be able to make shooting actions during a move action with a -1 to hit.
Heavy weapons could take 2 action points to make a shooting action. Say a unit like centurions can make shooting actions with heavy weapons for 1 action point.
Units with close combat weapons should be able to make assault actions after 2 move actions for free (they can fight but they don't get free movement)
Something like this would work way better than what we have now.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 19:03:12


Post by: aphyon


Blastaar wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.


There were actually rules for it. section the table off into quarters, fill 1/4 of the table with a mix of area and blocking LOS terrain then spread it across the entire table.


Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.


Hi, welcome to DUST (just add in alternating activation and a reaction mechanic).

Apparently Andy Chambers already beat you to the punch when he made the rules for dust




Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 19:31:50


Post by: Xenomancers


 aphyon wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.


There were actually rules for it. section the table off into quarters, fill 1/4 of the table with a mix of area and blocking LOS terrain then spread it across the entire table.


Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.


Hi, welcome to DUST (just add in alternating activation and a reaction mechanic).

Apparently Andy Chambers already beat you to the punch when he made the rules for dust



I think its the natural progression when you break things down. Too many phases in this game. OP touched on it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 19:44:21


Post by: Cyel


 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 19:50:40


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Or you could have units have either actions with different costs to them

movement action.
short action.
long action.

then allow each activation to do either a long action or 2 (in any combination) short/movement action.
then have it so your opponent can react everytime you activate a unit to do stuff like shoot back, dodge or even try and hack your robots.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 19:57:27


Post by: Cyel


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Or you could have units have either actions with different costs to them

movement action.
short action.
long action.

then allow each activation to do either a long action or 2 (in any combination) short/movement action.
then have it so your opponent can react everytime you activate a unit to do stuff like shoot back, dodge or even try and hack your robots.



Ahh, Warzone and Chronopia... such neat systems with amateurish balance that made them unplayable But the action system was really good, expecially in Chronopia. I believe it may have had direct influence on Warmachine, which just improved and tidied up the idea.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 20:57:38


Post by: Nurglitch


 Xenomancers wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.
Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.

Assault weapons for example should be able to make shooting actions during a move action with a -1 to hit.
Heavy weapons could take 2 action points to make a shooting action. Say a unit like centurions can make shooting actions with heavy weapons for 1 action point.
Units with close combat weapons should be able to make assault actions after 2 move actions for free (they can fight but they don't get free movement)
Something like this would work way better than what we have now.

Epic Armageddon does this. It's kind of neat to see how it's between 1 and 3 actions, with a test to see if a unit can do a 2-3 action or is limited to a 1-action due to enemy actions. It's a very engaging system.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/12 21:57:55


Post by: Xenomancers


Cyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.
You prefer trench warfare...Trust me. If fun is your objective. Less cover is better than more. It has always been that way. The competitive players in this game. Who #1 know that the game is not balanced for competitive play across all armies - have come up with this idea that you can make an unbalanced game balanced by altering the objective of the game and covering the board with LOS blocking terrain. All that accomplishes is makes the game boring for everyone that is not harlequins and some weeboos who recently ported over from MTG. 9th edition literally blows. The sad part is 90% of players would agree with me if they showed any interest in expressing their opinion - they are too busy actually doing the hobby than crying about balance online.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/13 00:23:52


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Cyel wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Or you could have units have either actions with different costs to them

movement action.
short action.
long action.

then allow each activation to do either a long action or 2 (in any combination) short/movement action.
then have it so your opponent can react everytime you activate a unit to do stuff like shoot back, dodge or even try and hack your robots.



Ahh, Warzone and Chronopia... such neat systems with amateurish balance that made them unplayable But the action system was really good, expecially in Chronopia. I believe it may have had direct influence on Warmachine, which just improved and tidied up the idea.


i was referring to infinity, i never tried the ones you mentionned


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You prefer trench warfare...Trust me. If fun is your objective. Less cover is better than more. It has always been that way. The competitive players in this game. Who #1 know that the game is not balanced for competitive play across all armies - have come up with this idea that you can make an unbalanced game balanced by altering the objective of the game and covering the board with LOS blocking terrain. All that accomplishes is makes the game boring for everyone that is not harlequins and some weeboos who recently ported over from MTG. 9th edition literally blows. The sad part is 90% of players would agree with me if they showed any interest in expressing their opinion - they are too busy actually doing the hobby than crying about balance online.


There it is all laid out in plain text, you keep projecting. Most people i play with enjoy maps with a lot of terrain that require you to think about your movement. Including admech,imperial guard, CSM players that can't spam flying units. And none of them is "some weeabo who recently ported from MTG"

9th editon has been super fun to play, we talk about balance because the core of the game is mostly better than 8th.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 08:10:59


Post by: Cyel


 Xenomancers wrote:
Cyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.
You prefer trench warfare...Trust me. If fun is your objective. Less cover is better than more. It has always been that way. The competitive players in this game. Who #1 know that the game is not balanced for competitive play across all armies - have come up with this idea that you can make an unbalanced game balanced by altering the objective of the game and covering the board with LOS blocking terrain. All that accomplishes is makes the game boring for everyone that is not harlequins and some weeboos who recently ported over from MTG. 9th edition literally blows. The sad part is 90% of players would agree with me if they showed any interest in expressing their opinion - they are too busy actually doing the hobby than crying about balance online.


Yeah, because staying still and rolling dice for 3 hours is more interesting than maneuvering, looking for firing lanes, deciding whether to hide or go for it...sigh

I know that GW markets their mechanics saying that dice chucking is so cool and such an interesting activity (understandably, they do this because their games have little more ). But most players I know actually prefer making some decisions while playing, not being human random number generating machines.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 08:36:34


Post by: kodos


 Xenomancers wrote:
Cyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.
You prefer trench warfare...Trust me. If fun is your objective. Less cover is better than more. It has always been that way. The competitive players in this game. Who #1 know that the game is not balanced for competitive play across all armies - have come up with this idea that you can make an unbalanced game balanced by altering the objective of the game and covering the board with LOS blocking terrain. All that accomplishes is makes the game boring for everyone that is not harlequins and some weeboos who recently ported over from MTG. 9th edition literally blows. The sad part is 90% of players would agree with me if they showed any interest in expressing their opinion - they are too busy actually doing the hobby than crying about balance online.



cool stuff, now I have to tell all the Bolt Action, Battletech, Deadzone, Kings of War, Infinity, T9A, Vanguard, Necromunda, Mortheim, Malifaux, WildWesr Exidus, Epic, Titanicus (but also World of Tanks, World of Warships, Counter Strike) Players that their games are only fun if they remove all terrain that adds cover or blocks LOS

And I am sure 100% of them would call you bad words for even thinking that this makes a fun game and terrain is just propaganda from the competitive crowd

of course, if you have fun with no terrain and rolling dice this is ok, but you are not looking to play a Wargame or Tabletop (neither Beer&Brezel nor competitive) but want a gamy boardgame
which is fine, but don't expect anyone who wants to play a Tabletop Wargame to agree with you that "gamy" is the real fun they are looking for


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 09:30:30


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 09:49:26


Post by: Not Online!!!


The_Grim_Angel wrote:
In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.


Tbf, the type of terrain is only an issue because GW is about as good at making terrain and board interacting rules as i am at painting freehand symbols, aka NOT by any stretch of the margin, on an acceptable level

Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 10:20:54


Post by: Jidmah


Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.


I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 10:25:59


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.


I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.


Have you heard of our lord and sviour, the holly trinity of clouds and smoke makers?
Plasticard, wire and cotton wool?

On a side note, making a dune isn't that difficult, you can technically use the same technique i used for my terrain pieces in my Pm blog, staple some styro boards together, start cutting to get the form, then put on a cardboard piece or plasticard again or leave it blank and move as required.

There's 0 reason to not make such a table infact.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 10:34:53


Post by: Jidmah


I'm thinking of something like this:
Spoiler:


Those dunes should be able to hide a landraider or dread, while not being to steep to have all the models tumbling over all the time. I don't think you can fit that on a 6x4/60x44 board.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 10:59:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
I'm thinking of something like this:
Spoiler:


Those dunes should be able to hide a landraider or dread, while not being to steep to have all the models tumbling over all the time. I don't think you can fit that on a 6x4/60x44 board.


Well no, you'd indeed need a bigger board, or go torwards a smaller scale, however i feel a land raider is still possible within 6x4board.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 12:38:31


Post by: Cyel


That's how I prefer to play WH40K (if my friends convince me to do this ) and still this amount of LOS blocking terrain doesn't really translate into an interesting, decision-driven game IMO.
Spoiler:






There are several problematic things which determine that in this game it's better to run forward and try to kill as much as possible with things you have, before they themselves get killed rather than lie to yourself that you're so smart to hide, bide your time, carefully maneuver and keep things alive for later. The "two guys hitting each other with hammers" vs "two master fencers" difference of how the game feels.

-cover bonus is laughable, at best meaning less than one die in six rolling out of average, at worst meaning nothing at all
-large single models and large footprint of units, coupled with the possibility to kill everyone when you draw LOS to one model makes hiding very difficult
-it's even more difficult to hide because things are so absurdly fast, with huge ranges or just appear out of nowhere (Deep Strike)

So, yeah, better run forward and roll some damage dice because next turn you may not get a chance to, no matter how careful you are with positioning.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 12:45:13


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
Cyel wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.
You prefer trench warfare...Trust me. If fun is your objective. Less cover is better than more. It has always been that way. The competitive players in this game. Who #1 know that the game is not balanced for competitive play across all armies - have come up with this idea that you can make an unbalanced game balanced by altering the objective of the game and covering the board with LOS blocking terrain. All that accomplishes is makes the game boring for everyone that is not harlequins and some weeboos who recently ported over from MTG. 9th edition literally blows. The sad part is 90% of players would agree with me if they showed any interest in expressing their opinion - they are too busy actually doing the hobby than crying about balance online.


Ah yes, the el classico maneuver of 'everyone here is just a teensy-tinesy minority that basically universally thinks I'm full of crap, but SECRETLY there's a HUGE GIGANTIC MAJORITY that ALL AGREES WITH EXACTLY WHAT I SAY'

*looks at fingers with little smiley faces drawn onto them*

"right guys?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
I'm thinking of something like this:
Spoiler:


Those dunes should be able to hide a landraider or dread, while not being to steep to have all the models tumbling over all the time. I don't think you can fit that on a 6x4/60x44 board.


We actually ended up getting some really amazing board-toppers in the store at some point (our store owner has a tendency to buy random stuff from estate sales and it just...shows up in the gaming area until he sells it) and let me tell you in concept, a board like this is amazing. in practice, it really really sucks to play on.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:35:56


Post by: Mezmorki


I'm curious what "specific" ideas people have or have seen from other games that, were they to be added into 40K, would make for more interesting board-level interactions (i.e. make for a more tactically deep game)?

A few of my thoughts:

- Alternating activation and/or reaction actions (obviously a huge shift - reactions would be easier to integrate)
- Better morale system that feeds into other elements of play
- More choices for unit actions (i.e. standing and shooting providing a benefit over moving and shooting) to create a bigger decision space
- Rules for pinning/surpression (cross-fire, volume of fire, etc.)
- More nuanced rules for handling close combat resolution (ala WHFB?)
- Better options/method for overwatch fire and/or timing of shooting resolution?
- Bring back vehicle facing and armor

EDIT: Also - reducing the lethality in the game would also help to make it more tactical. It's hard to do interesting maneuvers with units when most of them can be wiped off the board after get shot 2 or 3 times.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:36:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm curious what "specific" ideas people have or have seen from other games that, were they to be added into 40K, would make for more interesting board-level interactions (i.e. make for a more tactically deep game)?

A few of my thoughts:

- Alternating activation and/or reaction actions (obviously a huge shift - reactions would be easier to integrate)
- Better morale system that feeds into other elements of play
- More choices for unit actions (i.e. standing and shooting providing a benefit over moving and shooting) to create a bigger decision space
- Rules for pinning/surpression (cross-fire, volume of fire, etc.)
- More nuanced rules for handling close combat resolution (ala WHFB?)
- Better options/method for overwatch fire and/or timing of shooting resolution?
- Bring back vehicle facing and armor


Smoke grenades that deny LoS.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:40:45


Post by: Mezmorki


 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Smoke grenades that deny LoS.


I think this ties into LoS rules in general. I liked in 3rd/4th edition that area terrain no, matter the width, blocked LoS up to it's height. It means hedgerows and things would actually prevent units from being shot, giving more choices for maneuver. Maybe that was too strong and instead should've blocked LoS if going through more than 3" or 6" - but the point stands. I also think cover providing their own armor saves was better than acting as a modifier.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:42:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Interactions to reward maneuver and positioning (e.g. flanking, area-fires to encourage spreading out, etc).

Interactions that don't depend on the administrative divisions of the enemy (I hate that 30 guardsmen are treated by the rules differently if they're in 3 groups of 10 or 1 group of 30, even if in every other way including tabletop position they are identical).


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:52:36


Post by: the_scotsman


Personally I'd like to see a lot more "imperfect control" added back in via the leadership system.

I like the 'split fire gated behind a LD test" addition to your prohammer system, and I'd also like to see morale redesigned to introduce Suppression as well as the current and older "break and run" mechanics.

Suppression would be a great system to allow lighter weaponry to interact with more durable units without destroying them, and would be a great way to allow players to willingly decrease their deadliness in order to impede rather than destroy a unit.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 15:57:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Indeed, suppression is the "classic" wargame way to allow units to interact without having DEATH or NO DEATH be the only options.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 16:01:02


Post by: Mezmorki


Yeah - I'm actually having another conversation about adding suppression/pinning to ProHammer.

4th edition had the "hail of fire" rule, where if a unit took more wounds (before rolling saves) than it had in models (or wounds?), then you could nominate a model to kill. I'm considering taking that same trigger but instead of killing a specific model it would force a pinning test.

Necromunda had pinning tests, and when I was playing 3rd edition 40K at the time my group had house ruled in pinning tests and it added a lot to the game for sure. Could have leadership modifiers for each subseqent pinning test you took in a turn, etc.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 16:07:10


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Mezmorki wrote:
Yeah - I'm actually having another conversation about adding suppression/pinning to ProHammer.

4th edition had the "hail of fire" rule, where if a unit took more wounds (before rolling saves) than it had in models (or wounds?), then you could nominate a model to kill. I'm considering taking that same trigger but instead of killing a specific model it would force a pinning test.

Necromunda had pinning tests, and when I was playing 3rd edition 40K at the time my group had house ruled in pinning tests and it added a lot to the game for sure. Could have leadership modifiers for each subseqent pinning test you took in a turn, etc.


Leadership in 40k has always been weird but if you find a good implementation I am all ears! I know adding a whole 'nother stat is probably bad, but there's different effects that go into pinning vs. receiving commands, for example, so Leadership being a catchall to represent both is part of the problem.

An example is the 4th edition guard codex, where a vox caster let your officer share his leadership to other units with a vox caster board-wide. It's a cool mechanic that represents, well, Leadership. That officer is leading! But that also made the squads more resistant to pinning, which doesn't make a lot of sense (unless you think the officer is trying to rally that squad over the vox, but then he isn't giving orders to other squads....).


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 18:10:02


Post by: Mezmorki


One idea i saw recently that was pretty cool is defining clearer sub-types of leadership tests.

There were classic "break" tests for close combat resolution, "restraint" tests for units holding back on things "regroup" tests, "pinning tests" etc. These all used a units base leadership stat but had different modifiers in play depending on the type specific test being made.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 18:24:27


Post by: the_scotsman


I think I'd probably keep it on the same sort of continuum as now, and just have a unit's level of suppression be based on how badly they failed their end of turn leadership test.

Something like:

-Ranged weapons with the Blast, Rapid Fire, or Heavy >1 shot can be fired for suppression rather than aimed. Shots fired for suppression suffer a -1 to the hit roll and wound roll, but each hit generates a stack of Suppression.

-During the morale phase of the turn, roll 1d6 and add all the models removed as casualties from the unit, and 1/2 (rounding down) of the suppression applied to the unit. Add 2 to the result if the unit is currently within 1" of any enemy units.

If the result is:

</= Leadership: Test Passed
1-3 Greater: Suppressed. The unit subtracts 1 from all hit rolls it makes in the next turn, and subtracts 2 from its Movement value.
4-6 Greater: Pinned. The unit has a base Movement stat of 0 and subtracts 1 from all hit rolls
7-9 Greater: Broken. The unit falls back 2d6" directly away from the closest enemy unit and cannot take actions in the following turn.

>


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 18:25:26


Post by: kodos


problem with Leadership in 40k was always that there are more units that ignore it than use it

we had target priority, gone to ground, fleeing because of casulties

Marines &CSM ignored it by default, Tyranids as well and the other armies some of the rules from time to time


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 18:31:45


Post by: Mezmorki


As a general observation - I think GW has somewhat shot themselves in the foot by trying to overly simplify the core rules and then make up for a lack of depth by ramping up all the unit- and army-specific special rules.

But the core problem is that the design of 40K simply doesn't give players enough actual meaningful CHOICES or options for how to USE their units. You can have all the complexity and detail you want in the unit rosters and special codex rules, but when all units are functionally: move, shoot, then maybe charge, there just isn't much to work with. There are no stances or reaction moves or other things you can "do" with your units.

The companion to giving unit's more options is also creating restrictions - which in turn force players to make tougher choices. 8th/9th opened up a lot of flexibility in the game, which makes it exceedingly easy to min-max and optimize your choices. For example, all units being able to freely split fire with individual models shooting individual weapons at whatever they want.

Compare that to 3rd edition where you had to shoot the closest unit with your whole squad unless you could pass a morale test! This restriction is an example where it creates opportunities for counter-play and deeper strategy, as you could use other units as a screening force, etc. Not that this particular case didn't have other problems, but it's an example of where restrictions can actually increase the depth of the game. The core rules have moved away from this notion in many cases.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 19:57:03


Post by: Gnarlly


 Mezmorki wrote:
As a general observation - I think GW has somewhat shot themselves in the foot by trying to overly simplify the core rules and then make up for a lack of depth by ramping up all the unit- and army-specific special rules.

But the core problem is that the design of 40K simply doesn't give players enough actual meaningful CHOICES or options for how to USE their units. You can have all the complexity and detail you want in the unit rosters and special codex rules, but when all units are functionally: move, shoot, then maybe charge, there just isn't much to work with. There are no stances or reaction moves or other things you can "do" with your units.

The companion to giving unit's more options is also creating restrictions - which in turn force players to make tougher choices. 8th/9th opened up a lot of flexibility in the game, which makes it exceedingly easy to min-max and optimize your choices. For example, all units being able to freely split fire with individual models shooting individual weapons at whatever they want.

Compare that to 3rd edition where you had to shoot the closest unit with your whole squad unless you could pass a morale test! This restriction is an example where it creates opportunities for counter-play and deeper strategy, as you could use other units as a screening force, etc. Not that this particular case didn't have other problems, but it's an example of where restrictions can actually increase the depth of the game. The core rules have moved away from this notion in many cases.



I totally agree. At their core, the rules for 8th/9th 40K and AOS are very simple. I have come to like this for AOS, along with that games' formatting of unit warscrolls, simplified army list building (points per unit), very limited CP and uses for CP, and minimalistic "faction" traits, artifacts, and bonuses. But I have come to despise the newer 40k rules, especially the introduction of layers upon layers of faction, subfaction, and unit rules as well as the multitude of stratagem cards to memorize in order for an army to be effective.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 20:15:55


Post by: Overread


40K has always had a more granular system for unit upgrades whilst AoS/Old World has always gone for a much simpler unit roster system. Old World did get far more complex with character/hero equipment even down to items (eg you had to buy scrolls to counter magic at one stage).

I think the new Necron codex does show that GW is at least restoring some of the simplicity of building 40K lists; the last two or so codex before got very out of hand as they moved information around into odd ways that resulted in a lot of back and forth and a lot of confusion of what was what and where prices and stats were. Much earlier codex were even simpler - it was all on the units page; the stats and costs.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 20:36:48


Post by: Cyel


Simplicty of the rules isn't a problem in itself. There are a lot of games with very simple rules, yet extremely complex and interestin board states (I love how Concordia describes its own gameplay with a single sentence in the rules )

The problem with GW rules is that they ask you to do a lot of operation of the game's engine, but very little opportunity for choices and decisions. That's why the game feels clunky, tedious and unsatisfying.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 21:21:33


Post by: kodos


 Mezmorki wrote:
As a general observation - I think GW has somewhat shot themselves in the foot by trying to overly simplify the core rules and then make up for a lack of depth by ramping up all the unit- and army-specific special rules.

it is kind of that they never understood their own game
because the core was never a problem, minor issues that could be easily solved but nothing that needed a big change
the issue were the Army rules that either just ignored most of the core or were well off by points
yet those were the things that stayed the same and even with a reset with 8th, profiles were not touched and updated to fit the new core

people complained a lot that 40k is too hard to get into because of the rules and the army size, yet the designer thought the people meant the core is to hard to understand and to remember so this got changed


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/19 21:35:16


Post by: Charistoph


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I'm thinking of something like this:
Spoiler:


Those dunes should be able to hide a landraider or dread, while not being to steep to have all the models tumbling over all the time. I don't think you can fit that on a 6x4/60x44 board.


Well no, you'd indeed need a bigger board, or go torwards a smaller scale, however i feel a land raider is still possible within 6x4board.

Not necessarily. It is as much about the size of the dunes which are important. Don't make them gradual, but also have high peaks. Look at roughly the base size of much of the terrain you use now, have the peaks be about the same height, and then slope them up appropriately.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 07:29:06


Post by: Bosskelot


How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 08:02:28


Post by: Jidmah


 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?


Draw a line from one friendly unit to another, enemy units on that line are under cross fire.

I think there also is a mission in the BRB that does this already, isn't there?


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 08:06:39


Post by: Sherrypie


 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?


Epic Armageddon gave crossfire bonuses if your firing detachment could trace a straight line to another friendly detachment behind the target within a certain range and that also has line of sight to the target. Facings aren't required at all, but the detachment used for this had to be unbroken and not Marched this turn.

In 40k, just using tracing through for pincers would do. Maybe also require the other unit to not be commiting an Action at the moment.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 09:38:38


Post by: kodos


easiest way is to use the facing of the unit leader (with markings on the base)

the problem here is not how to do it but what scale 40k is played at
the issue is that 40k uses the same rules for small skirmish games as well as mass battle games
so things that work well in small games make problems in large games and vica versa
also GW does not care how slow that game is leading to the problem that micro management that is very slow with lots of models is acceptable

doing it "right" and you would have different solutions for games at 500 points, games with 1000 points and games with 2000 points

with 500 points, each model has front and rare (180°FoV) and can only shoot what is in its front
so you can have a unit cover 360° but not with the full firepower

at 2000 points use team/unit bases, not only speeds up the movement but also makes clear were front/rare of the team/unit is


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 11:08:21


Post by: Overread


Warmachine manages with unit facings very easily.

That said I agree if you wanted to scale it up for a 2K engagement chances are you'd have to do what Old World did and move toward the use of movement bases/trays for infantry units. Otherwise the micro of moving units and facing them and keeping facings accurate becomes far too time consuming

In the past when 40K had facings it was mostly just on big monsters and tanks that they were present. GW could do that again, but they might need to revise some concepts for side guns and the base designs. Ergo giving side guns a proper 90 degree fire arc from the middle front; rather than from the actual weapon on the model itself (because then you could stand infront of it and it can't hit you with the side guns at all because they can't physically face inwards. Thus reflecting more real world distance for combat and minor track movements to allow it to "Wriggle fire" and such.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 13:11:57


Post by: kodos


not necessarily like Warhammer, but more something like this:


[Thumb - Unbenannt.png]
[Thumb - Unbenannt2.png]


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 13:32:09


Post by: Jidmah


They actually do have rather well done regiment bases for apoc though, I regularly use them for my orks and pox walkers. You could just put an arrow on those, or define which side is the front.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 13:52:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?


Define their facings and let them stay an amorphous blob? The shape doesn't really matter, the facing does. And I'd say we really ought to have some system that cares about facings if we're going down to platoon scale.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 14:43:41


Post by: Cyel


You can have an arrow-shaped token accompanying each unit.

I like facing in wargames as such a rule is usually very straightforward, intuitive but also provides an opportunity for making positional mistakes (and taking advantage of such mistakes), which makes it interesting.



Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 16:19:19


Post by: catbarf


The_Grim_Angel wrote:In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.


About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.

Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.


I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.


It's not? I've seen companies sell foam or plastic hills that you can place on a flat surface. You could use a bunch of those to get that interesting terrain.

Or, you could take a more abstract approach and build stepped layers out of foam. Your sand dunes would become more like mesas, but it's playable and easy to DIY.

(Also DoK is an excellent game, and goes to show how terrain still exists and is still important even in a battlespace traditionally thought of as flat)

Edit: Regarding facing, I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to concretely identify facing for non-vehicles. If we assume that troops are going to react to fire to take cover and minimize exposure, what matters isn't their absolute facing so much as whether they're being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously, or from a bearing that denies them the benefit of cover. Crossfire rules + more terrain with facings (eg ridgelines, sandbags, walls) would handle it.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 16:50:09


Post by: Charistoph


 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 17:00:27


Post by: Jidmah


The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 17:00:36


Post by: Karol


 catbarf wrote:


About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.


I don't think mr Grim ment playing without any terrain to be viable. 8th was very specific with how some terrain worked and some didn't. No LoS blocker higher then a knight or buildings with windows, practicaly like playing on an empty board. Want to play a game of explored the temple with tons of jungle woods etc and a big ruin in the middle, may as well not deploy the trees and shrubs because they aren't blocking LoS. US had their LoS bunkers, everyone else had their tables made out of L shaped cardboard terrain. 9th is a lot better, but you still can't just play the terrain the way it just is, you have to got through minutes of arguments what is dense and what isn't. are windows actual windows and how much not okey you are with your opponents LoWless army being able to shot your LoW, but you not being able to shot back.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 17:01:56


Post by: Xenomancers


 catbarf wrote:
The_Grim_Angel wrote:In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.


About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.

Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.


I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.


It's not? I've seen companies sell foam or plastic hills that you can place on a flat surface. You could use a bunch of those to get that interesting terrain.

Or, you could take a more abstract approach and build stepped layers out of foam. Your sand dunes would become more like mesas, but it's playable and easy to DIY.

(Also DoK is an excellent game, and goes to show how terrain still exists and is still important even in a battlespace traditionally thought of as flat)

Edit: Regarding facing, I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to concretely identify facing for non-vehicles. If we assume that troops are going to react to fire to take cover and minimize exposure, what matters isn't their absolute facing so much as whether they're being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously, or from a bearing that denies them the benefit of cover. Crossfire rules + more terrain with facings (eg ridgelines, sandbags, walls) would handle it.

Utilizing the terrain around you is an essential part of warfare - yes. It is not a required aspect for a battle though. Dense cover is more likely to prevent a battle than facilitate one. 9th edd has a squad based type game requirement - in a game where we have titans and battle tanks. Also with an absurdly low turn limit.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 17:10:40


Post by: catbarf


 Charistoph wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.


I think it's worth pointing out that cover IRL is a lot more 'directional' than often represented in wargames. You don't take cover by just standing in the woods or in a ruined building- you have to take cover behind something, oriented in a particular direction, in a formation that allows your unit to maximize fire, and with an awareness of the threat vector. Getting flanked makes it extremely difficult to stay protected. Getting ambushed makes it all but impossible.

From a game implementation standpoint, in hex-and-counter wargames hex facing is typically used to determine posture, with attacks coming from the rear 180 degrees negating cover. In minis games, an easy implementation is that if a unit can trace LOS through the target to a friendly unit that has already fired, then the attack negates cover.

Part of the issue is also that cover isn't nearly as useful in 40K as it is IRL. Intercessors shooting Cultists don't care if they're in cover or not; most of the time they ignore the cover either way, and even if they don't, a 6+ save is inconsequential. It was a lot different back in the day when being in cover cut your incoming damage by 1/3 to 1/2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote:The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.


The second concept, sure, but why the first? I'm thinking terrain like this.

I mean, this is also presuming a scale where the geography of sand dunes is relevant. Deserts of Kharak wouldn't work so well if your entire battlespace was a couple hundred yards across. 40K would look goofy with sand dunes tall enough to block a Leman Russ; but Epic would work better.

Xenomancers wrote:Utilizing the terrain around you is an essential part of warfare - yes. It is not a required aspect for a battle though. Dense cover is more likely to prevent a battle than facilitate one. 9th edd has a squad based type game requirement - in a game where we have titans and battle tanks. Also with an absurdly low turn limit.


Find me a ground battle with no apparent terrain and I'll show you the scale you ought to be looking at. North African desert or the fields at Prokhorovka look pretty flat at a small scale, but that's why the battles were fought from distances of 1+km, at a scale where what terrain did exist becomes relevant. There have been very, very few ground battles in the 20th century where engagement range was dictated by weapon capabilities rather than terrain and target acquisition.

The point being that 40K just isn't meant for that kind of battlespace. If there's no tactically-relevant terrain and sight lines are 1+km, you wouldn't deploy infantry, let alone line up two hundred yards from one another and slug it out. 40K's scenario and gameplay design is implicitly based on the presence of terrain; if you want to fight the sort of battle that arises from minimal terrain you ought to be looking at something like Epic as mentioned above.

As for dense terrain preventing a battle, well, maybe if we're talking medieval or ancient warfare (even then, there are notable exceptions- Romans luring Macedonian phalanxes into rough terrain to break up their pike formations comes to mind), but since WW1 combat around or in cities has been the norm. It's not so much a case of terrain facilitating a battle as that there is nowhere you can go that doesn't have relevant terrain, and the places that matter strategically tend to be either population centers or operational chokepoints.


Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies @ 2020/11/20 17:43:08


Post by: Charistoph


Jidmah wrote:The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.

Yeah, I live about 3-4 hours from where they filmed the barge scene from Return of the Jedi. I'm familiar with them, and how I said is how the dunes are shaped. The dunes sit on top of regular terrain like rolling hills, and that is not so easy to replicate on the table.

catbarf wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.


I think it's worth pointing out that cover IRL is a lot more 'directional' than often represented in wargames. You don't take cover by just standing in the woods or in a ruined building- you have to take cover behind something, oriented in a particular direction, in a formation that allows your unit to maximize fire, and with an awareness of the threat vector. Getting flanked makes it extremely difficult to stay protected. Getting ambushed makes it all but impossible.

From a game implementation standpoint, in hex-and-counter wargames hex facing is typically used to determine posture, with attacks coming from the rear 180 degrees negating cover. In minis games, an easy implementation is that if a unit can trace LOS through the target to a friendly unit that has already fired, then the attack negates cover.

Part of the issue is also that cover isn't nearly as useful in 40K as it is IRL. Intercessors shooting Cultists don't care if they're in cover or not; most of the time they ignore the cover either way, and even if they don't, a 6+ save is inconsequential. It was a lot different back in the day when being in cover cut your incoming damage by 1/3 to 1/2.

There are a lot of problems with GW and Cover, and you pointed out most of it. WMH considers the direction the attack comes from, and considers back shots. That is why a lot of people paint a "forward arc" on the model's base.