Switch Theme:

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

What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 22:30:44


Post by: Banzaimash


A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 22:46:54


Post by: spiralingcadaver


-Lots of the fluff has been pretty good.
-I like customizing models, it was nice when they encouraged that for a long time.
-There have been any number of instances of good individual mechanics to represent models/fighting styles.
-I enjoyed any number of older editions as light-weight fun as long as one didn't take things overly seriously.
-I feel like more recently they finally got many weapons working about like they should (vs., say, lots of things priced inefficiency and with such limited use that they were never a serious option).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 22:52:17


Post by: AnomanderRake


Scalability. Most wargames function at a very narrow range of points values (Infinity really only works from about 200-400pts, for instance), Warhammer usually manages to at least sort of function from 500pts to 5,000+pts. This is getting a lot worse with the introduction of Warmachine-style support stacks where your unit needs a whole bunch of other units behind it to use support abilities and auras to make it function, which means the game doesn't work at small points where you don't have your support stack and doesn't work at large points levels because 1/turn stratagems and unique character auras don't scale with the game.

Modularity. Most wargames don't give you a lot of options, Warhammer lets you build your units/characters to do what you want them to. This is getting a lot worse as they delete options.

Extensibility. Most wargames work in a fairly narrow range of tournament-balanced scenarios and are difficult to make rules for or balance narrative scenarios for, Warhammer's straightforward narrative-based design lets you pull bits of the rules out and stick other bits in to produce something like 4e Cities of Death or 30k Zone Mortalis that uses the same armies and rules but plays differently. This is getting a lot worse as stratagems and character auras become more important to the game.

Modern GW seems determined to take everything they did well and throw it out in favor of trying and failing to copy Warmachine.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 22:54:48


Post by: Stux


Loads of individual ideas are pretty great in a vacuum to be honest. The issue they have is in bringing it all together in a satisfying way.

In fairness though, this game has a lot more moving parts than basically any other comparable game. I dont think true balance is even possible in this kind of game. But that said, they could still do a lot better, there a lot of thing that are just so obviously broken that make it to print.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:04:02


Post by: Argive


They used to have data sheets with lots of options, and corresponding points on said data sheets...


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:13:42


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Stux wrote:
...In fairness though, this game has a lot more moving parts than basically any other comparable game. I dont think true balance is even possible in this kind of game. But that said, they could still do a lot better, there a lot of thing that are just so obviously broken that make it to print.


I don't think that's true. Warmachine and Infinity both have as many or more moving parts (not necessarily as many units/rules, but everything in the game does a lot more), and have managed to produce saner, better-balanced, and less convoluted games simply by working out a design space such that they know how all their moving parts fit together. GW builds their rulebook without paying attention to what exists in the game, then builds every army book without any consideration for the context in which it exists.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:19:35


Post by: Kanluwen


Infinity's balance is absolutely nowhere near "better" or "less convoluted".

There is a reason why Infinity is considered a "lifestyle game".


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:22:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Kanluwen wrote:
Infinity's balance is absolutely nowhere near "better" or "less convoluted".

There is a reason why Infinity is considered a "lifestyle game".


Infinity minis aren't ~70% unplayable trap options, and when the design team writes rules for Infinity they do so understanding the rest of the game, so they don't break their own game through carelessness every release.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:35:42


Post by: generalchaos34


Despite all of the people who want to hate on GW I often try to find a silver lining. Before you ask I try not to be an apologist but its more me trying to see the good in things. So what do they do well?

EVERYTHING

Despite the many stupid decisions, bonehead moves, dead end editions (damn you 7th!) and other bad moves GW has made a game that has ultimately made me happy. That says a lot that I have consistently played something for over 23 years at the tender age of 35. I have always had a fun hobby of painting, building, collecting and playing ready to go. I can look at my models and be proud (or cringe) and its been a source of joy for me. I love the novels and I have read over a 100 of them. Everything they do, even when its dumb, has ultimately added to my life. In years past I have gone through some very very dark parts of my life and one constant that was always there was my 40k hobby. It sustained me, distracted me, and let my imagination fly when the rest of my world, my life, and my very identity crumbled. No matter what happened I knew that Space Marines were still out there fighting Tyranids, Commissars killed their own men, and Erebus was just the worst.

So yeah, GW has done all kinds of things great, and I am glad and ultimately still exist because of it.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:46:32


Post by: Chamberlain


I'm going to repeat what I posted in the undervalued thread:

The Open Hostility Mission Pack. They include some excellent attacker-defender scenarios with unequal forces but I suspect many people would never even consider trying them, convinced that only the matched play scenarios are valid.

So far I think one of the best ways to play 40k is datasheets only, maybe each player has a relic or a warlord trait and then some command points (p254) to spend on core stratagems like rerolls. Play the open hostility missions and have an awesome time.

To add to that:

The best thing you can do with a 40k core rulebook is to play through all the game content in there in order. Try it all.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/12 23:54:57


Post by: CEO Kasen


The one thing 40K does better than any other wargame is create a spectacle on a tabletop - a cool-looking battlefield with good-looking models charging forth into battle with massive guns and ludicrous swords. Two properly painted armies on a proper battlefield looks awesome, and no other game does that so well. The game also has utterly ridiculous centerpiece opportunities for painters to really go ballistic on a model, leading to the game, at its best, being an utter aesthetic treat.

Contrast CB Infinity, which I have played a little. While the aesthetic of its individual models and its mechanical feel are both quite impressive, at some point during my second game I stepped 6 feet back from the table covered in stacked city terrain and saw... no-one. Because everyone who was still alive was, as you would expect, using proper cover and hiding behind crates and buildings. By comparison to 40K, a correctly played game of Infinity is Monty Python's How Not To Be Seen sketch by way of Ghost in the Shell.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 00:01:28


Post by: Kanluwen


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Infinity's balance is absolutely nowhere near "better" or "less convoluted".

There is a reason why Infinity is considered a "lifestyle game".


Infinity minis aren't ~70% unplayable trap options

Sure sure sure, that's why fireteams totally have the most flexibility and don't come down to:
3x Cheerleaders
1x Wildcard
1x HI/Specialist
and when the design team writes rules for Infinity they do so understanding the rest of the game, so they don't break their own game through carelessness every release.

Have you ever actually paid any attention to Infinity outside of on here? They absolutely do not "understand the rest of the game". There's a reason why ITS was referred to as "Paid Beta".


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 00:07:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Kanluwen wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Infinity's balance is absolutely nowhere near "better" or "less convoluted".

There is a reason why Infinity is considered a "lifestyle game".


Infinity minis aren't ~70% unplayable trap options

Sure sure sure, that's why fireteams totally have the most flexibility and don't come down to:
3x Cheerleaders
1x Wildcard
1x HI/Specialist
and when the design team writes rules for Infinity they do so understanding the rest of the game, so they don't break their own game through carelessness every release.

Have you ever actually paid any attention to Infinity outside of on here? They absolutely do not "understand the rest of the game". There's a reason why ITS was referred to as "Paid Beta".


You and I have clearly had very different experiences of Infinity, but this is a bit out of scope for the "what has GW done well?" thread.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 00:12:25


Post by: Kanluwen


You chose to bring that line of discussion up, I'd be interested to see some evidence of it.

Because from N2 to N4(sidenote: I've given up as of N4. The key issues are never going to get solved and CB has zero interest in doing so)?
They've very much relied upon the 'living rulebook' nature of things and while they don't publish sweeping erratas or FAQs for every faction release, they absolutely do not seem to understand why certain Sectorials aren't common in tournament play(which is the metric they've stated they use to gauge popularity). They never seem to have grasped that while they don't have the same general kind of "this new book is full of OP stuff!", they are absolutely 100% prone to powercreep when they do their dump of new skills that never get backdated to other factions.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 01:24:22


Post by: ingtaer


GW dont make Infinity, the topic is what has GW done right. Stay on topic please.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 01:32:59


Post by: Argive


I think tackling fixing (for the most part) the most egregious, and facepalm errors and stuff in a timely manner is something they are very good at.

Yes - I am aware they should get it right first time as its the core tenant of most if not all modern business. But at the same time I can see how stuff can be missed. Even TTT's play testers have admitted they simply missed some things and were scratching their heads how they missed something obvious and those guys really care about 40k. So.. You gotta cut soem slack.

Fixing problems and admitting to mistakes is better than not at all. So they do have that going for them.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 01:35:18


Post by: Super Ready


I could list all kinds of specific things over the years, but I'll trim it down to what I consider either the biggest-impacting, or causing what I consider the most goodwill.

More recently? Bringing back Sisters and Genestealer Cults, as well as making AdMech, Custodes and Knights all playable. All of these were things players had suggested as wants, and they delivered.
A renewed focus on specialist games as well - these had lost support for a while, but now we have Necromunda and Blood Bowl still being updated, Kill Team got a sizeable refresh, Epic has sort of reappeared in the guise of Aeronautica and Titanicus - and entirely new specialist games appeared too (Warcry, Blackstone Fortress and Underworlds).

Going a bit further back - I'm a big fan of steps taken to simplify 40k, so I'll call out two stages there.
The jump from 2nd to 3rd edition refined the ruleset greatly and wiped away some of the... shall we say, more eclectic parts of the lore. Granted, it did render some models obsolete at the time, but overall I think it was handled about as well as it could have been, for a game whose rules had become sprawling and time-consuming to follow through.
Then in 5th edition, the introduction of USRs went a great deal towards making games quicker to play and easier to understand opposing armies. I still mourn the loss of USRs - we have something approaching it, as rules we term FNP, Fight First, Deep Strike and so on are fairly consistent across factions - but I do wish there wasn't this insistence on giving every version of the same rule a unique name.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 01:49:08


Post by: PenitentJake


So I can't talk about things that have been consistently good across all editions- I think that's a pretty tough job, because there's a fair amount of variety across all editions.

9th:

- Crusade; including Crusade content in dexes, the Crusade mission pack, etc
- strats that scale! I only have the DW supplement, but there's a strat that gets more uses depending on the size of the game
- unique content for subfactions- lots of tourney types are gonna disagree with me on this, but I love the fact that now all factions get to feel like they have snowflakes, not just marines
- missions for all sizes of game

8th:

- multiplatform integration allowing legacy units like Rogue Traders and Zoats to return not only in minigames but also in 40k
- reviving long dead/ previously marginalized factions- GSC and Sisters, looking at you!
- personally I like strats, but I do absolutely understand and respect the opinions of those who don't


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 01:50:07


Post by: insaniak


I'll preface by saying that GW's habit of constantly rewriting the game instead of just refining it has been a source of so much frustration over the years, to the extent that I gave up on following the current rules in 8th edition, once I got tired of having to keep relearning the core rules.

However, there has certainly been some high points along the way.

- Moving to the 3rd-ed and onwards, unit-based melee rules from 2nd edition's model-by-model method was absolutely a good move. 2nd ed's system worked great in Necromunda, where models were in units of 1, but in a squad-based game it was just clunky and time consuming.

- Moving vehicles to the same statline as infantry. While there's an argument for having vehicles use different rules, it's an argument that went out the window as 40K turned from a skirmish game to one with a hundred or more models on the board at a time. Hull points were a good step towards redressing the odd way vehicles were treated by the rules, but were badly implemented and should have been accompanied by a saving throw. The current statline (minus the messy degrading nonsense) is, I feel, is a better idea.

- Most of 5th edition.

While most of my attention these days is on 2nd edition, this is easily my favourite of the post-Herohammer editions. It's the version of the game that worked the most smoothly and with a fewest arguments at the table, despite certainly not being without its fair share of issues.

If I had to build my perfect large-battle 40K ruleset from the existing versions, it would be 5th edition with some slight modifications to casualty removal and the vehicles-rolled-into-infantry-statline change.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 02:30:08


Post by: Hecaton



Anyway, as far as what GW's doing right, the quality of the miniatures is high, and they've really fleshed out their range in the last five years or so by bringing back Harlequins and GSC, and putting AdMech on the table. Their universe needs breadth and they're doing that.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 08:31:41


Post by: Sentineil


Their models have consistently improved over the years and are by and large gorgeous. I constantly have to stop myself from starting a new army simply for the joy of painting the models.

I know the question was on rules, but as an aside, the "hobby" part has been fantastic all along.

For rules the IG 8th edition codex was great. It felt like it was done by someone who really understood IG. There were of course one or two dud units, but for the most part it was the best internally balanced book we've ever had. There were so many different yet viable ways to play, where in the past IG we're just a gun line.

From the IG perspective For The Greater Good added a load more character to the army and again felt like it was written by someone who understands the army. The tank aces are a fantastic addition which add a lot of fun to a game for both players so long as you don't power game them.

That might be what I think GW do best. The individual character and fairly unique play of every army. There's a lot of flavour and an army that works for everyone.

Although most seem to hate the "bloat" I love it. Getting more and more subfraction rules just adds more character to the game for me. All the SM supplements were something I'd always wanted.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 08:35:37


Post by: Not Online!!!


Lore, initially.

Customizable forces.

Conceptually integrated rules and fluff in some cases extremely well: 3.5 Chaos, the adaptable tyranid dex, IA 13.

Well, i guess, the Grimdark, even though it started as satire, well grimdark satire of humanities lowest points of governance and societal development, it still did grimdark... Sometimes it did drop into Grimderp though


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 11:01:50


Post by: Sim-Life


Intial lore, concept and aesthetics.
List writing prior to 8th was fun and engaging due to the options available.
Game was fun before the internet became more widespread.

I actually don't think GW has done much wrong with the game, rather its the culture around it that has changed. As soon as a book comes out people hone in on the most OP stuff and within days EVERYONE knows exactly what the most overpowered stuff is. In response to this GW started cutting back options and trying to balance stuff. Sure maybe 25 years ago there was broken stuff but it was more obfuscated behind the fact that not every group had access to someone explaining via mathhammer exactly why a lascannon was marginally better than an autocannon or something or that the optimal number of gaunts per unit is 17 because its more cost efficient and anyone who DID do that was rightly called out for it.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 11:41:55


Post by: Jidmah


Almost all of the "cutting back options" was due to the chapter house fallout, not because of game rules or even player behavior.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 11:52:25


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


*waves arms expansively*

This. All of this.

GW did not invent war gaming. But they near enough reinvented what it could be. The actual games mechanics are just a relatively small part of the wider whole, on account one can engage with 40k without ever rolling a single die.

There’s background, TTRRPGs, kit bashing, scratch building, collecting, painting. All inherent yet optional parts of the wider hobby. GW made that accessible. And in some ways, standardised (being the big fish, they’re inherently the benchmark that all others will be measured against)


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 12:03:47


Post by: Karol


 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


killed Inari in 8th, nerfed tau in 9th. People that play specific AoS armies feel very good about what GW has done with them. I don't think eldar players ever hated a new codex they got.

There terrain rules in 9th are much better then they were in 8th.

Some of the 2ed and 3ed wave primaris units, and the fix to 1st wave units seemed to have been viewed as a good change by people that play marines, and because it was at the same hated by people who don't play primaris it was clearly good too.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 12:06:07


Post by: Deadnight


Gw did not invent wargaming, but they're a big reason for so many people's exposure to it.

It's a broad church behemoth where everyone can find something for them - big games wee games, casual, competitive and so on.

Great lore.

Amazing models.

Modularity.

Hands off approach.

Most of their decisions the past three or four years have been decisions I've agreed with. Oh, and I love primaris.. they're what I wish marines were twenty years ago.

On the other topic of other companies and better balance, when it came to wmh, let's put it this way - I never saw anyone leave the Haleys or deneghras at home in favour of the likes of pStryker. On MK2, talk to khador players about our signature men o war and playing jack heavy. The balance was, at best 'good enough, at least some of the tine'. It's a game very prone to match up issues and with clear stables of 'better' and 'worse' options and with auto choice builds. Infinity won't be much better.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 12:31:58


Post by: BaconCatBug


Recently? They've been good at padding their wallets after realising just how much they can milk their fanbase with crappy releases.

Other than that, nothing really.

The fluff between 3rd and 6th edition was pretty good though.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 13:18:48


Post by: Snake Tortoise


Chapter Approved. Before that, your units were either good or bad until the next codex came out. Broken stuff was broken for longer. Now, nerfs and buffs can happen much sooner, so you can build and paint a bad unit, knowing there's a least a possibility it might get better soon, and the overpowered stuff doesn't have to be OP for the whole edition.

More appropriate (usually bigger) base sizes. Infantry just looks so much better on 32mm bases

Movements stats. Some things should move 7, 8 or 10 inches a turn, not just 6 and 12.

Allowing more variety in army composition. The old force organistion chart was quite limiting if you wanted to create something unique. I still believe troops should be incentivised further but I prefer the options now to 3rd edition.

Getting rid of the old armour rules. Armour values, facings etc.

Vehicles moving and shooting heavy weapons without a BS modifier seems a good change too. Static units are boring.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 13:25:06


Post by: Cyel


I like how flexible these games are, whether played with VERY different points values, varying number of players, home made scenarios, campaigns. GW leave so much more room for creativity than other wargames I play.



What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 15:54:06


Post by: Slipspace


I think a lot of GW's ideas are often very good. Their execution often sucks.

Formations were a good idea, ruined by terrible execution.

I like how 8th changed vehicles to use the same general rules as everyone else, but I think GW fumbled massively by sticking to too narrow a range of T and S values for vehicles and anti-tank weapons.

In general, GW are good at providing a sandbox to use your models in but the most effective way to use those models, IME, is somewhere in the middle of "complete free-for-all" and "cut-throat tournament play". I think that's how GW tend to play the game too, but not how a lot of people in the real world play. I think the background is interesting and they've done a good job fleshing it out, but went a little too far in some cases - specifically the Horus Heresy stuff and the more recent advancing storyline style of background.

The one thing GW do better than any other gaming company is creating a single all-encompassing eco-system tied to their games. From the models and rules to the paints and hobby tools to the magazines and novels, GW are the best in their field at providing everything their customers want to explore their hobby in one convenient place.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 16:23:31


Post by: Cyel


 Banzaimash wrote:
what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right


Hmm, I kind of missed that, but I guess that was the whole point (otherwise you'll get a thousand "cool models, great fluff" answers).

I have to be honest, I feel as if there must hav been something like this in my more-than-2-decade-long history of playing GW games, but I have to think long and hard...and still get nothing. Especially from the perspective of someone who knows something about modern game design, because some of their solutions surely felt like works of a genius when Monopoly and Snakes and Ladders were main competitors.

Still thinking and still can't zero in on one idea that was realised perfectly, without some problems marring the image. I liked static CR in Wahammer Fantasy and how you could play not caring about attack rolls ... but the underlying idea of a single Break Test deciding the fate of an entire unit was pretty bad, and all too soon static CR of early 6th has become laughable with power creep and, say Brets, having both static CR AND killer lances or more and more units becoming Unbreakable.

Still thinking then...

Managing the dice pool for magic in WFB was kind of a fun idea, although the resulting decision tree was in most cases pretty straighforward and the entire process quickly became formulaic. Maybe mages should have had more spells, so that there would be more possibilities ?

In wh40K I don't think there has ever been anything that feels "outstanding game design!".

Hmmm...


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 16:37:06


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


killed Inari in 8th, nerfed tau in 9th. People that play specific AoS armies feel very good about what GW has done with them. I don't think eldar players ever hated a new codex they got.

There terrain rules in 9th are much better then they were in 8th.

Some of the 2ed and 3ed wave primaris units, and the fix to 1st wave units seemed to have been viewed as a good change by people that play marines, and because it was at the same hated by people who don't play primaris it was clearly good too.


God damn youre getting more and more toxic.
Ynnari is a cool concept and they overcorrected when they redid them.
Tau isnt just nerfed, its unplayable in 9th.
And are you really evaluating the success of the primaris fix based on the hared that people have for them?

You're a hypocrite thats 100% into schadenfreude, i remember you crying about your GK being bad for all of 8th, and now youre glad that 2 codexes got effectively nixed.... smh


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 16:39:47


Post by: jaredb


I like a lot of what GW does. Especially the boxed games.

I absolutely love warhammer Underworlds, and think that is an fantastic competitive miniatures game.

Warcry is a great skirmish game, with a great fast-placed game style and easy-to-manage campaign system.

I do think AOS is a more polished game than 40k, and I love the rules for army allegiances and grand alliances. I also think the mission pack for AOS is the best of all GW games.

I love 40k too, I do like the changes from 7->8th and 8->9th. Crusade is one of the best things GW has added to the game, hands down. CP based on game size was a fantastic move too.



What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 16:44:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


I've only played since 8th edition but :

I feel like GW supporting various scales of battle is a nice thing they did (killteam, 40k, apocalypse).
The fact that they also give missions for various pts value is a good thing they have added imo.
The way that listbuilding got changed in 9th to allow more freedom (no more CP batteries) is also a good move in my mind.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 16:51:37


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


God damn youre getting more and more toxic.
Ynnari is a cool concept and they overcorrected when they redid them.
Tau isnt just nerfed, its unplayable in 9th.
And are you really evaluating the success of the primaris fix based on the hared that people have for them?

You're a hypocrite thats 100% into schadenfreude, i remember you crying about your GK being bad for all of 8th, and now youre glad that 2 codexes got effectively nixed.... smh


Well you will be glad to hear that thanks to abhore the witch GK aren't great in 9th either. But they are better then in 8th, largely thanks to the PA book.

But to be more on topic. You want to tell me that the design idea of GW, which we are talking about here, of 8th ed Inari and Tau were a good idea to transport in to 9th ed? doing shoting and melee twice, double dipping on stratagems for eldar soups and walls of shield drones clogging up objectives would have been something good for the game design wise .

And I am evaluating success of everything based on other people reactions. When Hussein Bolt is hated by every male runner in his distance, then you know that the mr Bolt is doing something wrong. If casual xeno players who dunked on marines, suddenly demande the nerfing of everything marine starting with factions and ending with specific units and even gear, and those threads go on and on, and on. Then GW has clearly created a codex which is good and fun to play with. It maybe not fun to play against, but that is a separate matter.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 17:12:20


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:


But to be more on topic. You want to tell me that the design idea of GW, which we are talking about here, of 8th ed Inari and Tau were a good idea to transport in to 9th ed? doing shoting and melee twice, double dipping on stratagems for eldar soups and walls of shield drones clogging up objectives would have been something good for the game design wise .


Ynnari as you describe it was rightfully nerfed, but they overdid it. They shouldve made it so a detachment could take any Eldar unit if they were ynnari but they would be forced to use the revenant discipline and ynnari stratagems/relics/warlord traits. That way no double dipping in buffs and you keep the "combined forces" thematic of Ynnari.

As for tau, i don't get the hate about them. Sure its annoying getting blasted from across the map (hmm, i wonder what marines do...) but i'd never say i'm happy to see any army destroyed. I have compassion for the people that are playing these armies that are super bad now, just like i had compassion for people playing GK at the start of 8th.

Karol wrote:

And I am evaluating success of everything based on other people reactions. When Hussein Bolt is hated by every male runner in his distance, then you know that the mr Bolt is doing something wrong. If casual xeno players who dunked on marines, suddenly demande the nerfing of everything marine starting with factions and ending with specific units and even gear, and those threads go on and on, and on. Then GW has clearly created a codex which is good and fun to play with. It maybe not fun to play against, but that is a separate matter.


I'm pretty sure Bolt isnt "hated" by every other male runner. And not all marine complaints come from purely xenos player, many of these complains come from marines players that dislike it when the game is on easy mode. And no, it isnt a separate matter that the army isnt fun to play against, 40k for the majority of players is a GAME, games are meant to be enjoyed by both sides.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 17:24:23


Post by: Just Tony


 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


With the exception of some codex creep? 3rd Edition...


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 17:36:45


Post by: jaredb


I have never (beyond a bit of nostalgia), wanted to play 3rd edition again. What's 3rd edition improve on the game now?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 17:49:10


Post by: Vaktathi


From my perspective?

As others have said, GW often has great ideas that they then seem to go out of their way to execute in the worst manner possible. However, they don't always muck it up.

With regards to current era stuff, I think the Imperial Guard codex is actually a masterful template in how GW should handle varied subfactions and army types. They're able to use Doctrines to portray an array of different worlds and cultures, have a modified ObSec rule and Tank HQ to accommodate Armored Company lists without needing a separate supplement, and used keywords to effectively fold Stormtroopers/Scions seamlessly into the larger army while still allowing them to be played as their own unique subfaction if desired, all without losing anything from the previous codex iterations. The book has some genuinely great design thought put into it and should be the template by which more factions should be handled.

What GW does do, above and beyond anything else, with regards to ruleset and game mechanics, is offer a sandbox for people to use their plastic space monsters and toy soldiers in, where every model that's been lovingly assembled and painted gets dice to roll and special rules to use and unique wargear to have a statline to fawn over, and they make everything feel unique and special for the investment the player has put into them. That's not always a great thing for the gameplay experience, but for the hobby experience as a whole and making people feel attached to their army dudes, GW knows what its about.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 18:19:24


Post by: The Salt Mine


The lore is great and despite all of its flaws the game is fun.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/13 18:25:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


GW has done a lot of things right over the years, but almost always throws any gains in the trash.

Streamlining (yay) is usually countered by bloat (boo) within just a few years.

Army identity is typically well-reflected in its rules (yay) until GW gives another army the same rules - or a better variant (boo).

Design paradigms are oftentimes well thought-out and coherent (yay) but are changed right in the middle of a gamewide update, causing a disjunction (boo).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 01:27:21


Post by: Banzaimash


 Just Tony wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


With the exception of some codex creep? 3rd Edition...


What was it about 3rd you liked specifically?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 01:32:16


Post by: Nitro Zeus


Blood Bowl


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 02:36:43


Post by: Karol


I'm pretty sure Bolt isnt "hated" by every other male runner. And not all marine complaints come from purely xenos player, many of these complains come from marines players that dislike it when the game is on easy mode. And no, it isnt a separate matter that the army isnt fun to play against, 40k for the majority of players is a GAME, games are meant to be enjoyed by both sides.


How much do you know about professional sports? Just read about any failed transfer drama in any sports, or when suddenly whole second line ups change nationality, just to enter the olympics. Or what happens when one person takes another persons add slot, or if you are part of the team and they want just the 2-3 people in the add and not the whole team.etc

The enjoyed by both side is a nice thing to say. But after 3 years in the game, I now know it is just a thing that people say, because it looks nice. Like saying that if you found a bag with 100k $ you would totaly waltz with it to the nearest police station.


As the rest goes. There is no too much or too little as far as GW goes. GW doesn't fix things, they either nerf stuff in to the ground or they make fake fixs that don't fix a thing. So within GW design policy ,in my opinion, the Inari changes in 8th were good. Because we could have had another wave of fixs that didn't change a thing or maybe changed it in a such a way that instead of 5-7 flyers we would see some other unit getting spamed. Same with tau. Both armies were in generaly not fun to play against, to a point where I would even claim they were not very interactive as far as opponents go for most factions.







What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 03:37:16


Post by: Castozor


I'm generally given to negativity and pessimism but truth is, I keep coming back to GW games for one reason or another. Now sure the fact that 40k is the easiest game to find actual matches for plays into this, but the whole background they build up over the years, the many varied armies and ways to play them, it all draws me in. I still haven't forgiven them for nuking the Old World to make an extremely shallow and dumbed down game like AoS but 40k is enjoyable even as I disagree with a lot of the simplified mechanics we have now.
But all this negativity isn't in the spirit of this thread so what I do like about them is for one the fact that they still produce in the UK despite probably getting bigger margins if they just outsource production to a country with less strict labour laws. Secondly as mentioned, I despise most modern fluff but the old fluff I DO like was also made by GW so there's that. Thirdly while personally do not like over designed models with lots of details because I do not like painting that much, I just have to admit that in general GW knocks it out of the park with their models.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 04:19:09


Post by: insaniak


Karol wrote:

The enjoyed by both side is a nice thing to say. But after 3 years in the game, I now know it is just a thing that people say, because it looks nice. Like saying that if you found a bag with 100k $ you would totaly waltz with it to the nearest police station.

I honestly can't tell anymore if you actually believe this nonsense, or if you're just trolling.

It's absolutely not just a 'thing people say'. Games are meant to be fun. And unless you're completely lacking in empathy, a shared experience tends to be less enjoyable when any of the participants are not enjoying it.


If you take a game that was designed as a fun excuse to throw some dice around with friends and keep playing it as a competitive challenge and not having fun doing it, at some point it's worth stopping and asking yourself if maybe the problem is your approach to the game, and the mindset of the people you are playing it with, rather than the game itself.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 05:34:00


Post by: morganfreeman


 jaredb wrote:
I have never (beyond a bit of nostalgia), wanted to play 3rd edition again. What's 3rd edition improve on the game now?


Army scaling.

My 3rd edition marine army was.. Two tactical squads, two commanders, a kitted out veteran squad (with infiltrators), a dreadnaught, and some land speeders. I'd bring a predator if I was feeling spicy. 32 marine bodies, 3-6 speeders, one tank / dreadnaught. Less than 40 models in ALL instances.

Having an army which wasn't closer to 100 models strong was nice. Even the horde armies, like Orks and Nids, would generally be below 100 models all told.

Armies also felt more unique back then. IG were the only army who could take multiple tanks in a single slot. Tyranids were pretty much the only army with Monstrous Creatures. Demons weren't their own codex, they were something you paid for and could then summon in (a specific type of deepstrike) with your CSM army. Orks were easy to kill and easy to make run, but their Mob Up meant that their army was incredibly durable despite their units being fragile. Tau, and their suits, were the only non-vehicle based source of heavy weapons that could move + shoot.

And while I realize I'll get flak for saying this, I preferred 3rd edition melee. It was too strong in comparison to shooting, but melee armies have been a joke for numerous editions now. They've paid their dues, and it's time to get some decent melee rules on the field again.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 05:34:38


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 insaniak wrote:
Karol wrote:

The enjoyed by both side is a nice thing to say. But after 3 years in the game, I now know it is just a thing that people say, because it looks nice. Like saying that if you found a bag with 100k $ you would totaly waltz with it to the nearest police station.

I honestly can't tell anymore if you actually believe this nonsense, or if you're just trolling.

It's absolutely not just a 'thing people say'. Games are meant to be fun. And unless you're completely lacking in empathy, a shared experience tends to be less enjoyable when any of the participants are not enjoying it.


If you take a game that was designed as a fun excuse to throw some dice around with friends and keep playing it as a competitive challenge and not having fun doing it, at some point it's worth stopping and asking yourself if maybe the problem is your approach to the game, and the mindset of the people you are playing it with, rather than the game itself.


At this point i'm pretty confident that the people they play with have significantly stunted their social development. Not just the people they play 40k with but also the people they do sport with. Assuming that everyone is selfish and seeks only personal victories over everything else is a behavior that throws many red flags in my eyes. i really do hope theyre only trolling


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 05:56:22


Post by: BrianDavion


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Karol wrote:

The enjoyed by both side is a nice thing to say. But after 3 years in the game, I now know it is just a thing that people say, because it looks nice. Like saying that if you found a bag with 100k $ you would totaly waltz with it to the nearest police station.

I honestly can't tell anymore if you actually believe this nonsense, or if you're just trolling.

It's absolutely not just a 'thing people say'. Games are meant to be fun. And unless you're completely lacking in empathy, a shared experience tends to be less enjoyable when any of the participants are not enjoying it.


If you take a game that was designed as a fun excuse to throw some dice around with friends and keep playing it as a competitive challenge and not having fun doing it, at some point it's worth stopping and asking yourself if maybe the problem is your approach to the game, and the mindset of the people you are playing it with, rather than the game itself.


At this point i'm pretty confident that the people they play with have significantly stunted their social development. Not just the people they play 40k with but also the people they do sport with. Assuming that everyone is selfish and seeks only personal victories over everything else is a behavior that throws many red flags in my eyes. i really do hope theyre only trolling


yeah me too. if Karol isn't trolling he plays with, hands down, the worst human beings in the world


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 09:04:56


Post by: Cyel


Most people still don't answer the original question:

"what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right "

instead talking about fluff and coolness of miniatures. Which is kind of telling too.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 10:00:10


Post by: insaniak


Cyel wrote:
Most people still don't answer the original question:

"what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right "

instead talking about fluff and coolness of miniatures. Which is kind of telling too.

Most people have answered the question. You're just focusing on those who didn't.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 10:19:28


Post by: Cybtroll


In 40k, nothing really exceptional. Whfb had good rules to differentiate between rank and file and skirmishers, but more of less that's it.

Specialist games had a lot of good stuff going on: Blood Bowl mixed the rigid gameplay style of chess with random roll and and engaging fail-pass turn sequence, Necromunda had a wonderful campaigns wounds nd experience structure (and also the territory management wasn't bad), Battlefleet Gothic has an interesting inertia in movement that causes turns to bleed together...

GW has done good things, but often seems they're not themselves aware of that.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 11:25:37


Post by: Nitro Zeus


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Karol wrote:

The enjoyed by both side is a nice thing to say. But after 3 years in the game, I now know it is just a thing that people say, because it looks nice. Like saying that if you found a bag with 100k $ you would totaly waltz with it to the nearest police station.

I honestly can't tell anymore if you actually believe this nonsense, or if you're just trolling.

It's absolutely not just a 'thing people say'. Games are meant to be fun. And unless you're completely lacking in empathy, a shared experience tends to be less enjoyable when any of the participants are not enjoying it.


If you take a game that was designed as a fun excuse to throw some dice around with friends and keep playing it as a competitive challenge and not having fun doing it, at some point it's worth stopping and asking yourself if maybe the problem is your approach to the game, and the mindset of the people you are playing it with, rather than the game itself.


At this point i'm pretty confident that the people they play with have significantly stunted their social development. Not just the people they play 40k with but also the people they do sport with. Assuming that everyone is selfish and seeks only personal victories over everything else is a behavior that throws many red flags in my eyes. i really do hope theyre only trolling

when someone claims literally everyone else is awful and uses it to justify themselves behaving in a similar way, the problem is generally not actually everyone else.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 12:15:11


Post by: psipso


Ruleset wise I would say the AV mechanic.

It made antitank relevant. People were always trying to bring las canons or meltas just in case they need to deal with AV 14 or AV 13 which couldn't be touched by strength lower than 6.

Also, it made feels like the big tanks as they should be, an immovable fortress invulnerable to everything but the biggest gun's. But at the same time vulnerable to a sneaky heroe enemy guy with melta bombs or a power klaw.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 13:26:36


Post by: stroller


Ruleset done well.... LOTR

Bio build your own Tyranid back in edition... whatever it was - that was VERY characterful.

Orcs rules in WHFB: animosity, fanatics, doom divers.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 13:43:18


Post by: MrMoustaffa


 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?

I feel like they're really good at little rules that tell you the character of the army. For example, commissars have a rule "It's for your own good". If a pysker perils, he shoots them before the perils can go off and kill half your command cadre. It doesn't come up much, but when it does it feels very appropriate and is handy in a pinch. Little things like that help make armies memorable and games have that dramatic flare. Some are annoying but ultimately make sense, like "don't touch dat" that looted wagons used to have, but overall I think GW's weird little rules like that help make 40k stand out.

Those are the ones that bystanders see when they've never played the game before and makes them want to learn more. "Wait why did your guy just shoot your own men?", "Why did that Ork just teleport across the board? (Old shokk attack gun rules ) etc. Etc. I would suspect those little rules were part of why we stuck around even in the dark days of 7th.

Other than that, I would say not many games do quite the same mix of melee and ranged combat that 40k does, and that helps it stand out in my opinion. Yeah a lot of other games do it, but not many have Templar knights running across an open field to stab some orks while tanks and artillery trade fire over their heads. Yes usually one is superior to the other each edition and it can suck to be the one in the bad spot, but it's still cool to see. I play a lot of WWII games and melee in them tends to be a single turn no prisoners affair. Whereas 40k can have epic duels, lone survivors holding out against the odds to control an objective, or even something like a lucky guardsman getting a 1 in a million hit on a chaos lord. Between that and the shooting it adds some variety to how the game plays, as you may face a purely melee horde one day, an artillery park backed up by cheap infantry the next, and giant mechs that are happy to do both afterwards. Forces you to be flexible in your approach and create lists that fight a wider array of threats than most games can dream of when it works.

Finally, I miss the customization everyone but marines seems to be losing. My priests can't take eviscerators anymore, their signature weapon. My sarges can't take lasguns anymore, even though IG is a shooting army and every other army can take their basic rifle on Sarges. My tanks lost a ton of equipment options that still have modeling options. Veterans were absolutely gutted for equipment, etc. It's especially heartbreaking when they start really cutting options from units you can tell they don't want to support anymore, like rough riders. We already know you're going to screw us over and remove the unit, at least let us enjoy it while we still have it

The problem is these cool core things the game is known for can really be let down by shoddy rules writing. But at their core they're still what draws people to this game. No other game quite scratches the itch 40k does. It's not the most tactical or balanced or polished, but it is memorable and unique in the bizarre way it seems to steal every sci fi and fantasy trope under the sun and smash it into one bizarre heavy metal album cover of a universe.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 13:55:51


Post by: SecondTime


Well, the detachment/CP fix is pretty good.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 14:10:22


Post by: Nitro Zeus


AV mechanic was good and I think the old Armor saves were too. Which probably means we can’t say it’s something GW does right since they removed them


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 14:13:22


Post by: SecondTime


 Nitro Zeus wrote:
AV mechanic was good and I think the old Armor saves were too. Which probably means we can’t say it’s something GW does right since they removed them


The glaring disparities between monsters and vehicles was too large. Also, vehicle shaken was too small of a penalty for a penetrations and explodes was too large of a reward.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/14 14:21:02


Post by: Jidmah


Things they have done right since 8th...

- Timely reactions to heavily imbalanced and unfun mechanics: smite spam, flyer spam, pox walker farm, marine doctrines and more.
- Regular updates for rules, points and FAQs
- Creating the death guard as a stand alone army. It's a very fun to play and interesting army that is very distinct from regular chaos marines and daemons.
- Ork kustom jobs are probably the most awesome stratagems in the game.
- Fixing Thrakka in the FAQ and turning him from Trash to tournament tier.
- PA WotS for death guard. It's damn near perfect.
- The rules for the ork FW units that didn't get axed or moved to legends are decent and future-proof
- 9th edition missions and smaller tables
- 9th edition terrain

And the big one: Crusade


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/15 13:20:16


Post by: Grimtuff


stroller wrote:

Bio build your own Tyranid back in edition... whatever it was - that was VERY characterful.


It was open to abuse though, like several GW rules. A guy round here theorised making a beastie called "The Turd", which was a gargantuan creature that was a few inches long but 48 inches wide (i.e. the width of the boards in the GW store we went to). It would roll up the board being invulnerable to much small arms fire with the rest of the Nid army behind it.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/15 14:21:25


Post by: Just Tony


morganfreeman wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I have never (beyond a bit of nostalgia), wanted to play 3rd edition again. What's 3rd edition improve on the game now?


Army scaling.

My 3rd edition marine army was.. Two tactical squads, two commanders, a kitted out veteran squad (with infiltrators), a dreadnaught, and some land speeders. I'd bring a predator if I was feeling spicy. 32 marine bodies, 3-6 speeders, one tank / dreadnaught. Less than 40 models in ALL instances.

Having an army which wasn't closer to 100 models strong was nice. Even the horde armies, like Orks and Nids, would generally be below 100 models all told.

Armies also felt more unique back then. IG were the only army who could take multiple tanks in a single slot. Tyranids were pretty much the only army with Monstrous Creatures. Demons weren't their own codex, they were something you paid for and could then summon in (a specific type of deepstrike) with your CSM army. Orks were easy to kill and easy to make run, but their Mob Up meant that their army was incredibly durable despite their units being fragile. Tau, and their suits, were the only non-vehicle based source of heavy weapons that could move + shoot.

And while I realize I'll get flak for saying this, I preferred 3rd edition melee. It was too strong in comparison to shooting, but melee armies have been a joke for numerous editions now. They've paid their dues, and it's time to get some decent melee rules on the field again.


This is a start for why I like 3rd better...

Banzaimash wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 Banzaimash wrote:
A simple question; across all editions of the game and all codexes, what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right and why? What stands out to you as something you remember as good, not merely passable?


With the exception of some codex creep? 3rd Edition...


What was it about 3rd you liked specifically?


The vehicle rules, armor piercing, simplification of weapon types, transports actually doing their job, monolists being the rule and not the exception, streamlined simplification, the death of percentages, significantly lower lethality of units vs anything from 6th on. 5th was a bit egregious but was still manageable.

Oh, and three of the most important things: intuitive and workable terrain rules, templates, and separate vehicle damage chart for ordinance.

Pretty sure I can come up with more, but I'm on my phone and need to do a grocery run.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/15 17:59:12


Post by: Hecaton


Cyel wrote:
Most people still don't answer the original question:

"what parts of the ruleset and game mechanics have GW done right "

instead talking about fluff and coolness of miniatures. Which is kind of telling too.


Aight, you got me. Not much, tbh.

I'd say moving vehicles to having Toughness like everything else is a good move. There are other problems with the way vehicles interact with the game, but that, taken in a vacuum, makes the game more coherent.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:22:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
AV mechanic was good and I think the old Armor saves were too. Which probably means we can’t say it’s something GW does right since they removed them


The glaring disparities between monsters and vehicles was too large. Also, vehicle shaken was too small of a penalty for a penetrations and explodes was too large of a reward.

Only because GW buffed monsters too hard (2+ save shooting monsters like the Riptide are way, way, better than 3+ save, 4 wound Tyranid monsters that were around for edition after edition). This was precarious, and could easily go the other way, with GW introducing an 8 hull-point AV16 vehicle. GW's inability to manage their design space ruined it, but it wasn't a bad rule. Hull points were a bad rule.

Same thing with Vehicle Shaken -> Explodes. The older damage tables were considerably better and weapon power mattered in the results (so a glancing hit could only wreck on a 6, while a penetrating hit from an ordnance weapon would explode the tank and automatically kill any passengers on a 6).

Here's the history of the vehicle damage model:
2nd edition: vehicles had armor values for different places and different damage tables for different hit locations, etc. It was fun, but very complicated without adding much depth (dice did most of the adjudication and the players got no real say).

3rd Edition: Vehicles had armor values on different facings, but generally the facings were uniform in strength (unlike 2nd). The vehicle damage table was divided into 3 pieces:
a. Glancing Hit: vehicles had escalating damage from Crew Shaken (1-2) to Wrecked (6). This meant that glancing the armor was generally ineffective, but stopped vehicles from shooting.
b. Penetrating Hit: Again with the escalating damage, but with a 50% chance of destroying the vehicle and no chance to merely shake it (so a 4-5 for Wrecked and a 6 for explodes)
c. Ordnance Penetrating Hit: Same as the Penetrating Hit, except it exploded on a 5 and annihilated (all passengers destroyed) on a 6.

The downside of this system was twofold: first, GW gave almost every unit in the game Extra Armor, which meant that Crew Stunned counted as Crew Shaken. The difference is that the vehicle can now move, but not shoot. This meant that transports were king (since you can move to drop off your guys, who cares if you shoot).

4th edition: Same as 3rd edition, with a few significant changes:
1) Weapon Power mattered even more. AP1 weapons count as penetrating even on a glance, and AP- weapons can never do better than glance.
2) Weapon Destroyed and Immobilized results now stacked, and would kill (Wreck only) the vehicle if too many were applied (i.e. a second immobilize result or the destruction of every weapon and then another Weapon Destroyed). This fixed the problem of actually finishing vehicles off somewhat but Crew Stunned and Crew Shaken remained.
3) In order to increase the rewards for penetrating hit, all Penetrating Hits now automatically stunned in addition to normally rolled results.

While going some way to addressing the problem with 3rd edition's damage table, 4th neglected to address the prevalence of Extra Armor. Other changes made transports bad (entanglement, yeesh) so vehicles were generally bad this edition unless they had thick armor. They could be prevented from shooting by any hit that so much as glanced their armor, and penetrating hits ravaged the passengers due to some of the transport rules as well. Vehicles were considered deathtraps for passengers, but heavily armored vehicles did quite well. Holofields were an Eldar upgrade that basically broke this lethality, making Eldar tanks (combined with the Fast Skimmer rules) much more durable than anyone else.

5th edition: things become bad. More significant changes, but in the wrong direction. Vehicles are harder to kill for all the wrong reasons; gun tanks are just as easy to disable, but transports become AMAZING.
1) Vehicle damage is consolidated in to one table for ... reasons (???) with modifiers. (AP1 is +2, AP2 is +1, AP - is -1, and Open Topped is +1, which is the same as before). The table now wrecked on a 5+ and exploded on a 6+.
2) Glancing hits were a -2, so they could only Immobilize, and 50% of the time achieved Crew Shaken.
3) The cover save system changed for vehicles; instead of hit quality being downgraded (e.g. Penetrating -> Glancing), vehicles got a cover save that could completely block enemy hits.

This made vehicles very annoying to actually kill. To a transport with the ever-problematic Extra Armor, Glances did effectively nothing unless you rolled a 6. Penetrating hits from quite powerful weapons (e.g. Krak missiles) only destroyed vehicles on a 5+ instead of a 4+. Crews were stunned or shaken on any result from a 1-4 for a glancing hit (and remember it's really just shaken because of Extra Armor). This meant that transports and light vehicles were king, while heavy gun-tanks suffered badly (you can't shoot when you're shaken, but you can move to drop off passengers or avoid incoming fire). Large numbers of weak vehicles became very strong, because you could only stun or shake a few. Vehicles became vulnerable to assault, now being hit on the rear armor regardless of armor facing, and the best way to deliver assault troops was... well, vehicles. So this became the vehicle edition (but less so for heavy gun tanks like the Hammerhead or Leman Russ).

6th Edition: Hull points. GOD, NO, PLEASE GOD NO.
In order to avoid the problems of 5th, GW lost their minds. Legendary stories of things like Rhinos taking 14 penetrating or glancing hits while suffering nothing more than Crew Shaken meant that obviously, something had to be done. So GW just said "vehicles have wounds now" without adding anything else. Worse, the gave most vehicles 3 wounds, which was less than a carnifex. Vehicles died in droves to middling weapons that had no business killing them.

7th Edition:
The same as 6th but now GW is introducing monsters with 6 wounds and 2+/3++ saves, while vehicles continue being destroyed by multilasers. The reason everyone went to play Horus Heresy, where the statlines are slightly better balanced between monsters and vehicles (they tend to have roughly the same number of wounds now, monsters with 2+ saves are three times the price of a tank and are very rare, etc).

Essentially, the solution to the problem is a 4th-edition style rulesset with minor tweaks. Vehicles were deathtraps in 4th, which is bad, but in 5th, transports were AMAZING and gun-tanks were just as bad. Alteration of the crew-shaken mechanics (to, say, giving a tank a leadership test per gun to see if it can fire or restricting its targeting to the nearest unit or the unit that damaged it, etc) to make gun tanks competitive with transports would be a first step, and then some way of making vehicles vulnerable to multiple hits even if they just shake them is also necessary - but not just faux-wounds like hull points. Something like a LD check (with a +1 modifier on the dice for every damage result suffered so far) could represent the crew being ready to bail out of the tank as enemy fire continues to riddle its armor, even if no critical systems are damaged. Then, give things like Dreadnoughts (where the pilots are hardwired) some kind of immunity or resistance to this check. If a designer is careful, this immunity should be applied sparingly and be a truly unique and shining rule rather than proliferating till it becomes bad for the game.

Instead, we got bleh.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:29:22


Post by: SecondTime


I understand all that. I was there for all of it. I'm still not convinced that the AV system was a good system. Without the level of historical detail in say a WWII tank game, which has real life penetration tables to work off of, it just felt like arbitrary wankery on the part of GW.

Also, getting oneshotted by melta made for a lot of unhappy vehicle users. As well as the notorious land raider getting stuck on a bush problem.

I don't know if there really is a good solution with the small strength range of weapons in the game.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:35:10


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I understand all that. I was there for all of it. I'm still not convinced that the AV system was a good system. Without the level of historical detail in say a WWII tank game, which has real life penetration tables to work off of, it just felt like arbitrary wankery on the part of GW.

Also, getting oneshotted by melta made for a lot of unhappy vehicle users. As well as the notorious land raider getting stuck on a bush problem.

I don't know if there really is a good solution with the small strength range of weapons in the game.


Being oneshotted by Melta is not a AV problem; it happens in this edition (lol, Eradicators). Maybe oneshotted by a single melta, but that was so rare as to be a non-issue. You played just like I did; squads brought 3-4 meltas where possible. You rarely saw a squad with a Meltagun, a combi-flamer, and a missile launcher. So typically it was 3-4 melta (or melta-adjacent like plasma) shots coming in.

The notorious "land raider stuck on a bush" problem isn't notorious at all; it's only a problem for players who either:
1) Are not interested in actually considering the terrain effect on the game ("that bush is area terrain, all area terrain is difficult for vehicles, duh"). I like 9th because it forces the players to actually consider what the terrain does.
or
2) Don't realize that vehicles bogging in terrain makes perfect sense in a wargame and happens all the time. Who knows the capability of that alien bush and the strange mud underneath?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:37:37


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I understand all that. I was there for all of it. I'm still not convinced that the AV system was a good system. Without the level of historical detail in say a WWII tank game, which has real life penetration tables to work off of, it just felt like arbitrary wankery on the part of GW.

Also, getting oneshotted by melta made for a lot of unhappy vehicle users. As well as the notorious land raider getting stuck on a bush problem.

I don't know if there really is a good solution with the small strength range of weapons in the game.


Being oneshotted by Melta is not a AV problem; it happens in this edition (lol, Eradicators). Maybe oneshotted by a single melta, but that was so rare as to be a non-issue. You played just like I did; squads brought 3-4 meltas where possible. You rarely saw a squad with a Meltagun, a combi-flamer, and a missile launcher. So typically it was 3-4 melta (or melta-adjacent like plasma) shots coming in.

The notorious "land raider stuck on a bush" problem isn't notorious at all; it's only a problem for players who either:
1) Are not interested in actually considering the terrain effect on the game ("that bush is area terrain, all area terrain is difficult for vehicles, duh"). I like 9th because it forces the players to actually consider what the terrain does.
or
2) Don't realize that vehicles bogging in terrain makes perfect sense in a wargame and happens all the time. Who knows the capability of that alien bush and the strange mud underneath?


I never played before 8th but everything i hear people complaining about past editions are things that i feel would actually add to the game. Vehicles bogging down, armor values, facings, templates are all things that feel like they should be in the game


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:41:01


Post by: SecondTime


I saw plenty of single meltas ace very expensive vehicles. It wasn't that unlikely. And it basically ended the game if the vehicle was expensive enough.

You may like the rule, but I remember several games that effectively ended because a land raider rolled a 1. It doesn't matter if it makes sense at that point, it makes for a bad experience. Evidently, GW agreed more with me on this because its gone.

9th ed terrain is a good example of terrain with consequences but not THOSE kinds of consequences.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:48:55


Post by: Dysartes


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I understand all that. I was there for all of it. I'm still not convinced that the AV system was a good system. Without the level of historical detail in say a WWII tank game, which has real life penetration tables to work off of, it just felt like arbitrary wankery on the part of GW.

Also, getting oneshotted by melta made for a lot of unhappy vehicle users. As well as the notorious land raider getting stuck on a bush problem.

I don't know if there really is a good solution with the small strength range of weapons in the game.


Being oneshotted by Melta is not a AV problem; it happens in this edition (lol, Eradicators). Maybe oneshotted by a single melta, but that was so rare as to be a non-issue. You played just like I did; squads brought 3-4 meltas where possible. You rarely saw a squad with a Meltagun, a combi-flamer, and a missile launcher. So typically it was 3-4 melta (or melta-adjacent like plasma) shots coming in.

The notorious "land raider stuck on a bush" problem isn't notorious at all; it's only a problem for players who either:
1) Are not interested in actually considering the terrain effect on the game ("that bush is area terrain, all area terrain is difficult for vehicles, duh"). I like 9th because it forces the players to actually consider what the terrain does.
or
2) Don't realize that vehicles bogging in terrain makes perfect sense in a wargame and happens all the time. Who knows the capability of that alien bush and the strange mud underneath?


I never played before 8th but everything i hear people complaining about past editions are things that i feel would actually add to the game. Vehicles bogging down, armor values, facings, templates are all things that feel like they should be in the game


There's a chunk of the playerbase that really doesn't like rules that take control away from them - they tend to start bleating about "muh agency" when they come up.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:49:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I saw plenty of single meltas ace very expensive vehicles. It wasn't that unlikely. And it basically ended the game if the vehicle was expensive enough.

You may like the rule, but I remember several games that effectively ended because a land raider rolled a 1. It doesn't matter if it makes sense at that point, it makes for a bad experience. Evidently, GW agreed more with me on this because its gone.

9th ed terrain is a good example of terrain with consequences but not THOSE kinds of consequences.


I saw plenty of single penetrating hits ace very expensive vehicles, but those penetrating hits came from lots of weapons shooting them. It was actually pretty unlikely that a single weapon would knock out a tank, and grew increasingly unlikely as the tanks grew heavier (and therefore more expensive). A meltagun fired by a Space Marine has a 22% chance to destroy a RHINO in 4th if it's not in melta range. Against a Land Raider, it had a 6% chance. If you did get in melta range, then it's about a 19% chance. So one in five games, a single melta would one-shot a Land Raider, if it maneuvered within 6" (e.g. your opponent screened deepstrikers badly). If you could get within 12" but not within 6", it happens once in 20 games. That's not even once in a tournament for any given player.

And "it makes for a bad experience" is the worst thing I've ever heard for a wargame rule. What do you mean a bad experience? I could see it being bad if you didn't know it was a possibility, but if you just willy-nilly drove through hazardous terrain and then, surprise, it's hazardous, then that's on you, not the game rules. Why is that a "feel bad" moment any more so than any other rule interaction (say, a deep-strike scattering your melta out of range or a reserve roll failing or really any dice roll just not going your way?).



What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:50:57


Post by: Karol


I don't if GW fully got it though, because in 8th being clobbered by -2/-3 to hit flyers that were post cost efficient and had rules synergy, when some armies had no tools to deal with such stuff didn't sound a lot better, then losing the game because a single tank got blow up.

And it is not like it couldn't happen in 8th. if someone took a big unit in a crusader and it got blown up in the deployment zone, because LR were impossible to hide, it was practicaly the same thing.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:52:04


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yeah, personally getting half my army blasted away turn one before i do anything is pretty had to beat in term of "feelbad"


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:58:39


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I saw plenty of single meltas ace very expensive vehicles. It wasn't that unlikely. And it basically ended the game if the vehicle was expensive enough.

You may like the rule, but I remember several games that effectively ended because a land raider rolled a 1. It doesn't matter if it makes sense at that point, it makes for a bad experience. Evidently, GW agreed more with me on this because its gone.

9th ed terrain is a good example of terrain with consequences but not THOSE kinds of consequences.


I saw plenty of single penetrating hits ace very expensive vehicles, but those penetrating hits came from lots of weapons shooting them. It was actually pretty unlikely that a single weapon would knock out a tank, and grew increasingly unlikely as the tanks grew heavier (and therefore more expensive). A meltagun fired by a Space Marine has a 22% chance to destroy a RHINO in 4th if it's not in melta range. Against a Land Raider, it had a 6% chance. If you did get in melta range, then it's about a 19% chance. So one in five games, a single melta would one-shot a Land Raider, if it maneuvered within 6" (e.g. your opponent screened deepstrikers badly). If you could get within 12" but not within 6", it happens once in 20 games. That's not even once in a tournament for any given player.

And "it makes for a bad experience" is the worst thing I've ever heard for a wargame rule. What do you mean a bad experience? I could see it being bad if you didn't know it was a possibility, but if you just willy-nilly drove through hazardous terrain and then, surprise, it's hazardous, then that's on you, not the game rules. Why is that a "feel bad" moment any more so than any other rule interaction (say, a deep-strike scattering your melta out of range or a reserve roll failing or really any dice roll just not going your way?).



I don't know. It just seems to be. I didn't use expensive vehicles though, so I can't tell you. I can only report the rage. Of course, these rules interactions were one of the reasons I never bothered with expensive vehicles. That being said, I don't think AV added that much to the game. Maybe for you it did.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:58:44


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah, personally getting half my army blasted away turn one before i do anything is pretty had to beat in term of "feelbad"


"BuT YoU cAn WiN oN UbJeCtIveS"

Yes, one can, it doesn't mean though that it is fun..

Especially when armies are designed to either
A Only sit on objectives and out durable anything whilest more or less not interacting
B An army entirely relies upon Killing in an non reaction way for the opponent, which is why for a lot of the time Tau castles were among the most hated things in the game.

Hence why greentide index era 8th was attrocious, and personally any army beeing forced into one of these playstyles should not be considered healthy, in a competitve and game design sense.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 14:59:57


Post by: SecondTime


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah, personally getting half my army blasted away turn one before i do anything is pretty had to beat in term of "feelbad"


That's tradition at this point. There were games in 2nd ed I didn't get to move a single model before I was tabled because of pulsa rokkits.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:04:32


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I don't know. It just seems to be. I didn't use expensive vehicles though, so I can't tell you. I can only report the rage. Of course, these rules interactions were one of the reasons I never bothered with expensive vehicles.


So what I'm hearing is you don't actually have evidence from your position except second-hand from people whose reasonableness I would call into question, and you have evidence that the rules had meaningful impact on the choices you made as a player, which were different than the choices I made (I tended to spam heavy vehicles). Wow! That sounds like an awesome rulesset, where do I buy that?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:04:45


Post by: The Newman


Duty Eternal on Dreadnoughts.

40k has had a problem throughout 8th and into 9th where the best guns for killing tanks are the multi-shot flat damage guns that are supposed to be for hunting light vehicles and heavy infantry, because all the dedicated anti-tank guns are really bad at killing tanks. Duty Eternal is just a perfect fix for that problem ... and naturally GW didn't apply it remotely broadly enough. Basically every vehicle and monsterous creature T7+ ought to have that rule.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:06:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The Newman wrote:
Duty Eternal on Dreadnoughts.

40k has had a problem throughout 8th and into 9th where the best guns for killing tanks are the multi-shot flat damage guns that are supposed to be for hunting light vehicles and heavy infantry, because all the dedicated anti-tank guns are really bad at killing tanks. Duty Eternal is just a perfect fix for that problem ... and naturally GW didn't apply it remotely broadly enough. Basically every vehicle and monsterous creature T7+ ought to have that rule.


Ironically enough, this is the same problem they had ever since giving vehicles wounds (or faux-wounds). Autocannons and other middling heavy weapons (scatter lasers, multilasers, Tau missile pods, etc) became better antitank weapons than lascannons and meltaguns. Now it's a slightly different class of heavy weapon (heavy bolters are better than multilasers because damage is now more important than strength) but anti-tank weapons remain the suboptimal choice.

I wonder if there's a correlation there that someone could've seen coming...


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:07:35


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I don't know. It just seems to be. I didn't use expensive vehicles though, so I can't tell you. I can only report the rage. Of course, these rules interactions were one of the reasons I never bothered with expensive vehicles.


So what I'm hearing is you don't actually have evidence from your position except second-hand from people whose reasonableness I would call into question, and you have evidence that the rules had meaningful impact on the choices you made as a player, which were different than the choices I made (I tended to spam heavy vehicles). Wow! That sounds like an awesome rulesset, where do I buy that?


It's not my position. I'm mostly guessing why GW did what they did. I experienced multiple play groups where the land raider was a joke. These rules were one of those reasons. It looks like GW agreed with those play groups more than you. Sorry about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Duty Eternal on Dreadnoughts.

40k has had a problem throughout 8th and into 9th where the best guns for killing tanks are the multi-shot flat damage guns that are supposed to be for hunting light vehicles and heavy infantry, because all the dedicated anti-tank guns are really bad at killing tanks. Duty Eternal is just a perfect fix for that problem ... and naturally GW didn't apply it remotely broadly enough. Basically every vehicle and monsterous creature T7+ ought to have that rule.


Ironically enough, this is the same problem they had ever since giving vehicles wounds (or faux-wounds). Autocannons and other middling heavy weapons (scatter lasers, multilasers, Tau missile pods, etc) became better antitank weapons than lascannons and meltaguns. Now it's a slightly different class of heavy weapon (heavy bolters are better than multilasers because damage is now more important than strength) but anti-tank weapons remain the suboptimal choice.

I wonder if there's a correlation there that someone could've seen coming...


Because single shot weapons have always been fairly to incredibly unreliable in 40K. And expensive to boot. Close range melta was the best of these until 8th of course. And of course, the spectre of invulnerable saves cast a cloud over traditional AT approaches. With invulns, you have to use sandpaper techniques.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:11:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I don't know. It just seems to be. I didn't use expensive vehicles though, so I can't tell you. I can only report the rage. Of course, these rules interactions were one of the reasons I never bothered with expensive vehicles.


So what I'm hearing is you don't actually have evidence from your position except second-hand from people whose reasonableness I would call into question, and you have evidence that the rules had meaningful impact on the choices you made as a player, which were different than the choices I made (I tended to spam heavy vehicles). Wow! That sounds like an awesome rulesset, where do I buy that?


It's not my position. I'm mostly guessing why GW did what they did. I experienced multiple play groups where the land raider was a joke. These rules were one of those reasons. It looks like GW agreed with those play groups more than you. Sorry about that.


In 4th and 5th, the Land Raider wasn't a joke. It was a common sight to see one transporting Terminators around; I myself used two (when I was playing Black Templars; the only marine army I've ever owned!). Especially in 5th, retaining Assault Vehicle and Assault Terminators moving to a 3++, they were quite common. Plus, taking away the AV system and hazardous terrain didn't make the Land Raider less of a joke, so mayhaps that wasn't the problem.

And it's possible for both people and GW to be wrong. You don't have to apologize for GW's decisions - just try to provide evidence for why the AV system was bad. Like, actual evidence, not "I heard that it was bad from my friend's friend and a guy on the internet, and also I never actually tried running heavy vehicles".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote:
Because single shot weapons have always been fairly to incredibly unreliable in 40K. And expensive to boot. Close range melta was the best of these until 8th of course. And of course, the spectre of invulnerable saves cast a cloud over traditional AT approaches. With invulns, you have to use sandpaper techniques.


But I thought there were single-shot weapons ruining games by knocking out expensive vehicles!

Try not to let the cognitive dissonance between "single-shot AT was too effective under the AV system" and "single-shot weapons have never been reliable as anti-tank" give you a headache.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:15:38


Post by: Not Online!!!


half the issues with the AV system was the fact that Deepstrike was a lot less limited.

It was often pitifully easy to drop in a 3 Csm terminator squad with combi meltas and fry 200% of their pts in one go and then have them sit around in the backfield beeing annoying.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:15:40


Post by: SecondTime


I don't think AV was bad. It just didn't add much for me. I always thought the magical vehicle damage table was far more important. I can completely understand why GW did what they did. I personally didn't buy anymore vehicles, but I think the odds went up that the general player base would. But then they made eradicators.

And I think land raiders were a joke in 4th and 5th, primarily due to cost, but also due to all the points of failure. They were common, but also bad in my view. But terminators were bad, too, so that hurt as well.

"Try not to let the cognitive dissonance between "single-shot AT was too effective under the AV system" and "single-shot weapons have never been reliable as anti-tank" give you a headache"

Again, I don't have a skin in this game. For me, single shot has always been unreliable. For many opponents I've talked to, they hated the fact that the possibility existed that their expensive vehicle could be one shotted. I don't think single shot was effective it all, but that risk made people anxious and frequently angry when it happened. And I did see it happen with enough regularity that I never fielded those units. So in this way, I never cared. You can blame the players, but you don't have to try to move those model kits for a living, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
half the issues with the AV system was the fact that Deepstrike was a lot less limited.

It was often pitifully easy to drop in a 3 Csm terminator squad with combi meltas and fry 200% of their pts in one go and then have them sit around in the backfield beeing annoying.


Yeah, that happened a lot, too. It was better than anything loyalist terminators could do, too.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:20:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Well, AV mattered to me. I played a Leman Russ armored company as my "main" army back then, and armor values were very significant for the choices I made on the tabletop, off the tabletop, and from everything to the weapons I equipped my vehicles with to the strategies I employed to affect enemy target priority.

I think GW should've continued to tweak the 3rd and 4th paradigm.

Another 5th edition change that was super annoying that affected vehicle damage was pivoting for free. I could see it for skimmers (would make a good way to have skimmers have a point while dropping the inane Fast Skimmer rules), but generally the idea that a Leman Russ effectively "hovered sideways" (as far as enemy antitank guns were concerned, the thinner side was never exposed when a Russ moved) was a travesty, because armored vehicle mobility should include the consideration of "do I point my weak armor at the enemy to make a sideways dash, or should I be more careful about the positions I take in case that becomes necessary" etc.

Tbf there's a whole slew of stuff that really needed to be improved (even just talking vehicles!) that was not. GW instead has changed the vehicle damage model a bunch of times, and then threw up its hands and said "feth it" and made them behave like a pinata.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:25:35


Post by: SecondTime


Oh, the joy of all targets having the magical vehicle damage table. And all the AP3 blasts. Talk about a bad experience.

I though we were talking land raiders. You were spamming undercosted Russ hulls with cheap AV 14 on the front. That's a very different situation than dragging out one or two land raiders paying through the nose for their AV 14. While I'm pretty sure chimera parking lot got us hull points, lists like Russ battle force probably didn't help either. Not something I'd want to play against, really.

The real enemy in every edition is GW not understanding how units are used and abused and failing to bake those ideas into the costs. AV can come or go, we can have hull points or no hull points, it doesn't really matter as long as they are using a dart board to price units.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:29:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Oh, the joy of all targets having the magical vehicle damage table. And all the AP3 blasts. Talk about a bad experience.

I though we were talking land raiders.


Land Raiders are an example of the wider point, which is that AV isn't inherently a terrible system; what made it terrible was GW failing to write rules correctly.

Removal of AV has not fixed the problem GW faced (vehicles getting one-shotted); in fact, about the only thing it did was make the game more gamey and less realistic. One other accomplishment is that it removed confusion about what arc a model was in in ambiguous edge-cases... something that also could've been solved without wholesale removing the AV system.

Therefore, the change off the AV system was unnecessary and resulted in 40k having a more "board-gamey feel" without actually meaningfully improving much.

From a design perspective, it made things easier, but I don't typically accept laziness as a reason to change a wargame's inherent model of war (at least, if I am paying $50 for said model-of-war instantiated as rules).

EDIT:
Your personal problem with the Leman Russ isn't really my issue, and the fact that none of my opponents had bad experiences is a testament to your tendency to make assumptions without evidence.

Furthermore, if the problem is "Land Raiders were worse than Leman Russes" then the problem is the Land Raider and Leman Russ, not the conceptual damage model the two vehicles share.

EDIT2 as you continue to edit your reply:
You're right, the problem is GW. Not the AV system. So let's bring back something that's a not unreasonable concession to verisimilitude and remove the vehicles-as-wounds-pinatas mechanic, since it doesn't actually solve any problems.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:33:17


Post by: SecondTime


Sure it was unnecessary. But it also didn't make things worse. Just different.

Oof. I hated armor arc debates. The front armor arcs of my opponents just kept getting wider as the game went on. Such a chore.

I'm not talking about your opponents. But I'm pretty sure the table flips and rage arguments count as evidence.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:35:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Sure it was unnecessary. But it also didn't make things worse. Just different.

Oof. I hated armor arc debates. The front armor arcs of my opponents just kept getting wider as the game went on. Such a chore.


Well, it did make things worse.

Verisimilitude is a positive thing to have in a wargame. Less verisimilitude is a worse thing. Adjusting the abstraction to make vehicles into wound-pinatas while still differentiating between a stick, a sword, and a hammer is the wrong kind of abstraction to make, and creates a sensation that the game is "gamey" while disconnecting it from the greater universe it lives in.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:38:11


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yeah, and removing arcs really messes with the benefits of flanking/outmaneuvering


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:39:05


Post by: SecondTime


I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:42:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything.

It would improve verisimilitude, and that's a fact, not an opinion.

Verisimilitude being better is an opinion, true. But saying "verisimilitude isn't better" is a much different claim to saying "bringing back AV won't improve anything". The former is an opinion, the latter is just wrong.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:43:24


Post by: SecondTime


Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:44:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.


Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:44:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:45:24


Post by: SecondTime


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.


Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?


Why would I when there are still people complaining about the loss of AV?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:46:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.


Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?


Why would I when there are still people complaining about the loss of AV?


Maybe you would find allies rather than foes in those people if you cared as much about the verisimilitude for the game's other aspects as you do for the aspects that affect your army. I also think tripointing is a silly and dull mechanic, and I think the same thing about the way Fiends force only a single enemy model to hit them in 9th.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:47:53


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)


Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:48:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)


Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.


Apology accepted; I still haven't seen any real rebuttal as to why we shouldn't bring AV back though.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:54:17


Post by: SecondTime


I already said I don't care. I'm not trying say we shouldn't. I just don't think its the panacea you think it is. There was OP units and trash under AV and we still have OP units and trash under the toughness scheme. I don't think my predators are hitting the table again either way, so it makes no difference to me. I would have thought it would have been easier for GW to cost stuff without having the monster/vehicle paradigm, but they never fail to disappoint with their mathematical acumen.

And AV would bring back the problem of why can I one shot a landraider (regardless of likelihood), but not head shot a carnifex or riptide.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 15:57:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I already said I don't care. I'm not trying say we shouldn't. I just don't think its the panacea you think it is. There was OP units and trash under AV and we still have OP units and trash under the toughness scheme. I don't think my predators are hitting the table again either way, so it makes no difference to me. I would have thought it would have been easier for GW to cost stuff without having the monster/vehicle paradigm, but they never fail to disappoint with their mathematical acumen.


I don't ever think I claimed it would be a panacea for anything. I think that it would improve verisimilitude to bring back, and can be implemented in a way as to avoid arguments.

Therefore, on the "list of things GW has done right" one can include AV by certain criteria and certain scoping conditions (e.g. AV was implemented well but the pivoting mechanics ruined it), and not automatically be wrong, despite your attempts to assert thusly:
SecondTime wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
AV mechanic was good and I think the old Armor saves were too. Which probably means we can’t say it’s something GW does right since they removed them

The glaring disparities between monsters and vehicles was too large. Also, vehicle shaken was too small of a penalty for a penetrations and explodes was too large of a reward.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:01:55


Post by: SecondTime


Sure, I guess. But I could see a lot of people saying that unifying the system was also something they did correctly. Seems like a wash to me.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:03:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Sure, I guess. But I could see a lot of people saying that unifying the system was also something they did correctly. Seems like a wash to me.

You could, but I would have to ask them for their evidence. It's a discussion I'm willing to have whenever I've got the time.

Clearly, it's a discussion you're not willing to engage in (since you're smokescreening your thoughts behind 'well, I can possibly conceive of someone who might actually argue that unifying the system is a correct thing, probably'), but I'm willing regardless.

If it seems like a wash to you, when one side can show clear improvement (the pro-AV side) and the other side cannot (removing AV has not meaningfully improved the game) then perhaps you're not as unbiased as you think.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:07:49


Post by: SecondTime


It's not a smokescreen. I already listed something that should have been an advantage, but wasn't. And yes, it seems like a wash to me. If you just want me to agree with you, I can do that too.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:14:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
It's not a smokescreen. I already listed something that should have been an advantage, but wasn't. And yes, it seems like a wash to me. If you just want me to agree with you, I can do that too.

That's how agitating for change works (or should work). An agitator (me in this case) tries to convince people that their proposed change is correct and good. If you are unconvinced, then the problem could be:
1) There is some flaw in my ideas or point that makes a rational thinker unconvinced
or
2) You cannot be convinced due to bias/an unwillingness to follow the argument to its natural conclusion.
or
3) Another option offers a better or more rational alternative.
or
4) You just don't care.

We can rule out 4, since you jumped into the thread about AV to explain why you think it is bad. Clearly you care.
We can rule out 1, since you haven't found a flaw (or at least not one I haven't addressed) that I can clearly identify and address (part of the process is me improving and changing my own opinions and arguments, I'd like to know if one exists).
We can rule out 3, as no better or more rational alternative has been demonstrated to exist.

So... 2?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:15:13


Post by: Karak Norn Clansman


Mission cards.

Spoiler:
Excellent, exemplary worldbuilding, above and beyond the call of duty. So much better than most settings out there by far.

Great art styles.

Really nice miniatures.

Past fantastic White Dwarf (I am not familiar with its present state, but it went sharply downhill with the infamous Giant issue).

Immersive hobby.

Producing creative works that have been a great inspiration.

There are lots to praise.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:18:57


Post by: SecondTime


I don't think AV is bad. Sure, bring it back. I just know for a fact that many other players do think it was bad. I don't have their evidence, and they don't need evidence to hold that opinion for better or for worse. People aren't always rational. You might think they have bad reasons, but that doesn't change their purchasing decisions.

As for the #3, I still think the unified system could have brought about easier costing. Just because it didn't, doesn't mean it didn't lower the bar.

I think the damage table was worse than AV myself.

Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:27:02


Post by: Tokhuah


Simple question with a simple answer:

Good: Quality of Models
Bad: Game Design
Ugly: Pricing


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:28:13


Post by: SecondTime


 Tokhuah wrote:
Simple question with a simple answer:

Good: Quality of Models
Bad: Game Design
Ugly: Pricing


Exalted.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:30:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.


I think the primary motivation was to make the game design easier; i.e. laziness (or a recognition of incompetence). I think the other reason might be that they've lost the plot a bit on how the narrative/setting informs the game design, and so such changes have no drawbacks. (If one no longer cares about how "true to the setting" the game is, then restricting oneself to try to be true to the setting is obviously silly).

I'm not sure GW gives one flying feth about negative feedback from 3rd-5th editions. They may have cared about negative feedback from 7th, but the way to fix that could've (and should've) been to carefully examine the flaws behind the feedback and then iteratively improve, rather than throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and then find a new baby to put in the filthy water.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:35:35


Post by: Tycho


You're right, the problem is GW. Not the AV system. So let's bring back something that's a not unreasonable concession to verisimilitude and remove the vehicles-as-wounds-pinatas mechanic, since it doesn't actually solve any problems.


Have to agree that, at least for me, the issue wasn't with AV itself, but rather with some of the rules surrounding AV. I think that if you fixed the damage table so that you weren't stun-locking vehicles for entire games (because that was the most fun-killing mechanic ever), and brought back vehicle firing arcs, you could make a real case for using AV. Would go a long way towards fixing some of the issues we currently have with some heavy weapons being replaced by mass-plasma guns, etc. and bring back the need for legitimate anti-tank. It could force some interesting decision making in list building imo.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:36:17


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.


I think the primary motivation was to make the game design easier; i.e. laziness (or a recognition of incompetence).

I'm not sure GW gives one flying feth about negative feedback from 3rd-5th editions. They may have cared about negative feedback from 7th, but the way to fix that could've (and should've) been to carefully examine the flaws behind the feedback and then iteratively improve, rather than throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and then find a new baby to put in the filthy water.


Making game design easier might be worth the trade off. Might. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it the final word. I can see the argument that no matter how simple they make it we still get stuff like eradicators, though. Given their sales numbers, something must have gone right I guess.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:48:59


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Making game design easier might be worth the trade off. Might. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it the final word. I can see the argument that no matter how simple they make it we still get stuff like eradicators, though. Given their sales numbers, something must have gone right I guess.

I would have to ask for evidence that making game design easier actually created any improvements in the game design. I can point to increased verisimilitude as a measurable improvement WITH AV, so someone would have to demonstrate an equally-measurable improvement without it.

Sales numbers aren't really that, as "whether or not a game has armor values on its tanks" is so far removed from why or why not it might sell well that even bringing it up strikes me as reaching.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:51:39


Post by: SecondTime


Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right". It was a different way for them to screw things up.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:56:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".


Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...

actually, that could be argued as a thing they did right, or at least tried to. Throughout 8th, changes that showed up in FAQs and Chapter Approved seemed to be attempts to address ongoing problems in the game, so that's neat.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:57:16


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".


Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...


I don't think that's how GW works at all. Only CA appears to be iterative.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:58:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".


Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...


I don't think that's how GW works at all. Only CA appears to be iterative.


I agree they didn't used to do deliberate iteration. I think they tried to in 8th, and for 9th it remains to be seen but I expect the trend to continue.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 16:59:49


Post by: SecondTime


They haven't issued errata for eradicators yet. I'm very skeptical. The marine boner is too strong now, I think.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:06:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
They haven't issued errata for eradicators yet. I'm very skeptical. The marine boner is too strong now, I think.


It's hard to say for sure. I think one of the greatest challenges in an iterative process is to avoid changing things TOO much, because then you don't get much examination of the problem.
GW's mistake with Eradicators might be that Eradicators are super overpowered and should be nerfed, or it might be a consequence of a much graver error on GW's part: not releasing the codexes all at once.

Eradicators in their current state might be fine in some conceivable future of 9th - but tweak a few variables of that future universe and suddenly they remain horrendously overpowered, or get even more oppressive. If GW's intent is that "Eradicators will be fine when we see the whole design paradigm of 9th", then their flaw is to place Eradicators designed for that paradigm into the box with all the 8th edition kiddies, rather than the Eradicators themselves requiring nerfing in the long run.

If this is indeed the case, the fixes are to:
1) Release all the 9th edition material at once, so some armies aren't forced to play with legacy rules against the new design paradigm
or
2) Release 9th Edition codexes with certain design paradigm features turned off if playing against an 8th edition book. (this one is so difficult to execute that I would recommend the 1st if someone asked me which without even mentioning the second).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:10:52


Post by: SecondTime


I think they tested them at their current price, noticed that melta was awful as a single shot weapon in 8th/9th, tacked on the extra shot and called it done.

Just like they remade the Wraithknight a while ago and then just didn't change points in response. Rumor has it that marketing told them not to, but that was under Kirby.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:12:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I think they tested them at their current price, noticed that melta was awful as a single shot weapon in 8th/9th, tacked on the extra shot and called it done.

Just like they remade the Wraithknight a while ago and then just didn't change points in response. Rumor has it that marketing told them not to, but that was under Kirby.


Well, any design process that makes willy-nilly changes without further considering the impact (or while being told to ignore it, whatever the case) will always suffer whether or not it has AV, and whether or not it is iterative. If GW does not realize this, then we should continue to agitate for change (if we care) or just stop worrying about it and go find something fine to do (if we don't).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:16:55


Post by: SecondTime


I only say this for eradicators because a gravis model with a melta weapon would have probably come in at about 40 pts in early 8th by their design paradigm.

There is nothing iterative about marines 8.5. They added so much stuff all at once, they couldn't possibly have known the effects They didn't care. Likely primaris weren't selling (because they were garbage) as they wished, so turn it up to 11.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:25:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tycho wrote:
You're right, the problem is GW. Not the AV system. So let's bring back something that's a not unreasonable concession to verisimilitude and remove the vehicles-as-wounds-pinatas mechanic, since it doesn't actually solve any problems.


Have to agree that, at least for me, the issue wasn't with AV itself, but rather with some of the rules surrounding AV. I think that if you fixed the damage table so that you weren't stun-locking vehicles for entire games (because that was the most fun-killing mechanic ever), and brought back vehicle firing arcs, you could make a real case for using AV. Would go a long way towards fixing some of the issues we currently have with some heavy weapons being replaced by mass-plasma guns, etc. and bring back the need for legitimate anti-tank. It could force some interesting decision making in list building imo.

Plasma Guns were still better overall than Lascannons simply because when you could get them enmasse it would be on a Deep Strike unit. I legit stopped running Combi-Melta on my CSM Termicide units and switched to Combi-Plasma because of the extra range giving flexibility and mass shots doing enough.

Of course Loyalists didn't have that issue because Grav but there ya go. In fact, the only army that really had issues with AV would be Imperial Guard by themselves, along with Grey Knights if only looking towards range combat. Deathwatch being called an army is a bit farfetched. For evil dudes, yeah CSM really only had that saving grace of cheap suicide Plasma/Melta and cheap Autocannons to glance to death.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:47:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)


Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.


Apology accepted; I still haven't seen any real rebuttal as to why we shouldn't bring AV back though.


I'm assuming that you're advocating for bringing back the whole AV 'system' rather than just the idea that it should be called armor value and you should roll a die add your strength and try to get higher than a fixed value.

If so, here's why I would say that, despite the possibility of increased versimilitude, I'm not a huge fan of av as it was implemented in previous editions.

1) I like the way Light Vehicles interact with current SvsT than I do the way they interacted with AV. A T5 vehicle in current system is naturally less efficient to shoot at with a S8 or S9 weapon than a standard vehicle, because you lose points efficiency by exceeding but not doubling the toughness value of the vehicle. This introduces a 'middle category' of light vehicles and tough infantry that are both most efficent to shoot at with mid-strength weaponry that was useless with the "AV no HP" system of 5th and overpowered with "AV with HP" systems.

2) I disliked the way that all vehicles sharing a universal damage table meant that heavy vehicles seemed much much much much too easy to knock out with a single shot.

3) a game that tries to support a range of models as large as titans to as small as gretchins actually does benefit pretty significantly from a system that allows everything, however inefficiently, to interact with everything else.

I have implemented light, simple systems to reintroduce elements of previous editions I miss (I created a very simple add-on system for 8th that reintroduced turning, rear arc damage, and tank shock to the game for a Mad Max scenario) and heavy overhauls bringing things back to even before 5th ed style to 2nd ed style bespoke vehicle damage tables, and mostly I've found that the theoretical fun of all that wild randomness rarely lives up to what you want it to be on the tabletop.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 17:51:28


Post by: SecondTime


I don't know what he means, but a different table for heavier vehicles would have been nice.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 18:01:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
I'm assuming that you're advocating for bringing back the whole AV 'system' rather than just the idea that it should be called armor value and you should roll a die add your strength and try to get higher than a fixed value.

If so, here's why I would say that, despite the possibility of increased versimilitude, I'm not a huge fan of av as it was implemented in previous editions.

1) I like the way Light Vehicles interact with current SvsT than I do the way they interacted with AV. A T5 vehicle in current system is naturally less efficient to shoot at with a S8 or S9 weapon than a standard vehicle, because you lose points efficiency by exceeding but not doubling the toughness value of the vehicle. This introduces a 'middle category' of light vehicles and tough infantry that are both most efficent to shoot at with mid-strength weaponry that was useless with the "AV no HP" system of 5th and overpowered with "AV with HP" systems.

2) I disliked the way that all vehicles sharing a universal damage table meant that heavy vehicles seemed much much much much too easy to knock out with a single shot.

3) a game that tries to support a range of models as large as titans to as small as gretchins actually does benefit pretty significantly from a system that allows everything, however inefficiently, to interact with everything else.

I have implemented light, simple systems to reintroduce elements of previous editions I miss (I created a very simple add-on system for 8th that reintroduced turning, rear arc damage, and tank shock to the game for a Mad Max scenario) and heavy overhauls bringing things back to even before 5th ed style to 2nd ed style bespoke vehicle damage tables, and mostly I've found that the theoretical fun of all that wild randomness rarely lives up to what you want it to be on the tabletop.


Good post, and I'll outline my thoughts here. For starters, I generally mean a modified version of what GW already had; what GW did have was flawed in many of the ways I outlined in my "history of" post. With that out of the way, I'll get to your points:
1) Why is such a "middle category" of vehicles necessary? I also would argue they are not useless. Things like hellounds and chimerae and Land Speeders had roles in 4th and 5th. I'm not sure what vehicle you're talking about, but I generally need more detail on what you mean and why this is a good thing. I don't see any real reason a Lascannon should be less efficient against a Rhino than against a Land Raider (except that it's killing a cheaper target of course).

2) This is why I advocated for 4th edition rather than 5th - the unified damage table of 5th is also a problem I have. I'd do a 4th-style damage resolution table at worst, and probably could see vehicle damage tables even being a datasheet thing (though no doubt that's too complicated!)

3) Why? There are systems that support fewer things at a consistent scale but still have units with no ability to interact with each other (e.g. American Rifle Platoon with MMGs and HMGs vs a Tiger tank platoon in Flames of War). Why is "everything can interact with everything" a good thing, and furthermore why must interact be translated into "can hurt"?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 19:11:27


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
I don't if GW fully got it though, because in 8th being clobbered by -2/-3 to hit flyers that were post cost efficient and had rules synergy, when some armies had no tools to deal with such stuff didn't sound a lot better, then losing the game because a single tank got blow up.


Flyers (as opposed to skimmers) should never have been added to the 40k ruleset.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 19:23:41


Post by: SecondTime


Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't if GW fully got it though, because in 8th being clobbered by -2/-3 to hit flyers that were post cost efficient and had rules synergy, when some armies had no tools to deal with such stuff didn't sound a lot better, then losing the game because a single tank got blow up.


Flyers (as opposed to skimmers) should never have been added to the 40k ruleset.


You can blame the stormraven.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 20:25:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


Flyers should've gottn common sense rules, f.e. only after x ammount of pts is reached, but the same applies to a lot of LoW.

Meanwhile GW decides it's also a good idea to make boards smaller.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/16 20:30:28


Post by: AnomanderRake


SecondTime wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't if GW fully got it though, because in 8th being clobbered by -2/-3 to hit flyers that were post cost efficient and had rules synergy, when some armies had no tools to deal with such stuff didn't sound a lot better, then losing the game because a single tank got blow up.


Flyers (as opposed to skimmers) should never have been added to the 40k ruleset.


You can blame the stormraven.


I mean, if we're talking about all the aircraft that snuck into the 5e rules as Fast Skimmers you could blame the Stormraven, Valkyrie, Razorwing, and Night Scythe/Doom Scythe (probably forgetting a few there).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 15:51:36


Post by: SecondTime


 AnomanderRake wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't if GW fully got it though, because in 8th being clobbered by -2/-3 to hit flyers that were post cost efficient and had rules synergy, when some armies had no tools to deal with such stuff didn't sound a lot better, then losing the game because a single tank got blow up.


Flyers (as opposed to skimmers) should never have been added to the 40k ruleset.


You can blame the stormraven.


I mean, if we're talking about all the aircraft that snuck into the 5e rules as Fast Skimmers you could blame the Stormraven, Valkyrie, Razorwing, and Night Scythe/Doom Scythe (probably forgetting a few there).


That's true, I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?


Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)


Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.


Apology accepted; I still haven't seen any real rebuttal as to why we shouldn't bring AV back though.


I'm assuming that you're advocating for bringing back the whole AV 'system' rather than just the idea that it should be called armor value and you should roll a die add your strength and try to get higher than a fixed value.

If so, here's why I would say that, despite the possibility of increased versimilitude, I'm not a huge fan of av as it was implemented in previous editions.

1) I like the way Light Vehicles interact with current SvsT than I do the way they interacted with AV. A T5 vehicle in current system is naturally less efficient to shoot at with a S8 or S9 weapon than a standard vehicle, because you lose points efficiency by exceeding but not doubling the toughness value of the vehicle. This introduces a 'middle category' of light vehicles and tough infantry that are both most efficent to shoot at with mid-strength weaponry that was useless with the "AV no HP" system of 5th and overpowered with "AV with HP" systems.

2) I disliked the way that all vehicles sharing a universal damage table meant that heavy vehicles seemed much much much much too easy to knock out with a single shot.

3) a game that tries to support a range of models as large as titans to as small as gretchins actually does benefit pretty significantly from a system that allows everything, however inefficiently, to interact with everything else.

I have implemented light, simple systems to reintroduce elements of previous editions I miss (I created a very simple add-on system for 8th that reintroduced turning, rear arc damage, and tank shock to the game for a Mad Max scenario) and heavy overhauls bringing things back to even before 5th ed style to 2nd ed style bespoke vehicle damage tables, and mostly I've found that the theoretical fun of all that wild randomness rarely lives up to what you want it to be on the tabletop.


I more or less agree with this take. I admittedly didn't put this much effort into the topic.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:00:02


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm assuming that you're advocating for bringing back the whole AV 'system' rather than just the idea that it should be called armor value and you should roll a die add your strength and try to get higher than a fixed value.

If so, here's why I would say that, despite the possibility of increased versimilitude, I'm not a huge fan of av as it was implemented in previous editions.

1) I like the way Light Vehicles interact with current SvsT than I do the way they interacted with AV. A T5 vehicle in current system is naturally less efficient to shoot at with a S8 or S9 weapon than a standard vehicle, because you lose points efficiency by exceeding but not doubling the toughness value of the vehicle. This introduces a 'middle category' of light vehicles and tough infantry that are both most efficent to shoot at with mid-strength weaponry that was useless with the "AV no HP" system of 5th and overpowered with "AV with HP" systems.

2) I disliked the way that all vehicles sharing a universal damage table meant that heavy vehicles seemed much much much much too easy to knock out with a single shot.

3) a game that tries to support a range of models as large as titans to as small as gretchins actually does benefit pretty significantly from a system that allows everything, however inefficiently, to interact with everything else.

I have implemented light, simple systems to reintroduce elements of previous editions I miss (I created a very simple add-on system for 8th that reintroduced turning, rear arc damage, and tank shock to the game for a Mad Max scenario) and heavy overhauls bringing things back to even before 5th ed style to 2nd ed style bespoke vehicle damage tables, and mostly I've found that the theoretical fun of all that wild randomness rarely lives up to what you want it to be on the tabletop.


Good post, and I'll outline my thoughts here. For starters, I generally mean a modified version of what GW already had; what GW did have was flawed in many of the ways I outlined in my "history of" post. With that out of the way, I'll get to your points:
1) Why is such a "middle category" of vehicles necessary? I also would argue they are not useless. Things like hellounds and chimerae and Land Speeders had roles in 4th and 5th. I'm not sure what vehicle you're talking about, but I generally need more detail on what you mean and why this is a good thing. I don't see any real reason a Lascannon should be less efficient against a Rhino than against a Land Raider (except that it's killing a cheaper target of course).

2) This is why I advocated for 4th edition rather than 5th - the unified damage table of 5th is also a problem I have. I'd do a 4th-style damage resolution table at worst, and probably could see vehicle damage tables even being a datasheet thing (though no doubt that's too complicated!)

3) Why? There are systems that support fewer things at a consistent scale but still have units with no ability to interact with each other (e.g. American Rifle Platoon with MMGs and HMGs vs a Tiger tank platoon in Flames of War). Why is "everything can interact with everything" a good thing, and furthermore why must interact be translated into "can hurt"?


1) because frankly 40k is not a particularly deep game, and it is kept artificially shallow by a system where all infantry is W1, all weapons deal 1 damage, and lighter vehicles simply being less durable against all antitank weaponry than heavier vehicles. In my eyes, an ideal system would account for durability based on armor, durability based on speed/maneuverability, durability based on magic/energy fields and durability based on mass/momentum. The AV system essentially only allows for armor and magic/energy fields if you tack invulnerable saves on top of the penetration roll. Because 40k is shallow enough that to-hit modifiers are problematic (reducing the effectiveness of some factions' shooting too much such that GW capped it at +1/-1) I find the current shorthand of having light vehicles occupy that zone of T5-T6 where S8 and S9 lose mathematical efficiency vs S6-S7 is an elegant inbuilt system that does not require layering an additional special rule on top to represent "speed based durability."

If you had me design an 'ideal' system...sure, it would probably involve something that would bear some resemblance to the old av system in one of its steps. But if I'm comparing the AV system AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED to the S v T system AS IT IS IMPLEMENTED I prefer the latter. I am frankly not all that interested in comparing the current S vs T system to some theoretical, perfect, versimilliriffic modified AV system that exists in your mind.

2) i'll admit to having very little experience actually playing 4th (I think I played like 4 games before 5th dropped) but my quick reference sheet does seem to have unified VDTs. It just has a different table for glancing and penetrating hits instead of a single table and a -2 to the table if you scored a glance. Personally I don't see how having VDTs be part of the vehicle datasheet is any more complex than, say, figuring out how many special rules your average marine unit has to keep track of in 9th ed, but I guess that's just me.

3) because as much as I know you historically have railed against this fact, a game in which one player cannot hurt the other player's models and remove them from the board and the other player can just is not fun for the player whose stuff is getting killed, even if they are declared 'the winner' at the end of every single game without fail. Maybe it's a common thing in Flames of War for people to be perfectly A-OK playing against armies entirely made up of tiger tanks they can't hurt, but in the years since they came out I have yet to meet a dedicated only-knights player out of the scores of 40k players I've seen come through where I play, and I have yet to hear about one in any context other than people complaining about them. Maybe they exist somewhere out there in the ether, but I personally have never seen it.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:17:26


Post by: SecondTime


Having a hit table for each vehicle in 2nd was fine. What was NOT fine was how frequently every passenger in a transport was instantly killed, thereby making those transports useless.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:18:04


Post by: SecondTime


the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm assuming that you're advocating for bringing back the whole AV 'system' rather than just the idea that it should be called armor value and you should roll a die add your strength and try to get higher than a fixed value.

If so, here's why I would say that, despite the possibility of increased versimilitude, I'm not a huge fan of av as it was implemented in previous editions.

1) I like the way Light Vehicles interact with current SvsT than I do the way they interacted with AV. A T5 vehicle in current system is naturally less efficient to shoot at with a S8 or S9 weapon than a standard vehicle, because you lose points efficiency by exceeding but not doubling the toughness value of the vehicle. This introduces a 'middle category' of light vehicles and tough infantry that are both most efficent to shoot at with mid-strength weaponry that was useless with the "AV no HP" system of 5th and overpowered with "AV with HP" systems.

2) I disliked the way that all vehicles sharing a universal damage table meant that heavy vehicles seemed much much much much too easy to knock out with a single shot.

3) a game that tries to support a range of models as large as titans to as small as gretchins actually does benefit pretty significantly from a system that allows everything, however inefficiently, to interact with everything else.

I have implemented light, simple systems to reintroduce elements of previous editions I miss (I created a very simple add-on system for 8th that reintroduced turning, rear arc damage, and tank shock to the game for a Mad Max scenario) and heavy overhauls bringing things back to even before 5th ed style to 2nd ed style bespoke vehicle damage tables, and mostly I've found that the theoretical fun of all that wild randomness rarely lives up to what you want it to be on the tabletop.


Good post, and I'll outline my thoughts here. For starters, I generally mean a modified version of what GW already had; what GW did have was flawed in many of the ways I outlined in my "history of" post. With that out of the way, I'll get to your points:
1) Why is such a "middle category" of vehicles necessary? I also would argue they are not useless. Things like hellounds and chimerae and Land Speeders had roles in 4th and 5th. I'm not sure what vehicle you're talking about, but I generally need more detail on what you mean and why this is a good thing. I don't see any real reason a Lascannon should be less efficient against a Rhino than against a Land Raider (except that it's killing a cheaper target of course).

2) This is why I advocated for 4th edition rather than 5th - the unified damage table of 5th is also a problem I have. I'd do a 4th-style damage resolution table at worst, and probably could see vehicle damage tables even being a datasheet thing (though no doubt that's too complicated!)

3) Why? There are systems that support fewer things at a consistent scale but still have units with no ability to interact with each other (e.g. American Rifle Platoon with MMGs and HMGs vs a Tiger tank platoon in Flames of War). Why is "everything can interact with everything" a good thing, and furthermore why must interact be translated into "can hurt"?


1) because frankly 40k is not a particularly deep game, and it is kept artificially shallow by a system where all infantry is W1, all weapons deal 1 damage, and lighter vehicles simply being less durable against all antitank weaponry than heavier vehicles. In my eyes, an ideal system would account for durability based on armor, durability based on speed/maneuverability, durability based on magic/energy fields and durability based on mass/momentum. The AV system essentially only allows for armor and magic/energy fields if you tack invulnerable saves on top of the penetration roll. Because 40k is shallow enough that to-hit modifiers are problematic (reducing the effectiveness of some factions' shooting too much such that GW capped it at +1/-1) I find the current shorthand of having light vehicles occupy that zone of T5-T6 where S8 and S9 lose mathematical efficiency vs S6-S7 is an elegant inbuilt system that does not require layering an additional special rule on top to represent "speed based durability."

If you had me design an 'ideal' system...sure, it would probably involve something that would bear some resemblance to the old av system in one of its steps. But if I'm comparing the AV system AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED to the S v T system AS IT IS IMPLEMENTED I prefer the latter. I am frankly not all that interested in comparing the current S vs T system to some theoretical, perfect, versimilliriffic modified AV system that exists in your mind.

2) i'll admit to having very little experience actually playing 4th (I think I played like 4 games before 5th dropped) but my quick reference sheet does seem to have unified VDTs. It just has a different table for glancing and penetrating hits instead of a single table and a -2 to the table if you scored a glance. Personally I don't see how having VDTs be part of the vehicle datasheet is any more complex than, say, figuring out how many special rules your average marine unit has to keep track of in 9th ed, but I guess that's just me.

3) because as much as I know you historically have railed against this fact, a game in which one player cannot hurt the other player's models and remove them from the board and the other player can just is not fun for the player whose stuff is getting killed, even if they are declared 'the winner' at the end of every single game without fail. Maybe it's a common thing in Flames of War for people to be perfectly A-OK playing against armies entirely made up of tiger tanks they can't hurt, but in the years since they came out I have yet to meet a dedicated only-knights player out of the scores of 40k players I've seen come through where I play, and I have yet to hear about one in any context other than people complaining about them. Maybe they exist somewhere out there in the ether, but I personally have never seen it.


Look at all the things I guess I should have said.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:27:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
1) because frankly 40k is not a particularly deep game, and it is kept artificially shallow by a system where all infantry is W1, all weapons deal 1 damage, and lighter vehicles simply being less durable against all antitank weaponry than heavier vehicles. In my eyes, an ideal system would account for durability based on armor, durability based on speed/maneuverability, durability based on magic/energy fields and durability based on mass/momentum. The AV system essentially only allows for armor and magic/energy fields if you tack invulnerable saves on top of the penetration roll. Because 40k is shallow enough that to-hit modifiers are problematic (reducing the effectiveness of some factions' shooting too much such that GW capped it at +1/-1) I find the current shorthand of having light vehicles occupy that zone of T5-T6 where S8 and S9 lose mathematical efficiency vs S6-S7 is an elegant inbuilt system that does not require layering an additional special rule on top to represent "speed based durability."


"Speed-based durability" is meaningless, because it's so fuzzy. If you mean speed as in "being slightly faster" then there's no durability advantage - e.g. if you doubled the speed of a Sherman tank, it doesn't become more durable. It becomes operationally more useful, but it isn't going to throw off the enemy's aim or anything. Remember, a Land Speeder is only twice as fast as a Leman Russ.

If you mean Evasion, then that should be it's own stat, and should apply to every model in the game (and essentially turn To-Hit into a contested roll like To-Wound is).

the_scotsman wrote:
If you had me design an 'ideal' system...sure, it would probably involve something that would bear some resemblance to the old av system in one of its steps. But if I'm comparing the AV system AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED to the S v T system AS IT IS IMPLEMENTED I prefer the latter. I am frankly not all that interested in comparing the current S vs T system to some theoretical, perfect, versimilliriffic modified AV system that exists in your mind.

It's a bit unfair to ask me to defend a system I know for a fact is flawed and needs improvement, don't you think? Especially when we are agitating for future change in the rules and the change is more detailed than "go back to fourth" even if I sometimes sum it up that way for brevity.

the_scotsman wrote:
2) i'll admit to having very little experience actually playing 4th (I think I played like 4 games before 5th dropped) but my quick reference sheet does seem to have unified VDTs. It just has a different table for glancing and penetrating hits instead of a single table and a -2 to the table if you scored a glance. Personally I don't see how having VDTs be part of the vehicle datasheet is any more complex than, say, figuring out how many special rules your average marine unit has to keep track of in 9th ed, but I guess that's just me.

That's an incomplete QRS if it misses the Ordnance Penetrating Hits table. I agree; I'd rather have datasheet-based VDTs. But people would no doubt complain at me.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) because as much as I know you historically have railed against this fact, a game in which one player cannot hurt the other player's models and remove them from the board and the other player can just is not fun for the player whose stuff is getting killed, even if they are declared 'the winner' at the end of every single game without fail. Maybe it's a common thing in Flames of War for people to be perfectly A-OK playing against armies entirely made up of tiger tanks they can't hurt, but in the years since they came out I have yet to meet a dedicated only-knights player out of the scores of 40k players I've seen come through where I play, and I have yet to hear about one in any context other than people complaining about them. Maybe they exist somewhere out there in the ether, but I personally have never seen it.


In a world war two game (as in the example I used) the problem would be on the player who doesn't bring any anti-tank weapons to kill the Tigers, not on the player who brought Tiger tanks. The Ork player (in your example of Grots vs Warlord Titan) should not be able to use Grots to kill the Titan; instead he should bring something for killing Titans. Making "everything hurt everything" just makes the greatest capability weapon in every category the best weapon - instead of dedicated weapon roles, you end up with Imperial Fists armies using Onlsaught Gatling Cannons to equal effectiveness against Knight armies as against Tyranid hordes. GW actually had to patch this out of the game with a spot-weld it got so bad. But fixing the symptom didn't fix the core rule issue, which is the idea that a Nurgling should be able to meaningfully impede a Titan.

Plus, even your vaunted tenet of "everything should hurt everything" doesn't come through. How does a Daemonette squad hurt a Thunderbolt fighter? Oh, they can't. Yet it's okay, in modern 40k, just only for aircraft and not for tanks


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:35:14


Post by: SecondTime


I still think "everything hurting everything" is a trap for the uninitiated. It just makes target selection harder for players who can't do math on the fly quickly. Sure, my lasguns can wound T6 on a 6, but I'm probably hurting my overall chances by rolling dice that are likely meaningless and burning up my chess clock time.

The annoyance is that AT gun don't act like AT guns. But invulnerable saves already ruined that for me, so taking away AV seems a lot less impactful.

Furthermore, we still had scatterlasers glancing down IKs on the side in 7th without a single penetrating hit. So while everything couldn't hurt everything, we certainly had unintended consequences because of the limited number of AVs in the game, the limited number of S profiles, and the variance on a D6.

The phenomenon of sandpapering vehicles is hardly new in 40K.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:39:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
I still think "everything hurting everything" is a trap for the uninitiated. It just makes target selection harder for players who can't do math on the fly quickly. Sure, my lasguns can wound T6 on a 6, but I'm probably hurting my overall chances by rolling dice that are likely meaningless and burning up my chess clock time.

The annoyance is that AT gun don't act like AT guns. But invulnerable saves already ruined that for me, so taking away AV seems a lot less impactful.

Furthermore, we still had scatterlasers glancing down IKs on the side in 7th without a single penetrating hit. So while everything couldn't hurt everything, we certainly had unintended consequences because of the limited number of AVs in the game, the limited number of S profiles, and the variance on a D6.

The phenomenon of sandpapering vehicles is hardly new in 40K.


Right, but you wouldn't see scatterlasers glancing down IKs in 4th. Because hullpoints didn't exist. Scatterlasers simply couldn't kill them. You could cripple them, tearing off weapons and stuff, but IIRC you couldn't inflict actual structure point damage to superheavies with glancing hits until Hull Points came around and replaced Structure Points. (OTOH a penetrating hit could chain-react and still one-shot the vehicle, which was always super memorable when it happened!).

EDIT:
I lied, you totally could! You'd have to roll a 6 to glance, and then another 6, so any given shot has about a 1.8% chance of doing a structure point of damage.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:43:32


Post by: SecondTime


That's true, but I suspect the 10 fold stunned Chimera spelled the death knell of the 4th/5th vehicle system. People were REALLY sick of it by the end of 5th. I can testify to that; at least the people I knew. It's going to be hard to get away from RoF as an AT method as long as invulns are around. Dreads and wave serpents are a start, but they are just super outnumbered by invulns atm. And that's a problem independent of AV. I guess I see invulns as a bigger mathematical problem than AV vs Toughness.

Regardless, having dozens of shots that removed hull points on 6 were far more effective.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:49:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
That's true, but I suspect the 10 fold stunned Chimera spelled the death knell of the 4th/5th vehicle system. People were REALLY sick of it by the end of 5th. I can testify to that; at least the people I knew. It's going to be hard to get away from RoF as an AT method as long as invulns are around. Dreads and wave serpents are a start, but they are just super outnumbered by invulns atm. And that's a problem independent of AV.


Hence why I suggested several solutions to that problem upthread - do away with Hull Points, but don't allow permastunning either. An example is the suggestion to make the crew take a leadership test every time the hull is damaged (pen or glance). They suffer some debuff to the test based on the number of previous penetrating or glancing hits, to represent them losing faith in the armor of their vehicle as it continues to fail to protect them. Perhaps -2 per pen, and -1 per glance? Or even -1 for every pen and -1 for every 2 glances? Who knows, I'm thinking on the fly. This would permit the realistic situation where the crew abandons their vehicle even when it hasn't lost critical systems, and could go a long way to balancing the Leman Russ and the Predator, just as examples. The Russ would be more likely to bail out, due to the Guardsmen's terrible leadership, while the Predator crew is less likely to regard superficial damage as seriously. However, the predator's thinner armor on the main would cause it to take more damage than the Russ overall, and would make it more likely for a catastrophic systems failure to destroy the tank rather than the nerve of the crew failing and resulting in an abandoned but largely functional vehicle.

It'd serve as a mechanism to capture troop quality as well as technological or hardware quality.

And Invulns are a separate problem; the way they work in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I was to change Invulns it would be for both infantry and tanks and all the other things too.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:54:46


Post by: SecondTime


Invulns need types at a minimum. Big huge forcefields on IKs should be extra wounds, not "your mega blast does absolutely nothing because D6 says so". All that means is I'm not ever bringing that kind of weapon because D6 can say it does nothing even though I hit and wounded. I should be able to reliably burn through that kind of force field and not have to pray to the dice gods. See: Protoss plasma shields.

Smaller models should have dodges, which are rolled, but also ignored by huge blasts.

Come to think of it, Starcraft uses a model where anything can hurt anything (assuming it can target it) and there is still plenty of counter play necessary. Good luck downing several battlecruisers with just marines.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:56:00


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoiler:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
1) because frankly 40k is not a particularly deep game, and it is kept artificially shallow by a system where all infantry is W1, all weapons deal 1 damage, and lighter vehicles simply being less durable against all antitank weaponry than heavier vehicles. In my eyes, an ideal system would account for durability based on armor, durability based on speed/maneuverability, durability based on magic/energy fields and durability based on mass/momentum. The AV system essentially only allows for armor and magic/energy fields if you tack invulnerable saves on top of the penetration roll. Because 40k is shallow enough that to-hit modifiers are problematic (reducing the effectiveness of some factions' shooting too much such that GW capped it at +1/-1) I find the current shorthand of having light vehicles occupy that zone of T5-T6 where S8 and S9 lose mathematical efficiency vs S6-S7 is an elegant inbuilt system that does not require layering an additional special rule on top to represent "speed based durability."


"Speed-based durability" is meaningless, because it's so fuzzy. If you mean speed as in "being slightly faster" then there's no durability advantage - e.g. if you doubled the speed of a Sherman tank, it doesn't become more durable. It becomes operationally more useful, but it isn't going to throw off the enemy's aim or anything. Remember, a Land Speeder is only twice as fast as a Leman Russ.

If you mean Evasion, then that should be it's own stat, and should apply to every model in the game (and essentially turn To-Hit into a contested roll like To-Wound is).

the_scotsman wrote:
If you had me design an 'ideal' system...sure, it would probably involve something that would bear some resemblance to the old av system in one of its steps. But if I'm comparing the AV system AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED to the S v T system AS IT IS IMPLEMENTED I prefer the latter. I am frankly not all that interested in comparing the current S vs T system to some theoretical, perfect, versimilliriffic modified AV system that exists in your mind.

It's a bit unfair to ask me to defend a system I know for a fact is flawed and needs improvement, don't you think? Especially when we are agitating for future change in the rules and the change is more detailed than "go back to fourth" even if I sometimes sum it up that way for brevity.

the_scotsman wrote:
2) i'll admit to having very little experience actually playing 4th (I think I played like 4 games before 5th dropped) but my quick reference sheet does seem to have unified VDTs. It just has a different table for glancing and penetrating hits instead of a single table and a -2 to the table if you scored a glance. Personally I don't see how having VDTs be part of the vehicle datasheet is any more complex than, say, figuring out how many special rules your average marine unit has to keep track of in 9th ed, but I guess that's just me.

That's an incomplete QRS if it misses the Ordnance Penetrating Hits table. I agree; I'd rather have datasheet-based VDTs. But people would no doubt complain at me.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) because as much as I know you historically have railed against this fact, a game in which one player cannot hurt the other player's models and remove them from the board and the other player can just is not fun for the player whose stuff is getting killed, even if they are declared 'the winner' at the end of every single game without fail. Maybe it's a common thing in Flames of War for people to be perfectly A-OK playing against armies entirely made up of tiger tanks they can't hurt, but in the years since they came out I have yet to meet a dedicated only-knights player out of the scores of 40k players I've seen come through where I play, and I have yet to hear about one in any context other than people complaining about them. Maybe they exist somewhere out there in the ether, but I personally have never seen it.


In a world war two game (as in the example I used) the problem would be on the player who doesn't bring any anti-tank weapons to kill the Tigers, not on the player who brought Tiger tanks. The Ork player (in your example of Grots vs Warlord Titan) should not be able to use Grots to kill the Titan; instead he should bring something for killing Titans. Making "everything hurt everything" just makes the greatest capability weapon in every category the best weapon - instead of dedicated weapon roles, you end up with Imperial Fists armies using Onlsaught Gatling Cannons to equal effectiveness against Knight armies as against Tyranid hordes. GW actually had to patch this out of the game with a spot-weld it got so bad. But fixing the symptom didn't fix the core rule issue, which is the idea that a Nurgling should be able to meaningfully impede a Titan.

Plus, even your vaunted tenet of "everything should hurt everything" doesn't come through. How does a Daemonette squad hurt a Thunderbolt fighter? Oh, they can't. Yet it's okay, in modern 40k, just only for aircraft and not for tanks


1) yeah, in my ideal system the hit roll would be if not opposed like SvsT then at the very least MUCH more modifiable than it is right now where an intercessor 30" away from you shoots you exactly the same as an intercessor 2" away from you. The range values in 40k have always made the board size fairly meaningless, that's just a consequence of the size of the models gw wants us to put on the table vs the size of the board they want us to play on. At this point you can barely jam a 2000 point ork or nid army into the deployment zone of a standard size board. If max range isn't going to mean something, then I would prefer for long range and opposing evasiveness to mean something.

40k's movement characteristic vs its fluff is, admittedly, just totally asinine. You have vehicles supposedly capable of near supersonic flight like drukhari raiders moving like 2" faster than lumbering leman russ tanks. But hey, the board is only 6' x 4' or 5' x 44" if you've got a railroad spike through your brain so, making fast things actually as fast as they should be would make them just fly off the board every turn. WW2 is a bizarre example to bring up about the lack of realism behind 'evasion based durability' because of just how many instances you can point to in battles where the maneuverability of tanks and other vehicles allowing them to avoid enemy fire ends up making a huge difference.

2) I wasn't skipping the Ordnance hit table I was just ignoring it because it's effectively exactly the same as the Penetrating hit table except that the 5 result changes from 'destroyed' to 'explodes' and the 6 result changes from 'explodes' to 'annihilated.' Seems...pretty meaningless honestly, like a lot of these oldhammer GW rules that seem really cool and impactful or whatever but in practice were just fiddly nonsense. Also, worth noting here: There is for sure a 'vehicle destroyed' result on a roll of 6 on the glancing hit table. Glancing hits could absolutely destroy vehicles in 4th.

3) You know how general strategy of skew lists with longrange firepower operates when faced with a TAC list that brings the amount of antitank firepower required to meaningfully challenge a list with reasonable amounts of light infantry, so I'm not really interested in engaging with this particular fig leaf.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:58:03


Post by: SecondTime


"general strategy of skew lists"

Yeah, its not like if you spam tanks I can tech into Banshees if I scout it properly. In 40K, I just bend over and take it.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 17:59:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Invulns need types at a minimum. Big huge forcefields on IKs should be extra wounds, not "your mega blast does absolutely nothing because D6 says so". All that means is I'm not ever bringing that kind of weapon because D6 can say it does nothing even though I hit and wounded. I should be able to reliably burn through that kind of force field and not have to pray to the dice gods. See: Protoss plasma shields.

Smaller models should have dodges, which are rolled, but also ignored by huge blasts.

Come to think of it, Starcraft uses a model where anything can hurt anything (assuming it can target it) and there is still plenty of counter play necessary. Good luck downing several battlecruisers with just marines.


I also don't like starcraft because of that lack of verisimilitude, so there you go. Also I'm fairly certain that if you spent equal resources on Marines as you did Battlecruisers, the Marines would win, and the only thing preventing that from happening is that battlecruisers use supply more efficiently (so you will never get an equal number of Marines to Battlecruisers in terms of resources spent, because both armies will hit the supply cap but the battlecruisers will have more combat power) - but enough of that digression.

I would have to think through the potential interactions of invulnerable saves with the game. In general, I am inclined to have force fields work more like Void Shields used to back in the day, where they're an additional layer of armor over the *whatever* that has to be brought down / penetrated before the actual hull/person can be hurt. It would be interesting to end up with personnel with armor values - e.g. a guy with a force field generator has an AV9 or something force-field that must be brought down before any shots can hit him properly.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:05:01


Post by: Brotherjanus


I have not read this entire thread but I will put my answer to the question here.

GW has created a world that inspires imagination and a long lasting connection with it's fans. They produce models that people enjoy every facet of as well as books, video games, and even a few films. Even if they aren't the best at writing rules they have managed to create a world that people care enough about to stick around in and debate the merits of. I think that is something they have done right.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:06:08


Post by: SecondTime


Ah, I think Starcraft is a much better game than 40K. Very different, but scouting alone makes it far more rewarding. I am helpless before you skew list without foreknowledge not available in 40K. If you had to build your Russes in real time, and hold me off with guardsmen first, I'd feel much better about it.

For verismilitude, I prefer things like World in Flames, but most Germanophiles don't enjoy historically accurate strategic wargames. Because they usually don't win.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:06:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


the_scotsman wrote:
1) yeah, in my ideal system the hit roll would be if not opposed like SvsT then at the very least MUCH more modifiable than it is right now where an intercessor 30" away from you shoots you exactly the same as an intercessor 2" away from you. The range values in 40k have always made the board size fairly meaningless, that's just a consequence of the size of the models gw wants us to put on the table vs the size of the board they want us to play on. At this point you can barely jam a 2000 point ork or nid army into the deployment zone of a standard size board. If max range isn't going to mean something, then I would prefer for long range and opposing evasiveness to mean something.

40k's movement characteristic vs its fluff is, admittedly, just totally asinine. You have vehicles supposedly capable of near supersonic flight like drukhari raiders moving like 2" faster than lumbering leman russ tanks. But hey, the board is only 6' x 4' or 5' x 44" if you've got a railroad spike through your brain so, making fast things actually as fast as they should be would make them just fly off the board every turn. WW2 is a bizarre example to bring up about the lack of realism behind 'evasion based durability' because of just how many instances you can point to in battles where the maneuverability of tanks and other vehicles allowing them to avoid enemy fire ends up making a huge difference.

2) I wasn't skipping the Ordnance hit table I was just ignoring it because it's effectively exactly the same as the Penetrating hit table except that the 5 result changes from 'destroyed' to 'explodes' and the 6 result changes from 'explodes' to 'annihilated.' Seems...pretty meaningless honestly, like a lot of these oldhammer GW rules that seem really cool and impactful or whatever but in practice were just fiddly nonsense. Also, worth noting here: There is for sure a 'vehicle destroyed' result on a roll of 6 on the glancing hit table. Glancing hits could absolutely destroy vehicles in 4th.

3) You know how general strategy of skew lists with longrange firepower operates when faced with a TAC list that brings the amount of antitank firepower required to meaningfully challenge a list with reasonable amounts of light infantry, so I'm not really interested in engaging with this particular fig leaf.


1) Yes, the board size is too small. That we're totally in agreement about. As far as the movement characteristic of fluff, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about with verisimilitude. If the game strove for greater verisimilitude, you'd have move characteristics that actually make sense (like how flyers worked from Forge World before Citadel got ahold of them). World War II is a great example, because that mobility didn't result in them literally dodging shells or anything like that - if a lighter vehicle like an M8 greyhound got to the point where a shot was rolling to penetrate its armor (or SvT in the modern system) then its mobility has already failed to protect it. Mobility protects you by allowing you better use of terrain and improved ability to engage the enemy from multiple directions and upset their fire plan. SvT is not the appropriate place to put that sort of durability advantage, nor would AV system. If that durability is already working to protect a vehicle, then neither AV nor Toughness will be rolled against.

2) Yes, I agree with everything you said, and is why I said I wouldn't simply port over the 4th edition system. I was simply pointing to it as an example of a multiple-vehicle-damage-table system that I was totally fine with and I don't disagree with the idea of multiple tables. And yes, glancing hits could destroy vehicles, I'm not sure where you see I said they couldn't?

3) Well, if you don't want to engage, that's fine, but there are army design rules that can be used to reduce skew and rein in army construction so that you don't end up with an anti-xenos infiltration team in a pitched battle with a superheavy tank company, but that's a different discussion. We can table this for now if you would like to have that discussion elsewhere.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:08:58


Post by: SecondTime


"army design rules that can be used to reduce skew and rein in army construction "

None that GW is ever going to agree to use.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:10:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
Ah, I think Starcraft is a much better game than 40K. Very different, but scouting alone makes it far more rewarding. I am helpless before you skew list without foreknowledge not available in 40K. If you had to build your Russes in real time, and hold me off with guardsmen first, I'd feel much better about it.

I agree it is a better game as a game, and I actually watch competitive games because I find it fascinating. But it isn't a good example of a "realistic" game, nor is the game play super true to the setting (insofar as the setting doesn't bend over backwards to meet the RTS half-way).

SecondTime wrote:
For verismilitude, I prefer things like World in Flames, but most Germanophiles don't enjoy historically accurate strategic wargames. Because they usually don't win.

I have heard those people called Wehraboos and I think that's hilarious.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:10:59


Post by: VladimirHerzog


SecondTime wrote:
Invulns need types at a minimum. Big huge forcefields on IKs should be extra wounds, not "your mega blast does absolutely nothing because D6 says so". All that means is I'm not ever bringing that kind of weapon because D6 can say it does nothing even though I hit and wounded. I should be able to reliably burn through that kind of force field and not have to pray to the dice gods. See: Protoss plasma shields.

Smaller models should have dodges, which are rolled, but also ignored by huge blasts.

Come to think of it, Starcraft uses a model where anything can hurt anything (assuming it can target it) and there is still plenty of counter play necessary. Good luck downing several battlecruisers with just marines.


well in starcraft, units have bonus damage against their intended targets. Stalkers get bonus damage against armored targets and hellions do bonus damage against light for example.
This would be a fix for 40k's weapons and we've already started seeing it implemented more and more (leviathan drills now do max damage against vehicles for example).
Basically, 40k could become well balanced if GW knew how to use their keywords.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:11:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


SecondTime wrote:
"army design rules that can be used to reduce skew and rein in army construction "

None that GW is ever going to agree to use.

Well, with that attitude, you'll never get anything changed. It's okay to want for (and ask for) a better lot, even if you don't think it's likely. That's what I mean when I say "agitate for change". If GW isn't behaving the way you want them to, then apply pressure to them to try to fix it. The fewer people applying pressure, the less effective it is - so just giving up is actively making things worse.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:13:11


Post by: SecondTime


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Ah, I think Starcraft is a much better game than 40K. Very different, but scouting alone makes it far more rewarding. I am helpless before you skew list without foreknowledge not available in 40K. If you had to build your Russes in real time, and hold me off with guardsmen first, I'd feel much better about it.

I agree it is a better game as a game, and I actually watch competitive games because I find it fascinating. But it isn't a good example of a "realistic" game, nor is the game play super true to the setting (insofar as the setting doesn't bend over backwards to meet the RTS half-way).

SecondTime wrote:
For verismilitude, I prefer things like World in Flames, but most Germanophiles don't enjoy historically accurate strategic wargames. Because they usually don't win.

I have heard those people called Wehraboos and I think that's hilarious.


Yeah, they fething hate me. My last World in Flames playgroup, I was banned from playing the United States. I was very, very efficient at destroying the Axis with the US. They thought it would go better if I were the Soviet Union. It didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
"army design rules that can be used to reduce skew and rein in army construction "

None that GW is ever going to agree to use.

Well, with that attitude, you'll never get anything changed. It's okay to want for (and ask for) a better lot, even if you don't think it's likely. That's what I mean when I say "agitate for change". If GW isn't behaving the way you want them to, then apply pressure to them to try to fix it. The fewer people applying pressure, the less effective it is - so just giving up is actively making things worse.


Some changes seem doable, others not. They want to sell plastic. It's clear they've moved to "play what you want". It takes a late 7th ed level collapse to get their attention. So in a way, ignoring them and doing something else is the best agitation. If I run into a skew list in a tournament, I'll just accept that someone decided to take that kind of risk and lose. I don't plan for skew lists, because they struggle to run the table as is necessary. But in a non-tournament setting, I'll just decline the game as soon as I see the list.

If GW DID eliminate skew lists, I'd definitely give them a gold star for that. But as I said, there is no way they're doing that. They might get rid of a specific skew if its beating space marines. Because you know, we can't have space marines ever lose now.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:31:06


Post by: Hecaton


SecondTime wrote:
"army design rules that can be used to reduce skew and rein in army construction "

None that GW is ever going to agree to use.


Yup. GW uses the carrot of overpowered datasheets to encourage skew lists i.e. there's always something, usually a hot new release, that's just waaaay too powerful in a codex that you want to max out your FoC of. Then they punish you because your army doesn't look like the combined arms force that everyone is supposedly supposed to look like.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:36:35


Post by: SecondTime


But their logic of which datasheets are overpowered was very random until very recently I think. Why would they consistently overpower ancient Eldar sculpts? Why would they release so many new models with absolutely terrible rules? I mean ,they're still doing that: exhibit A: canoptek reanimator.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:42:06


Post by: VladimirHerzog


There is no logic because its all accidental.

Most 40k players buy models only because they look cool, the casual crowd is always the most prevalent and the main source of revenue for game companies.

In that regard, the tripods are a success because the mini look good and thats all that matters.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:47:13


Post by: The_Grim_Angel


The mistakes!
Sorry for the joke, but having read this tread (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793969.page), I haven't been able to old it back.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 18:50:34


Post by: the_scotsman


SecondTime wrote:
But their logic of which datasheets are overpowered was very random until very recently I think. Why would they consistently overpower ancient Eldar sculpts? Why would they release so many new models with absolutely terrible rules? I mean ,they're still doing that: exhibit A: canoptek reanimator.


My opinion on it is honestly just that the "thing is overpowered to drive sales" is actually a pretty rare occurrence even in the 'bad old days' of GW. it happens every once in a while, usually blantantly obviously, but the vast majority of the time I really do chalk it up to GW just being really gakky at game design and not knowing what makes a good unit vs a bad unit.

Just look at the whole "castellan" thing. Boy howdy were the 'GW MADE THEM PURPOSEFULLY OP TO SELL MODELS AAAAAAAARGH' folks out in force then, huh. Weird thing about that: Only one model out of the whole release was 'OP to sell models' while the rest, generally, did not appear in pretty much any competitive lists.

Did GW just not...care to sell Armigers? Helverins? The Valiant that came in the exact same box as the purposefully op Castellan? Princeptor (or whatever the feth that thing is called)?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 19:00:32


Post by: SecondTime


Wasn't castellan driven by a specific house as well?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 19:03:34


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
But their logic of which datasheets are overpowered was very random until very recently I think. Why would they consistently overpower ancient Eldar sculpts? Why would they release so many new models with absolutely terrible rules? I mean ,they're still doing that: exhibit A: canoptek reanimator.


My opinion on it is honestly just that the "thing is overpowered to drive sales" is actually a pretty rare occurrence even in the 'bad old days' of GW. it happens every once in a while, usually blantantly obviously, but the vast majority of the time I really do chalk it up to GW just being really gakky at game design and not knowing what makes a good unit vs a bad unit.

Just look at the whole "castellan" thing. Boy howdy were the 'GW MADE THEM PURPOSEFULLY OP TO SELL MODELS AAAAAAAARGH' folks out in force then, huh. Weird thing about that: Only one model out of the whole release was 'OP to sell models' while the rest, generally, did not appear in pretty much any competitive lists.

Did GW just not...care to sell Armigers? Helverins? The Valiant that came in the exact same box as the purposefully op Castellan? Princeptor (or whatever the feth that thing is called)?
I think without knowing certain details we could never know GW's ultimate plan or reason for doing anything. Their goal is maximum money. So Selling out of the OP models super fast with others getting bored and just buying something else cause they were hyped about plastic crack today and just want something to build / paint. I think they have found that keeping imbalance in the game keeps models flying off the selves in the ways they want them to. The ultimate limiting factor for GW profit is their ability to make kits - they can only make so many and it is really a lot more limited than we realize. So they don't ever want to be making 1 type of kit for too long to keep up with a demand. Plus they want you buying stuff of their shelves and not just whats coming out of their factories. So they keep varying what is strong and what is weak and play with supply to keep you buying things you didn't even know you wanted.




What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 19:11:45


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
There is no logic because its all accidental.

Most 40k players buy models only because they look cool, the casual crowd is always the most prevalent and the main source of revenue for game companies.

In that regard, the tripods are a success because the mini look good and thats all that matters.


Didn't one of the design team members who worked on eldar in its prior era said that they tested and build the wraight knight, and then the sales departament told them to shave of 150pts of the whole thing, so that people could fit in 2-3 in their list. So sometimes they seem to know very much what they are doing.

When for AoS they made books after book that was OP and required to buy 3 zombi dragons or 3 greater demons, and a bucket of kits to summon, they seemed to have done that on purpose too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote:
Wasn't castellan driven by a specific house as well?


yes, specific house and a specific cawl relic gun.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 19:19:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Oh, yeah. I wouldn't say they NEVER purposefully leave a unit overtuned in order to sell, or purposefully overbuff an underperforming faction in order to sell it.

I'm just saying I'm extremely skeptical of the claims of the FREQUENCY of that occurring, and I also think that GW has an equivalent if not greater tendency to punitively nerf something and leave it obviously underpowered for an edition or more in order to get people to forget about the thing they were mad about previously.

There's a reason Scatter Lasers and Wraithknights have been as bad as they have been for 2 straight editions. But people love that! Even people who very specifically suffered through an entire edition of punitive bad balance screaming and crying for every minute of it will laugh and gloat the second that punitive bad balance is applied to *insert faction they don't like here*.

I'm particularly skeptical when the OP crazy thing requires some hyperspecific combination of this trait and that relic and this stratagem and that subfaction and this forgeworld model that technically has THIS keyword...no. That's accidental. And most of the time GW doesn't even realize it's in there. IH invincible Leviathans were not "a secret plot to sell Leviathan Dreadnoughts."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW abso-fething-lutely practices the extremely common business strategy of "manufactured discontent". The way they release codexes and new editions is an obvious indicator of this. People are SUPPOSED to be absolutely livid when they play their CSM against loyalist SM right now who get Doctrines and CTs on their vehicles and double the wounds for a tiny sad little points bump.

Because if playing that matchup makes you miserable, you're likely to either A, buy units for a different army, win for GW, or B, get really excited when GW finally releases the new CSM codex with all the fixes and buffs and tweaks they've been just desperate to have for so long.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 19:52:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
There is no logic because its all accidental.

Most 40k players buy models only because they look cool, the casual crowd is always the most prevalent and the main source of revenue for game companies.

In that regard, the tripods are a success because the mini look good and thats all that matters.


Didn't one of the design team members who worked on eldar in its prior era said that they tested and build the wraight knight, and then the sales departament told them to shave of 150pts of the whole thing, so that people could fit in 2-3 in their list. So sometimes they seem to know very much what they are doing.

When for AoS they made books after book that was OP and required to buy 3 zombi dragons or 3 greater demons, and a bucket of kits to summon, they seemed to have done that on purpose too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote:
Wasn't castellan driven by a specific house as well?


yes, specific house and a specific cawl relic gun.


the wraithknight is confirmed as true. As for the AoS stuff, it could very well be that the designers decided to make the centerpiece models actually good for once, which means people spammed them.

the fact that every new release isnt OP shows that its not a recurring thing. They happen by mistakes, and the more moving parts a piece has to become OP, the less chance there is for it to be intentional. IH leviathan, Raven castellan and Ynnari as a whole were all accidental mistakes.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 20:41:26


Post by: Audustum


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
There is no logic because its all accidental.

Most 40k players buy models only because they look cool, the casual crowd is always the most prevalent and the main source of revenue for game companies.

In that regard, the tripods are a success because the mini look good and thats all that matters.


Didn't one of the design team members who worked on eldar in its prior era said that they tested and build the wraight knight, and then the sales departament told them to shave of 150pts of the whole thing, so that people could fit in 2-3 in their list. So sometimes they seem to know very much what they are doing.

When for AoS they made books after book that was OP and required to buy 3 zombi dragons or 3 greater demons, and a bucket of kits to summon, they seemed to have done that on purpose too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote:
Wasn't castellan driven by a specific house as well?


yes, specific house and a specific cawl relic gun.


the wraithknight is confirmed as true. As for the AoS stuff, it could very well be that the designers decided to make the centerpiece models actually good for once, which means people spammed them.

the fact that every new release isnt OP shows that its not a recurring thing. They happen by mistakes, and the more moving parts a piece has to become OP, the less chance there is for it to be intentional. IH leviathan, Raven castellan and Ynnari as a whole were all accidental mistakes.


I'd also point out, and I say this as someone who doesn't really know the Wraithknight story, but just based off this explanation of it, 'make it 150 points cheaper so people can have 2-3' isn't the same as 'make it overpowered at 150 points cheaper'. They could've scaled down the power to reflect the point cost. I generally agree with the idea that the rules team just isn't that good at knowing what will be super strong.

As for what GW did right, I think the GK psychic awakening was great.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 20:44:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


Audustum wrote:
...I'd also point out, and I say this as someone who doesn't really know the Wraithknight story, but just based off this explanation of it, 'make it 150 points cheaper so people can have 2-3' isn't the same as 'make it overpowered at 150 points cheaper'. They could've scaled down the power to reflect the point cost. I generally agree with the idea that the rules team just isn't that good at knowing what will be super strong.

As for what GW did right, I think the GK psychic awakening was great.


The other part of the story is that the "make it 150pts cheaper" instruction was followed with "oh, no, don't tone it down at all, leave the rules as they are."

The GK psychic awakening gave the army a few big shiny card-game combos to throw at a Paladin unit to justify not fixing any of the stats. I think it's possibly the most wrong thing GW has done with an army update since I've been playing.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 20:56:12


Post by: Xenomancers


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
There is no logic because its all accidental.

Most 40k players buy models only because they look cool, the casual crowd is always the most prevalent and the main source of revenue for game companies.

In that regard, the tripods are a success because the mini look good and thats all that matters.


Didn't one of the design team members who worked on eldar in its prior era said that they tested and build the wraight knight, and then the sales departament told them to shave of 150pts of the whole thing, so that people could fit in 2-3 in their list. So sometimes they seem to know very much what they are doing.

When for AoS they made books after book that was OP and required to buy 3 zombi dragons or 3 greater demons, and a bucket of kits to summon, they seemed to have done that on purpose too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
SecondTime wrote:
Wasn't castellan driven by a specific house as well?


yes, specific house and a specific cawl relic gun.


the wraithknight is confirmed as true. As for the AoS stuff, it could very well be that the designers decided to make the centerpiece models actually good for once, which means people spammed them.

the fact that every new release isnt OP shows that its not a recurring thing. They happen by mistakes, and the more moving parts a piece has to become OP, the less chance there is for it to be intentional. IH leviathan, Raven castellan and Ynnari as a whole were all accidental mistakes.

I think you are correct as they don't intend on making a certain unit OP upon design. It is utter negligence that they do not do a review or a play test with everything involved in a book they are going to sell 100k copies of. It is really hard to imagine that a company that makes so much money with so much money on the line could be THAT negligent. It almost impossible to be that neglagent. It is ether.
-Indifference
-Intention
-the most gross negligence imaginable.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 22:12:20


Post by: jeff white


 generalchaos34 wrote:
Despite all of the people who want to hate on GW I often try to find a silver lining. Before you ask I try not to be an apologist but its more me trying to see the good in things. So what do they do well?

EVERYTHING

Despite the many stupid decisions, bonehead moves, dead end editions (damn you 7th!) and other bad moves GW has made a game that has ultimately made me happy. That says a lot that I have consistently played something for over 23 years at the tender age of 35. I have always had a fun hobby of painting, building, collecting and playing ready to go. I can look at my models and be proud (or cringe) and its been a source of joy for me. I love the novels and I have read over a 100 of them. Everything they do, even when its dumb, has ultimately added to my life. In years past I have gone through some very very dark parts of my life and one constant that was always there was my 40k hobby. It sustained me, distracted me, and let my imagination fly when the rest of my world, my life, and my very identity crumbled. No matter what happened I knew that Space Marines were still out there fighting Tyranids, Commissars killed their own men, and Erebus was just the worst.

So yeah, GW has done all kinds of things great, and I am glad and ultimately still exist because of it.

Exalted. I have written something similar (about Fantasy) in defense of a more critical attitude about GW the corporation. The shareholder model of latter day capitalism must die, and what happened to 40K lately and the Old World previously are a couple of great examples of why.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.


I think the primary motivation was to make the game design easier; i.e. laziness (or a recognition of incompetence). I think the other reason might be that they've lost the plot a bit on how the narrative/setting informs the game design, and so such changes have no drawbacks. (If one no longer cares about how "true to the setting" the game is, then restricting oneself to try to be true to the setting is obviously silly).

I'm not sure GW gives one flying feth about negative feedback from 3rd-5th editions. They may have cared about negative feedback from 7th, but the way to fix that could've (and should've) been to carefully examine the flaws behind the feedback and then iteratively improve, rather than throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and then find a new baby to put in the filthy water.

Man, you are on fire this thread! I am going to wear out my exalt button!


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 22:58:56


Post by: CEO Kasen


the_scotsman wrote:

GW abso-fething-lutely practices the extremely common business strategy of "manufactured discontent". The way they release codexes and new editions is an obvious indicator of this. People are SUPPOSED to be absolutely livid when they play their CSM against loyalist SM right now who get Doctrines and CTs on their vehicles and double the wounds for a tiny sad little points bump.

Because if playing that matchup makes you miserable, you're likely to either A, buy units for a different army, win for GW, or B, get really excited when GW finally releases the new CSM codex with all the fixes and buffs and tweaks they've been just desperate to have for so long.


Dear crap. I told myself I was waiting till CSM/EC came out to consider giving GW money for anything again, but I had definitely been operating on Hanlon's Razor and assumed that the current environment was a product of incompetence, not malice. I hadn't considered the idea that they'd planned for precisely that. If that's true, that's some emotionally manipulative, predatory fecal sludge right there.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 23:05:11


Post by: jeff white


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
Sure it was unnecessary. But it also didn't make things worse. Just different.

Oof. I hated armor arc debates. The front armor arcs of my opponents just kept getting wider as the game went on. Such a chore.


Well, it did make things worse.

Verisimilitude is a positive thing to have in a wargame. Less verisimilitude is a worse thing. Adjusting the abstraction to make vehicles into wound-pinatas while still differentiating between a stick, a sword, and a hammer is the wrong kind of abstraction to make, and creates a sensation that the game is "gamey" while disconnecting it from the greater universe it lives in.

Gamey is something that nuGW does right, but it is not a good thing.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/17 23:16:37


Post by: SecondTime


I think we can expect more gamey "fixes" in the future. I think a gamey paradigm is easier for them to cope with development-wise. The realism or appearance of realism being discussed is probably off the table permanently. Gw let eradicators through playtest. The idea of the same people doing vehicle pivots and firing arcs is laughable.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 00:09:48


Post by: BertBert


SecondTime wrote:
The idea of the same people doing vehicle pivots and firing arcs is laughable.


To be fair, they have abandoned that particular target audience years ago.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 00:15:00


Post by: SecondTime


 BertBert wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
The idea of the same people doing vehicle pivots and firing arcs is laughable.


To be fair, they have abandoned that particular target audience years ago.


I know that. I'm just musing on the realism issue. I'll settle for not having units like eradicators. But others clearly want more.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 10:15:52


Post by: Karol


The game would be much better if all armies were full of units like eradictors. Good, efficient units, you want to use and play with.

GW artificialy createst the problem for players though, by making some books and armies "for fun", while other armies getting rules and interactions between them clearly ment for playing the game efficiently. And in the end it doesn't even matter how often do they do it on purpose and how often do they just forget that something like a chaplain dread or a leviathan exists.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 10:32:20


Post by: Not Online!!!


Karol wrote:
The game would be much better if all armies were full of units like eradictors. Good, efficient units, you want to use and play with.

Hard pass, they are gimicky not tactical but actually just gamebreaking and a sign of poor Quality assurance.


GW artificialy createst the problem for players though, by making some books and armies "for fun", while other armies getting rules and interactions between them clearly ment for playing the game efficiently. And in the end it doesn't even matter how often do they do it on purpose and how often do they just forget that something like a chaplain dread or a leviathan exists.


See above,


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 10:32:47


Post by: Crispy78


Karol wrote:
The game would be much better if all armies were full of units like eradictors. Good, efficient units, you want to use and play with.


One man's 'good, efficient' is another man's unfair, overpowered.

If everything was as 'efficient' as an eradicator unit, every game would be decided on the first turn, with the player who goes first automatically winning.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 12:16:22


Post by: Karol


which would give us a 50/50 win ratio. go ask people whose armies have a 46/26% win rate if they were happy with a 50/50 split aka having fun in half the games. For a ton of armies the game is already decided by the roll who goes first more often then not.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 12:52:31


Post by: Not Online!!!


Karol wrote:
which would give us a 50/50 win ratio. go ask people whose armies have a 46/26% win rate if they were happy with a 50/50 split aka having fun in half the games. For a ton of armies the game is already decided by the roll who goes first more often then not.


that is to assume that you could then not just substitute the game by a coin flip. Because that is what the game would devolve into.

Infact a coinflip is even more interactive then your suggestion because going first , aka flipping, is not guaranteeing the result.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:03:43


Post by: Karol


nah it ain't more interactive. Because the first person doesn't get two turns of obliterating the other one. In fact with games ending faster you could play two games in the same time, with both players going first. And the victory points system could be build around playing both games, just like in chess.

A lot better then going second, seeing opponent take the optimal anti your army secondaries, him swarming the objectives turn 1 for primary objectives, and telling GG to your opponent, because no amount of tactical skill can beat out going first, with tailored secondaries and better rule set.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:40:09


Post by: Crispy78


That's one of the reasons I think the smaller ("minimum") board size is stupid. My friends and I generally find that 40K is a lot more balanced on a much bigger board, with a lot of scenery obviously. First-turn advantage gets evened out if you have a turn or two of movement before actually getting in to range of the enemy / objectives.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:47:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Balance is more than the 50/50 split.

Balance means that victory or defeat in the mission/scenario is determined in largest proportion by player skill and choice, rather than pre-game factors such as turn order, army choice, list composition, or mission special rules.

I would say that the ideal distribution for game factors would be:
- 20-33% listbuilding. Listbuilding should matter to some degree, because it's a skill all its own and players should ensure they have the tools to be skillful with.

- 66-80% player skill. Player skill I define here as tactical or gameplay acumen. There are two subcategories - 'gotcha' moments, where gamey rules interactions are exploited, and 'proficiency', where simply being better than the opponent at the more basic game structure (movement, shooting, scoring, etc). Gotcha moments represent things like the Fiend problem (where you ensure you get a fiend .75" away from a model that is touching someone else, meaning that model and that model alone can swing at it). The line here is blurry, and none of it should be blamed on the players. Most wargames have gotcha-style mechanics because they're inevitable, but to reiterate I think that the game should strive to allow players to win with basic tools and actions used in novel or useful ways.

- 0-10% missions. I like creative missions a lot as a narrative player, but in a "Standard Game" (which is what I am talking about when I say balanced; narrative scenarios are easier to create if the base game is balanced), the mission shouldn't matter much. A bit of skew is okay - reducing the chance of victory for one side by 10% is probably the most I would go to. But it should always be easily surmountable by player skill, even if one player does ultimately have a handicap.

- 0% Turn order: Turn order should be 0% for reasons that need not be explained further I suspect.

Remember, the goal of a roughly 50/50 winrate isn't really a goal at all - rather, it makes a significant assumption ("Across the whole spectrum of players, the skill level will be roughly equal between faction pilots.") in order to inform a model which suggests games should be a coinflip (because the largest component of victory is equal between the sides).


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:53:46


Post by: Jidmah


Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:55:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 13:57:38


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
The game would be much better if all armies were full of units like eradictors. Good, efficient units, you want to use and play with.


oh hell no. Eradicators are one of the most boring unit designed so far in the whole game (not even talking about powerlevel here).

i'd much rather play with generalist units that are better at more than a single task


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
nah it ain't more interactive. Because the first person doesn't get two turns of obliterating the other one. In fact with games ending faster you could play two games in the same time, with both players going first. And the victory points system could be build around playing both games, just like in chess.

A lot better then going second, seeing opponent take the optimal anti your army secondaries, him swarming the objectives turn 1 for primary objectives, and telling GG to your opponent, because no amount of tactical skill can beat out going first, with tailored secondaries and better rule set.


Then you'd just have enough time to do two coinflip. This would 100% be terrible for the game. Maybe you're mad that your GK are terrible if they go second, which is understandable, but asking for every unit in the game to be eradicator level is one stupid take. GKs can be fixed some other way, so can all the underperforming armies right now.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 14:16:51


Post by: Jidmah


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 14:19:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.


Well, yes. I assumed you'd change missions to meet the new board size, but yeah, if you don't you're just wasting time and space. That's true.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 14:20:16


Post by: Jidmah


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
oh hell no. Eradicators are one of the most boring unit designed so far in the whole game (not even talking about powerlevel here).


So true, and it would have been so easy to make them more interesting by giving them anti-tank close combat weapons instead of just having them shoot twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, yes. I assumed you'd change missions to meet the new board size, but yeah, if you don't you're just wasting time and space. That's true.


The missions tend to work not as good if you don't go with the suggest point levels because you either have too many units/too few to score primaries. Onslaught missions work surprisingly well on 4'x8' though, but at that level you are already playing old school apocalypse anyways.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/18 21:19:20


Post by: Bosskelot


Yeah, Eradicators are the exact opposite of a well designed unit and you can see this even without the points cost.

If there was an impactful choice to be made with the double shoot then you might have something, or an extra CC option. Or just any kind of extra tricks or interesting drawbacks that expand the idea of the unit and give it some depth. Retributors kind of manage that but Eradicators certainly don't.

One thing GW got very right was doing a beta Codex for Sisters because the Sisters Dex is probably the most well-designed one in the entire game across multiple editions. So much of it is viable, fun to use, competitive and fluffy at the same time. It manages to hit everything for what a Codex should be. Sadly GW are probably never doing beta codexes again, even though it clearly worked spectacularly. The Necron 'dex is a pretty decent attempt but there's a far larger percentage of dud units and concept misfires, but overall it feels very balanced and still manages to capture what Necrons are like to face on the battlefield. The Marine ones are still gigantic fething messes though; full of endless trash on one hand and gamebreaking abusive gak on the other, sandwiching a series of armies that are still far too autopilot and easy to play for how obscenely strong they are. I'm not really sure it's ever going to be fixable for the sheer amount of stuff they have to design around though.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 07:44:14


Post by: Just Tony


 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.


Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 09:40:03


Post by: Jidmah


 Just Tony wrote:
Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.


But isn't that essentially saying that you want melee to be bad outside exceptionally mobile units and prefer non-interacting long-range shooting?


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:20:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.


But isn't that essentially saying that you want melee to be bad outside exceptionally mobile units and prefer non-interacting long-range shooting?


Depends entirely upon your idea of interactivity. There's a meta and macro level to it.

The ability to allways Forcing an engagement is not neceserrily interactive, especially if your opponents have no option to disengage due to the board size.
Vice versa, having to seriously commit to force a CQC interaction, and allready having to forfeit due to attrition, is an issue of representation of sight lines and unit sizes, not least of the limited ammount of tactical options, e.g Smoke to cover an advance, or actual infiltrating units.



What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:27:16


Post by: Jidmah


An ork or a plague marine move 5" per turn and advance 8.5" on average. Models that are deployed 40" away from such models are essentially immune to close combat for the first three turns with little to no drawbacks if you have enough range on your weapons.

There is no way to make a unit immune to shooting for three turns without heavy penalties to that unit's usefulness.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:30:51


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
An ork or a plague marine move 5" per turn and advance 8.5" on average. Models that are deployed 40" away from such models are essentially immune to close combat for the first three turns with little to no drawbacks if you have enough range on your weapons.

There is no way to make a unit immune to shooting for three turns.


Denial of sight lines in the form of smoke or dare i say, Chemical warfare?

but 2 options of player agency and interaction with the board that would allready partially resolve issues.

Another one is, to put it simply, make transports actually do their job successfully in combination of the above.

Further, it is high time that the killyness get's nocked down a notch, especially certain boltguns are bogus.

There's also 0 reason as to why an ork should 5 " movement, they never moved slower then any other faction and has solely to do with GW insiting that movement stat should compensate for initiative.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:38:09


Post by: Jidmah


I think we are missing each other here. I was talking about the drawbacks of increasing table sizes with the game we have right now, not about how we could make larger tables work better.

In my experience the smaller table is all upside, and my group unanimously agreed - and we rarely agree on anything ever.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:48:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
I think we are missing each other here. I was talking about the drawbacks of increasing table sizes with the game we have right now, not about how we could make larger tables work better.

In my experience the smaller table is all upside, and my group unanimously agreed - and we rarely agree on anything ever.


No, we aren't, i just see the issue remaining that GW has never done board or cover propperly. much less interactivity with it and agency

The smaller board is only an upside because the above happened and rule of cool dictates melee shall work within 40k.

Agency of the player though is lowered even more because the option to even attempt to avoid, disengage or god forbid feint, is 0 you can't by t2 your in melee if your opponent choses to do so without an investment really into such an all out strategy. Which is necessitated preciscly because GW has hiked killyness of firepower to a ludicrous degree and not compensated via terrain and board interactivity.





What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 10:57:58


Post by: Jidmah


"Avoid and disengage" is not player agency, it's just taking away all the agency from melee/low range and giving it to shooting. Feints have never been part of the game.

People didn't seem to have a problem with player agency when one side was just pulling models that were shot by the other.

Smaller tables and the new missions force people to play other parts of the game than the shooting phase, and clearly some don't like that.


What has GW done right? @ 2020/11/19 11:06:11


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
"Avoid and disengage" is not player agency, it's just taking away all the agency from melee/low range and giving it to shooting. Feints have never been part of the game.

Actually yes it is, but frankly the IGUOGU system also ties into this. As does the terrain as allready pointed out.

People didn't seem to have a problem with player agency when one side was just pulling models that were shot by the other.

As someone that played both archetypes, melee can be even worse depending on how derpy GW' decides consolidation and multi fights are.
And the shooting is just as much an issue again with terrain and interactivity with it, as it stands, most stuff can neither be destroyed nor interacted with

Smaller tables and the new missions force people to play other parts of the game than the shooting phase, and clearly some don't like that.


And whilest that is indeed the case the new missions are also highly unbalanced torwards first turn, instead of getting blown up we now have 60% first turn advantage, worsening massively depending upon faction so the smaller board resolved nothing.

Further you claim it forced people playing other parts, i say it forced the players into a mad dash torwards the circle of pts and pray their faction can even compete in such a scenario, even if it would go completely contrary to their inate design. Something GW for alot of factions messed up quite heavily.

Also to be really blunt, from a realistic wargame stanpoint, there is nothing tactical about it as harsh as that may sound.

Which goes to say nothing about the other editions were melee was virtually unviable, the other extreme, which is equally as tactically irrelevant.

I think overall the problems GW has especially with the core game need to be looked at hollistically in conjunction of cover, interactivity torwards it and design space gw want's factions to occupy.