Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
Bring it back.
What? Was this like...a 5th edition rule? Because it wasn't in 6th or 7th either.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
Bring it back.
What? Was this like...a 5th edition rule? Because it wasn't in 6th or 7th either.
Earlier than 5th, but not sure exactly how far back. I want to say 3rd.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
Bring it back.
It hasn't existed since third or fourth because it's clunky and abusable. Take 30 ork boyz or 20 valorous heart SoB and pop them out front and congrats! Half your guns are useless! It also disproportionally affects low leadership units. Necrons would basically ignore the rule but exocrines would never be able to shoot.
It's also an utterly miserable mechanic to live with because of how it just rips away player agency. If you have a low leadership army or are just unlucky with dice it completely removes you as the player from the game. Nothing like needing to roll a 7+ to see if you get to play warhammer today.
Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".
Nope.
It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.
Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.
And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".
Nope.
It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.
Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.
And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.
It is very common for rules to limit player choice and limit what units can and cannot do. Most historical wargames (and most wargames that strive for realism) have some sort of command and control mechanic that makes it impossible for the player to do exactly what he wants, when he wants to do it. In general I like those sorts of rules, so long as they are simple and elegant. Bolt Action's activation dice, L'Art de la Guerre's command dice, and Battlefleet Gothic's order dice are good examples of well-designed command and control rules. 40K could use some more rules like that, I reckon.
Rihgu wrote: To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
I think that this single statement is correct, about sims v games. Now we have a board game played with cards and expensive chits.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".
Nope.
It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.
Spoiler:
Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.
And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.
More what? Freedom to live in snowflake point and click land where Gretchen always point their guns at the smart target from the point of view of the battlefield general? Or do you mean agency to quit using gw rules because of the bait and switch from simmy war game to CCG-esque board game? Or maybe you mean agency as in I can do what I want when I want regardless of coherency and consistency and any other constraint?
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".
Nope.
It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.
Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.
And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.
It is very common for rules to limit player choice and limit what units can and cannot do. Most historical wargames (and most wargames that strive for realism) have some sort of command and control mechanic that makes it impossible for the player to do exactly what he wants, when he wants to do it. In general I like those sorts of rules, so long as they are simple and elegant. Bolt Action's activation dice, L'Art de la Guerre's command dice, and Battlefleet Gothic's order dice are good examples of well-designed command and control rules.
40K could use some more rules like that, I reckon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.
That's why.
Don't forget the better part: Because everyone is allowed to split fire in this edition, the target priority rules will have to be based on individual models (or groups) and not units.
Maybe 40k could use more simple and elegant game mechanics. Target priority, like it existed previously, isn't either of those in practice.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game.
There were a few aspects of early editions where you would make a choice and then had to tick off a number of boxes otherwise the game would tell you 'no, your choice is wrong'.
Target priority was one of these. You'd have a big squad of devastators wanting to shoot into a big squad of nobz... but no, that gretchin standing half an inch closer has to die first apparently.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
Bring it back.
Yes, because this game needs more instances of random dice rolls overriding player decisions...
Rihgu wrote: To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories: 1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc. 2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
Perfect answer. /thread
You also understand a lot of the veterans complains much better if understand that they are looking for a simulation that takes the result of the game out of their hands, while most modern players are looking for a game, where such things have no place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: More what? Freedom to live in snowflake point and click land where Gretchen always point their guns at the smart target from the point of view of the battlefield general? Or do you mean agency to quit using gw rules because of the bait and switch from simmy war game to CCG-esque board game? Or maybe you mean agency as in I can do what I want when I want regardless of coherency and consistency and any other constraint?
Player agency is a term that can be googled, you know?
40k hasn't been a simulation war game since at least 5th. You just kept believing GW's lies ("forge the narrative!") that it was.
Rule would never work now, games are too big, and as HMBC said GW would feel the need to bend over backwards do dole out several exceptions for each faction with various similar but slightly different wordings to make it hard to follow.
It was a nice rule that I am rather fond of - it gave Leadership a reason to exist, meant screening actually could protect you from ranged fire to an extent, and it also showed in a game play manner how an elite unit can be better than a generic trooper without giving them extra killiness to their weaponry. Though if my weak memory serves, even back then GW spent as much time as they could folding in exemptions.
It was a rule that makes logical sense in the chaos of battle, directly impacts model placement and targeting strategies, and further distinguishes more elite armies from less disciplined armies. Yes, it was more time consuming, but it added more realism to a game that was trying to become a tabletop wargame versus the more mathhammer "gotcha" card game with models we have now. Minus a few excessive rules like Rending on a 6 to hit (changed to 6 to wound in 5th edition) and Eldar skimmer vehicle defensive upgrades working too well, 4th edition had a lot of good things going for it.
Having to roll each time you want for a unit to do a basic fuction like shooting at what the players want to shot instead of the game forcing it is horrible.
But I'm not surprised many people look at it with nostalgia. Just like the old combat rules with Initiative. All stuff that basically made the game play itself and a pointless exercise of rolling dice to see how things play out with minimal player input.
"In old editions the lists mattered more because if you didn't bring the proper units you were screwed! Antitank was needed for tanks and anti infantry for infantry" and other gak.
Oh yeah thats phenomenal in a game where you take 2k points of units and you cannot change a single damm thing in the whole game or the whole tournament.
I want a restricted FOC that basically forces me to pick always the same configuration of an army. And then I want to roll on tables each time I shoot at a vehicle to see what the feth happens. And I want for a whole phase of the game, the meele one, to be automatically resolved with literally no relevance in what the players did (With the only relevant part of meele combat being what characters did you put into your units in the list creation). Man do I really miss old warhammer. It was so interactive.
Rihgu wrote: To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
I think that this single statement is correct, about sims v games. Now we have a board game played with cards and expensive chits.
Why insult board games like that? Most good games have much better gameplay than 9th,
This rule is just about the worst rule I've ever heard of. Glad I didn't play back then, and now I know why I kept hearing so many people quit 40k to play xwing and other tabletop games back in the day. You know, GAMES, where the players decisions matter.
What I think some grognards can't get over is that they are the extreme minority when it comes to their point of view regarding rules like this. A niche within a niche of a niche. If you're THAT beholden to that kind of stuff, and it's actually popular (it isn't) , it wouldn't be hard to find a large swathe of folks to play old editions regularly.
I also have stuff that I ike that isn't really done anymore because it's not popular, but I don't crap on what other people like because I'm not getting what I want.
I think people who talk about 40k getting boardgame like tendencies are kind of funny, because old 40k has a lot in common with old dice rolling ameritrash board games, and newer 40k is becoming more Euro-like. (That is, random vs deterministic design philosophy--and yes I know both have randomness)
People who want to "just let the dice tell the story" can absolutely do that with current 40k anyway. Just don't use all of the optional rerolls and stratagems. If that point of view is so popular you shouldn't have any trouble finding other people to do the same, and you won't need to get on forums to complain.
Galas wrote:Having to roll each time you want for a unit to do a basic fuction like shooting at what the players want to shot instead of the game forcing it is horrible.
Well the idea of the rule is that when you have a squad of Space Marines advancing on you, Guardsman Goosey with the Lascannon might be a bit anxious and rather shoot the direct threat to *him* than the Predator farther down the line that is a more direct threat to the army as a whole. Its essentially the same idea as 8th/9th edition bubblewrapping vehicles from charges out of deep strike, except it actually put a limit on ranged combat instead of just melee. Or more apt, a limited version of character protection of 8th/9th as you can overcome it with a leadership check.
More elite units with high leadership had a really good chance of just following their orders to a T, while less elite armies tended to be able to simply throw more units into the fray in order to get the results they wanted.
Would it work now? Hell no, the games are in general too big with too many moving pieces. Remember, armies were also smaller back then - I recently did a 1500 point Guard list from the old 3.5 edition book that had a total of 6 squads of infantry (Including command squads) mounted in chimera, and two tanks.
Quasistellar wrote:This rule is just about the worst rule I've ever heard of. Glad I didn't play back then, and now I know why I kept hearing so many people quit 40k to play xwing and other tabletop games back in the day. You know, GAMES, where the players decisions matter.
As far as I know, it was the trash fire that was 6th/7th that really drove people away. 4th Edition ended in like 2008 or the like.
It sounds nice in a simulation-y sort of way, when you think about it in the abstract, but in practice it ended up in ridiculous situations all the time. Without an adjudicator, there's not really a good method for sorting through what is "reasonable" for a model to "think".
Why would the trooper manning a lascannon care that there was a singular gretchin between him and a unit of meganobz? Especially if there are five squads of his compatriots between him and said grot? There's no threat to his person in this situation (and even if there was, the meganobz are obviously way more dangerous to him, despite the slightly greater distance), it's just the game choking on itself.
It could work in a more constrained scale, where anything on the board was a danger to anything else, but not in 40k, where a solitary grot can share the field with an emperor titan. Mordheim? Sure, a lone goblin is a threat to most of the other relatively human sized models, even if not a huge one. It's got a knife, after all, and you've got kidneys right at stabbing height. BFG? Again, even a small ship carried weapons that could annihilate a city and punch holes in your cruiser. Individual bombers and similar craft were organized into attack wings, rather than being represented individually, and even then were normally stacked in multi-wing "units" (that you could still choose to ignore because they were so tiny).
A bit of an aside, but I've always found it odd that people use phrases like "board game with expensive chits" as an insult. You do realize that all models in wargames are just expensive chits, right? They just (hopefully) look better than the carboard cutouts or labeled poker chits that could replace them. Heck, I showed someone how to play WFB (I think it was 5th?) with 100x100mm and 125x50mm rectangles of plain printer paper with "Goblins" and "Chaos Warriors", respectively, written on them. Worked fine, it just looked terrible.
Rihgu wrote: To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
I think that this single statement is correct, about sims v games. Now we have a board game played with cards and expensive chits.
Why insult board games like that? Most good games have much better gameplay than 9th,
I don't get it either. Board game design feel so state-of-the-art in comparison with 40k, with board games being in their golden age right now. Light years away compared to the outdated, tedious and boring design of GW games. There are plenty of games that are so incredibly smart, elegant and deep, while 40K is neither. If anything GW should strive to reach these heights of intelligent design instead of keeping one foot stubbornly in the 80's, in the land of "Players are needed in the game, because they have hands that can roll dice. Otherwise - not really."
Yesterday I finally played some A Song Of Ice And Fire and it is really amazing what an experienced board game designer (Eric Lang: Blood Rage, Rising Sun, Chaos in the Old World, The Others, Warhammer:Invasion) can do with a miniature wargame. It was such a smooth, multi-faceted experience, loaded with thinking, but with lightning-fast resolution. We spent some time discussing the game afterwards, and my opponent, who is much more forgiving in his sentiment towards WH40K than I am admitted that it's just a whole another world of smart game design.
Moorecox wrote: This is one of the worse rules ever written by the developers.
That's a strong statement. Worse than Flickerjump? The 7e Markerlight table? Instinctive Behaviour? ATSKNF, making a huge chunk of the game ignore one of the core mechanics? Look Out, Sir? Anything to do with the Artillery type? D-strength Distortion weapons, bringing the power of Titan main guns to your sub-200pt plastic infantry? 8e/9e Reserves, presenting an invincible risk-free alpha-strike box you can't interact with in any way? 8e's reroll/modifier interaction flowchart? The sidebar in the 8e FW Index where they said "We haven't actually squatted Corsairs, honest, you can still use your HQ models as sergeants!"? The Horde rule in 8e WHFB? Leaving Guess range weapons in 8e WHFB while also allowing pre-measuring? The whole of at-launch AoS? The Solar Auxilia command squad banner (I still don't know what that rule actually means, everyone I've ever played with/asked thinks it does something slightly different)? WHFB 7th Daemons? The 40k Daemons books where you bought a roll on a table instead of an actual upgrade? End Times Alarielle? The Banner of the World Dragon? Any time they try to write anything that triggers on 1s or 6s? 8e/9e blast weapons? The pre-nerf 7e/30k quad-mortar? Randomly selected psychic powers? The 9e Deathwatch Chapter Tactics? Psykers in Kill Team? The Shadow Warriors warband in Mordheim? 6e Jink? 8th/9th "bombs"? Shattered Legions? CP per detachment? Anything to do with the closest-target character thing? Any non-Vindicare/Exodus "sniper" in any edition? The gibberish that is "only the plastic kit assembly instructions allowed" datasheets? The Stormcast +1 save bubble warlord trait? BFG Holofields? 4e/5e Holofields? Any Seer Council implementation post-3rd? The Biel-Tan 3e army list? Most versions of Dark Reapers? No unit size caps in WHFB? BS to scatter distance, thereby requiring you to roll scatter dice while also making it barely matter when firing blast weapons?
(I should go to sleep or I'll just keep coming up with more.)
Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.
How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?
The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.
Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.
Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.
Target Priority was great in principle but terrible in execution. The idea that your units may not always respond exactly how you might like is fairly common across many wargames and boardgames, at least in some fashion. Whether it's semi-random activation order like Bolt Action or needing to pass command checks or setting orders before you have full knowledge of the board state, these rules are designed to simulate the fog of war or the chaos of the battlefield. The problem with GW's implementation was it was clunky and largely pointless.
Too many armies had Ld 9 or 10, making the dice rolls largely pointless and even the supposedly unruly armies didn't fail often enough for it to matter in most cases. The fail state was also pretty punishing, making the infrequent failures very annoying when they did happen. I think 40k would greatly benefit from more restrictions on targeting or split fire in order to reduce lethality and introduce more decision making into the game but I don't think the old Target Priority mechanic does that and it's a net benefit that it was removed.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.
That's why.
Just the base leaderships of the game saw to that. Similar to how pinning never really worked that well.
It wasn't exactly elegant design but I get what they were going for at least.
However, I think the real problem with mechanics like this (along with most mechanics involving Ld) is that there's generally a fluff reason for most of the factions in 40k to ignore them. Tyranids should ignore them because Hive Mind, Necrons should ignore them because they're logical machines, Space Marines should ignore them because SPEESE MERINES! etc.
So what you inevitably end up with is all the designers' favourite factions getting ever more ways to ignore the rule while the runts are stuck getting screwed by it.
It's the same reason Fear was a running joke in 7th edition, because so many armies either ignored it outright or else had miniscule odds of failing (Ld9-10 with a reroll). Yet in spite of the fact that it rarely ever worked, GW insisted on putting it absolutely everywhere.
Moorecox wrote: This is one of the worse rules ever written by the developers.
That's a strong statement. Worse than Flickerjump? The 7e Markerlight table? Instinctive Behaviour? ATSKNF, making a huge chunk of the game ignore one of the core mechanics? Look Out, Sir? Anything to do with the Artillery type? D-strength Distortion weapons, bringing the power of Titan main guns to your sub-200pt plastic infantry? 8e/9e Reserves, presenting an invincible risk-free alpha-strike box you can't interact with in any way? 8e's reroll/modifier interaction flowchart? The sidebar in the 8e FW Index where they said "We haven't actually squatted Corsairs, honest, you can still use your HQ models as sergeants!"? The Horde rule in 8e WHFB? Leaving Guess range weapons in 8e WHFB while also allowing pre-measuring? The whole of at-launch AoS? The Solar Auxilia command squad banner (I still don't know what that rule actually means, everyone I've ever played with/asked thinks it does something slightly different)? WHFB 7th Daemons? The 40k Daemons books where you bought a roll on a table instead of an actual upgrade? End Times Alarielle? The Banner of the World Dragon? Any time they try to write anything that triggers on 1s or 6s? 8e/9e blast weapons? The pre-nerf 7e/30k quad-mortar? Randomly selected psychic powers? The 9e Deathwatch Chapter Tactics? Psykers in Kill Team? The Shadow Warriors warband in Mordheim? 6e Jink? 8th/9th "bombs"? Shattered Legions? CP per detachment? Anything to do with the closest-target character thing? Any non-Vindicare/Exodus "sniper" in any edition? The gibberish that is "only the plastic kit assembly instructions allowed" datasheets? The Stormcast +1 save bubble warlord trait? BFG Holofields? 4e/5e Holofields? Any Seer Council implementation post-3rd? The Biel-Tan 3e army list? Most versions of Dark Reapers? No unit size caps in WHFB? BS to scatter distance, thereby requiring you to roll scatter dice while also making it barely matter when firing blast weapons?
It does seem odd that people are calling this rule out as being nonsensical, yet we're currently in an edition where one unit throwing grenades can prevent an entirely different unit, on the other side of the battlefield, from throwing theirs.
Hellebore wrote: Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.
How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?
The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.
Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.
Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.
I disagree with your assertion.
The difference is between rolling to see if my decision as a player has the effect I want it to have (Expected in literally any kind of dice game, wargame, erpg), or rolling to even be able to make a decision.
You know why nobody used Slaking in Pokemon? Even with his OP stats? Because he had a 50% chance of just ignoring you and doing nothing. It was fluffy, he was a sloth afterall. It also sucked.
The truth is: I'm the one playing the game, not my miniatures. They are tokens. Stuff like releasing a berserker virus on a unit to make them more powerfull but forcing them to charge any near model? Great! I HAVE the decision if I want to release that berserker virus, or just take that unit. Rolling dice just for the privilege of actually playing the game instead of it being in automatic mode?
I mean. Autochess are very popular. I spend a couple of months playing the LoL one non stop. They have appeal. But they are also fast and fun. I don't want warhammer to be an autochess where each rounds is 2-3 hours.
I put target priority rules in warhammer (In Necromunda, for example, they work much better as a skirmish game) the same at the same tier than Animosity greenskin rules for fantasy. Roll a dice for each unit to see if they actually allow you to play the game. But you are the only army in the game that has that! Great! Fluffy! Stupid piece of gak rule. I don't know how many people wanted it in 9th edition. "Orks without animosity aren't orks!" the worst thing is they are bringing it into Bloodbowl 3rd edition. A disgrace.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.
That's why.
Just the base leaderships of the game saw to that. Similar to how pinning never really worked that well.
vipoid wrote: However, I think the real problem with mechanics like this (along with most mechanics involving Ld) is that there's generally a fluff reason for most of the factions in 40k to ignore them. Tyranids should ignore them because Hive Mind, Necrons should ignore them because they're logical machines, Space Marines should ignore them because SPEESE MERINES! etc.
So what you inevitably end up with is all the designers' favourite factions getting ever more ways to ignore the rule while the runts are stuck getting screwed by it.
As far back as the game has existed, there's been these sim-like rules. And edition after edition they've been stripped away. Some may remember their existence fondly as an example of realism or depth, but the fact is every army had ways to skirt or ignore those rules because they weren't fun. They bogged down the game to remember and use, and their effects sucked to play. Nobody ever actually pinned a squad with sniper rifles or artillery (I challenge you to remember a game where it happened). Everybody was either fearless, or L10, or re-rollable, or automatically rallied anyway. Frankly, they pulled these rules on purpose.
40k has never been a good simulation wargame, and it's always been moving toward being a better game instead (yes, even 6th and 7th, as awful as they were compared to 5th). I think 9th is the best shape 40k has ever been in terms of player agency and engagement. It's certainly the most fun I've ever had with the game.
Hellebore wrote: Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.
How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?
The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.
Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.
Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.
I disagree with your assertion.
The difference is between rolling to see if my decision as a player has the effect I want it to have (Expected in literally any kind of dice game, wargame, erpg), or rolling to even be able to make a decision.
You know why nobody used Slaking in Pokemon? Even with his OP stats? Because he had a 50% chance of just ignoring you and doing nothing. It was fluffy, he was a sloth afterall. It also sucked.
The truth is: I'm the one playing the game, not my miniatures. They are tokens. Stuff like releasing a berserker virus on a unit to make them more powerfull but forcing them to charge any near model? Great! I HAVE the decision if I want to release that berserker virus, or just take that unit. Rolling dice just for the privilege of actually playing the game instead of it being in automatic mode?
I mean. Autochess are very popular. I spend a couple of months playing the LoL one non stop. They have appeal. But they are also fast and fun. I don't want warhammer to be an autochess where each rounds is 2-3 hours.
I put target priority rules in warhammer (In Necromunda, for example, they work much better as a skirmish game) the same at the same tier than Animosity greenskin rules for fantasy. Roll a dice for each unit to see if they actually allow you to play the game. But you are the only army in the game that has that! Great! Fluffy! Stupid piece of gak rule. I don't know how many people wanted it in 9th edition. "Orks without animosity aren't orks!" the worst thing is they are bringing it into Bloodbowl 3rd edition. A disgrace.
Your premise is fairly arbitrary though.
You've said it's the difference between how something you want turns out vs whether you can do what you want - but that's applicable at all levels of the game.
ie, the only outcome of shooting a unit is destroying it - so the decision to shoot something is the decision to destroy it. But the rules get in the way of the outcome you want with hitting, wounding and saving. Thus these rules are preventing you getting your outcome.
You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.
When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.
So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.
It is a good rule - it may have been implemented poorly, but the concept is sound.
It is no secret that leadership is a greatly neglected aspect of a unit's statline. Many have brought up all compelling and true reasons why this is so.
but it doesn't have to be that way...
For those who think the sky would fall over some "fog of war" creeping into the game's decision tree:
there is tons of design space in 40k for units that have low combat output but high leadership.
Warmaster, an old GW specialty game used a system like this and imo it worked quite well. As well one of my favourite tabletop games
I think although the "flow" of 40k games is better than it has been in many years, finding a tactical niche for leadership has yet to be properly realised. 40k matches should be about more than just doing damage to each other. All strategic battles have reasons for the battle - leadership is the RPG attribute which represents this.
You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.
When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.
So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.
Congratulations! You created a rule that makes players spend hours on end on tedious non-interactive operation of the game's engine (boring dice rolling) instead of playing just to see if they actually can play or if the game plays itself this time.
And that's in a game which already has an abysmal ratio of obligatory upkeep to active gameplay and would benefit from cutting all the dice rolls necessary for action resolution in at least half.
You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.
When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.
So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.
Congratulations! You created a rule that makes players spend hours on end on tedious non-interactive operation of the game's engine (boring dice rolling) instead of playing just to see if they actually can play or if the game plays itself this time.
And that's in a game which already has an abysmal ratio of obligatory upkeep to active gameplay and would benefit from cutting all the dice rolls necessary for action resolution in at least half.
I reject your premise of 'non interactive'. Your definition is arbitrary.
You've decided that a dice roll that isn't rolled against a target for damage is not interactive. By this definition BS is also not interactive and thus tedious and pointless - you only roll it against itself, not against an enemy.
My arguments have all been to show how arbitrary bias towards rules is what is leading this discussion, not any objective truth or superiority of mechanics.
You understand that the rules includes limitations on targeting units already right? Look out sir controls how your models shoot - oh no the simulation is killing my interactivity!
Yet again further evidence that this argument is entirely subjective, couched in objective language to try and give it some kind of legitimacy.
You made an assumption that I have no problem with rolls already existing in the game.
I do. I don't play it because it bores me to tears with how long and boring the obligatory upkeep takes. If the game has FAR too much dice rolling in it, it needs ideas for reducing time spent on this boring part, not ideas for adding even more of what makes it boring.
I'd definitely be more interested in playing if the arduous slog of hit-wound-save-damage was combined into a single roll that took into account all the conditional modifiers.
I'd be ok for dice to be removed altogether for something more deterministic and player-driven. For example choosing from a hand of card modifiers and orders (like the beautiful combat system in A Game of Thrones) or managing a resource pool (ammo/ battle stress or whatever) to alter the default results of actions.
Or if dice were used pre-decision, like in Troyes or Castles of Burgundy or (if you want a miniature "war"game) Guild Ball, to create a varying menu of interesting choices for players instead of arbitrarily telling them every now and again that their decision (and their role in the game) is irrelevant.
I dislike target priority because it's an extra layer of dice rolling (god knows 40k has quite enough of that already) that fundementally fails to achieve what it's meant to.
Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?
I do agree that rolling to see if you're allowed to shoot what you want is mechanically not all that different to rolling to see if you've hit what you shot at; but it certainly feels different. Although that isn't even the primary reason why I'm opposed to it. That's for the reasons I outlined above.
40k is sorely lacking a morale system. The system it has now is only really morale in name, it's just extra lethality. "oh a bunch of stuff died, even more dies!"
Replacing that with a suppression/panic system, as is found in games like Legion, Dust, Necromunda, and more, will help a tonne. It would give units more ways to interact beyond killing each other, it would open up more design space for special rules that aren't solely kill/survive better. It would open up more room for tactical decisions "do I suppress two units or kill one unit?" or whatever.
I personally prefer the WAR(game) as some of you well know, and would happily trade away GAME elements in favor of more WAR elements.
That's because I got into 40k because of the lore/setting, and it'd be nice for the rules I use to conform to that setting, rather than be totally distinct.
I get that some people would rather it be a GAME first, though more's the pity that the various 40k-themed board and card games never got their attention.
A "gamey" element can be really thematic. You just have to put an effort into making it so.
Rolling dice for hours on end is hardly any more thematic and immersive than choosing a commander to lead in a battle in A Game of Thrones or deciding to capture enemies for ransom instead of killing them in Rising Sun.
Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.
Cyel wrote: A "gamey" element can be really thematic. You just have to put an effort into making it so.
I totally agree. My favourite mechanics in games are simple and quick to play but that really capture the essence of what they're trying to represent. It's definitely possible and some games do it excellently.
40k does it honestly horrifically. The rules are neither quick, simple, nor elegant. They don't even really capture what they're trying to represent imo. 40k rule's are good for one thing and one thing only, and that's making people feel like they're getting something unique and special (and therefore worth buying).
Cyel wrote: Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.
If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.
That's what Clausewitzian Friction is. A degradation of an army's ability to operate efficiently as a team because of Murphy's Law, essentially. It means that the perfectly orchestrated plan that General Player is going to execute might go awry because of a broken radio or thrown tank track (or, in this case, panicky guardsmen engaging the nearest threat rather than the more "true" threat).
It's essentially not possible to challenge the player with Clausewitzian Friction without removing their agency to some degree - since the major point of Friction is that "a general/C2 structure does not have total control of its army at all times, and cannot always be on-hand to make the necessary decision at a lower echelon". Just replace "general" with "player" and change the warfighting terminology to game terminology, and the point literally says: "The player does not have total agency over his army at all times" ----- In fact, the badassness of a rule like this can be seen in the way the the Imperial Guard codex from this time treated Vox Casters. The men could use the leadership of proximate officers (12" I think). This meant that they were more likely to fire at the designated target if the officer was shouting at them, and less likely if they were left on their own. You could purchase Vox Casters for your army, which made that leadership buff board-wide (because now your officer can talk into a radio to anyone on the battlefield) for any unit that also had a Vox Caster. It's the best representation of C3 (command, control, and communication) that 40k has ever had.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Having to do a whole suite of rolls to see if your guys can shoot what you want them to shoot isn't fun.
It is if you're interested in simulating a real battle set in a setting where that sort of thing might happened. Some people find that fun.
I want my guardsmen to fail that test and have it lose the battle for me, so I can write about the consequences. Would the sergeant feel guilty that he couldn't see the bigger picture or control his men (it was his Leadership that failed after all)? Or could it even result in his death, doomed by his own lack of willpower in the face of the friction of war? Would he be fired by a higher-up or shot by a commissar if he survives? Would the nearby presence of an officer help him keep his cool, or did the officer have to personally come over to ensure the test was passed (the 12" rule)? Would he bring a Vox Caster for his squad the next battle, determined never again to be out-of-communication and failing to see the bigger picture?
Some people actually do want to find out how their army would "actually perform" in the setting, and Clausewitzian Friction (or how an army overcomes it) is arguably the most important factor in victory, even in the 40k setting.
Cyel wrote: Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.
If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.
And yet designers abstract plenty of things in every wargame without batting an eye. Why not abstract things that make the experience miserable?
Cyel wrote: Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.
If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.
And yet designers abstract plenty of things in every wargame without batting an eye. Why not abstract things that make the experience miserable?
Because for some people it doesn't make the experience miserable?
I enjoy games where my control over my units is constrained. Bolt Action and especially Chain of Command are perfect examples. Heck, the C2 problems in Chain of Command get so bad that it's the only wargame I've played where bringing on your entire army can actually be a weakness if you don't have the C2 structure to actually ... well, C2 all of the variety of units you showed up with.
Simulating real war is fun - at least for some people.
It seems that some people are misinterpreting the Target Priority rule from 4th edition, with some assuming that their unit cannot shoot at all if the LD test is failed or that a single grot prevents the shooting unit targeting a tank directly behind the grot. I have copied/pasted the actual rule below so that everyone can understand how the mechanic worked.
Edit: Also, vehicles automatically passed the LD check for Target Priority. See page 62 of the 4th edition rulebook.
Rihgu wrote: Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.
From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"
And yes, that is and has always been the main role for Grots: to die as meat shields for the more important Ork units. But if your army is comprised of trained, disciplined soldiers (high LD), then you are rewarded with a significantly greater chance of being able to disregard the meat shield and focus fire on the more important targets. Again "(WAR)game vs war(GAME)."
Rihgu wrote: Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.
From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"
Okay... And your point?
The mob of rocket launchers are infantry. So are Grots. Unless I'm misreading the rule, you'd have to target the grot on a failed leadership test.
Rihgu wrote: Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.
From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"
Okay... And your point?
The mob of rocket launchers are infantry. So are Grots. Unless I'm misreading the rule, you'd have to target the grot on a failed leadership test.
See my edit to my post above. Vehicles/tanks automatically passed the Target Priority LD test in 4th edition.
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.
But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.
But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.
That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.
But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.
That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.
You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.
But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.
That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.
You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.
So replace "one grot" with "a squad of grots". It still doesn't simulate the battlefield well. Grots are pathetically weak, they look pathetically weak, whereas nobs are quite deadly, and look the part.
But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?
You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.
But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.
That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.
You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.
So replace "one grot" with "a squad of grots". It still doesn't simulate the battlefield well. Grots are pathetically weak, they look pathetically weak, whereas nobs are quite deadly, and look the part.
True: grots are weak and nobs are deadly. But a mob of grots is also deadly. If you were in the thick of battle, being charged by a mob of screaming grots with their bosses following behind them, are you honestly going to aim your gun at the nobs behind them because they look more dangerous or are you going to shoot at the grots because they are the more immediate threat? Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.
The huge problem with target priority was that it was a single die roll that determined whether an entire unit's shooting would be wasted or not. The same way that the old version of falling back from combat was a single die roll that determined the fate of an entire unit.
Imagine if target priority was "If you're not shooting at the most threatening/nearby/whatever target unit, you suffer a -1 to hit due to being distracted. When a unit declares attacks, they can try to make a Ld roll to avoid this penalty, subject to the following restrictions: ...."
You've still got your simulationist mechanic, and leadership is still important, but one die roll doesn't decide an entire unit's shooting.
I still wouldn't want the rule at all, but that at least makes more sense than "Your Devastators got freaked out by that lone Grot. Guess those Meganobz live to fight another day!"
solkan wrote: Don't forget the better part: Because everyone is allowed to split fire in this edition, the target priority rules will have to be based on individual models (or groups) and not units.
For what it's worth, that's how it worked in 2nd edition. Each model had to fire at the closest target in its line of sight (which depended on which way it was facing) and could ignore closer targets in favour of vehicles or mission objectives.
As a greenskin player in fantasy that HATED animosity rules, I wouldn't even play 40k with a rule like this.
Like fear and morale rules, they just DON'T make sense in warhammer universe.
90% armies of the game just shouldn't be afected by morale or this kind of rules. And as everytime that a rule like this exist, they only exist to punish imperial guardsmen and orks. And maybe Tau.
But even imperial guardsmen (Not conscripts) are by today standards fething navy seals. I mean, even Cadian White Shields were trained from YOUTH to become soldiers. Our "modern profesional military" would be planteary PDF. All this rules that threat them as unskilled militiamen are derived from warhammer fantasy. But IG infantry squads are not at the same tier than fantasy state troops.
Rihgu wrote: To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:
Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.
Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.
edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)
I think that this single statement is correct, about sims v games. Now we have a board game played with cards and expensive chits.
Why insult board games like that? Most good games have much better gameplay than 9th,
solkan wrote: Don't forget the better part: Because everyone is allowed to split fire in this edition, the target priority rules will have to be based on individual models (or groups) and not units.
For what it's worth, that's how it worked in 2nd edition. Each model had to fire at the closest target in its line of sight (which depended on which way it was facing) and could ignore closer targets in favour of vehicles or mission objectives.
This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all. As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.
At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference.
This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all. As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.
At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference.
Including model facing doesn't actually make the models any more necessary, though. Square or rectangular chits, or circular ones with arc of sight markers would do just as well.
Ultimately, the models are never actually necessary in a miniatures game. People just use miniatures because miniatures look cool.
Also worth pointing out that the end result of the 2nd ed LOS and target priority rules was model micro-management, as people carefully positioned the models in their units so that the heavy weapon troops could only see the enemy units that they wanted to shoot at. You ended up in situations where the lascannon guy was deliberately standing with his back to the unit three inches away that the rest of his squad was shooting at, so that he could shoot at the unit way over the other side of the board.
Something more like what we have in MEdge, where the models have a front and back arc and the unit shoots at whatever the squad leader is looking at results in much less gaminess, while still allowing facing to matter.
Gnarlly wrote: Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.
Gnarlly wrote: Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.
What, training like Guardsmen would have?
No, I would use Space Marines as a better example. The troops of the Imperial Guard are generally fresh recruits to add to the meat grinder that is the Imperium in 40k; a sledgehammer compared to the scalpel of truly more disciplined and trained troops like Space Marines. Guard troops really need their officers and commissars to help maintain discipline.
The writers of 40k over the years have attempted to glamorize certain regiments like the Catachans, Cadians, Vostroyans, etc. as hard, disciplined troops, but in game the reality is that Guard regiments are about as bad as Orks when it comes to discipline and morale.
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Astra_Militarum After being raised, the regiment is shipped to its posting; they receive their training during the voyage. Their posting can be directly into the heart of a warzone, or it may be to garrison or outpost duty.
If any regiment survives for long enough, it can eventually receive reinforcement from children born to the Guardsmen who have been raised inside the regiment and can normally be expected to join it upon reaching the required age.
I know my lore well enough. Guardsmen are all over the spectrum as far as training goes. Kriegers actually fight against those who failed to be up to standard, Cadians are trained from birth. That's before getting into either Stormtroopers or all sorts of Veteran units the Guard features, who are certainly ''significantly trained'' and do not need to be babysitted
ERJAK wrote:It's also an utterly miserable mechanic to live with because of how it just rips away player agency. If you have a low leadership army or are just unlucky with dice it completely removes you as the player from the game. Nothing like needing to roll a 7+ to see if you get to play warhammer today.
Jidmah wrote:You also understand a lot of the veterans complains much better if understand that they are looking for a simulation that takes the result of the game out of their hands, while most modern players are looking for a game, where such things have no place.
Is random charge rolls also a 'simulation' mechanic that has no place in a 'game', something that 'takes the result of the game out of your hands', and 'completely removes you as the player from the game- nothing like needing to roll a 7+ to see if you get to play warhammer today'?
Even by Dakka standards this is melodramatic.
This is a dice game. You won't always pass your rolls, and the decision-making lies in how you adjust those odds in your favor. Like employing maneuver, positioning, and sequencing so that you can guarantee you can shoot the target when you need to, rather than having to settle for only probably being able to shoot the target. If you can handle random charges, you can handle target priority.
Edit: And I'm not even a huge fan of how it was originally implemented, but it is downright disingenuous how many people in this thread are describing it as 'you fail a dice roll and your unit does nothing'. It was always that if you failed the dice roll you still got to shoot, it just had to be at the closest unit. In 40K, a game where all your shooting comes immediately after your movement (something you have total control over), with no opportunity for the enemy to interrupt it, so you have complete freedom to redeploy as needed before having to make that check. And you could ignore infantry if you wanted to target vehicles or monsters. And even if you did end up having to take that big bad test, even Guardsmen were still passing it 58% of the time. Most units were passing 72% of the time or more- better odds than charging out of deep strike with a re-roll in 9th, something that actually does leave you sitting there doing nothing if you fail.
If you were playing 4th Ed and regularly had troops wasting their fire by shooting at targets they couldn't hurt, you had to be doing something seriously wrong as a general. It was a mechanic that was stripped out for the sake of speed of play and because most armies didn't actually care about it all that much, not because it was some inescapable randomness that arbitrarily screwed over entire armies through a couple of bad rolls.
This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all.
Spoiler:
As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.
At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference
.
Including model facing doesn't actually make the models any more necessary, though. Square or rectangular chits, or circular ones with arc of sight markers would do just as well.
Ultimately, the models are never actually necessary in a miniatures game. People just use miniatures because miniatures look cool.
Spoiler:
Also worth pointing out that the end result of the 2nd ed LOS and target priority rules was model micro-management, as people carefully positioned the models in their units so that the heavy weapon troops could only see the enemy units that they wanted to shoot at. You ended up in situations where the lascannon guy was deliberately standing with his back to the unit three inches away that the rest of his squad was shooting at, so that he could shoot at the unit way over the other side of the board.
Something more like what we have in MEdge, where the models have a front and back arc and the unit shoots at whatever the squad leader is looking at results in much less gaminess, while still allowing facing to matter
.
Not unless you have chits that are an inch and a half tall that are fun to paint and look as cool next to a fake tree as the real deal.
And sure, rules can be poorly conceived, but simply offering an example of someone gaming the system to ruin the experience, purposefully interpreting for advantage rather than in goodwill, does not speak negatively of the rules and rather of those with whom one may choose to share them.
House rules with friendly colleagues can fix a lot. Besides, I like the micro model facing and move measures down to the minute fraction including model facings etc.
Myself, I am looking forward to the new 30k release to at least recover blast templates...
I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.
Bring it back.
Of all the rules from 4th this is one of the few I don't miss. I remember a lot of the time at my store people would just not bother because it was boring and open to abuse.
If your objective was "I want a way to simulate a squad disobeying orders to shoot at what it thinks is the most immediate threat, instead of what it was ordered to shoot at", why on Earth would you want the previous edition's "If you fail your leadership test, you just don't shoot anything at all" rule?
And that's before getting into the inevitable consequence of that sort of rule existing in 40k:
* The use of convenient box shaped tanks to block line of fire to inconvenient closer targets so that the models can just see what you wanted them to shoot at, rendering the command check irrelevant.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.
Oh, don't get me started on rolling for charges. Awful, thing. This single change made me stop playing Warhammer Fantasy in 8th ed.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.
Oh, don't get me started on rolling for charges. Awful, thing. This single change made me stop playing Warhammer Fantasy in 8th ed.
On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.
First we have a movement phase where models can move or run. If they move, they move up to their Movement characteristic. Makes sense. If they run, they can move their Movement Characteristic + 1d6. Huh. Oh and models moving in the movement phase can't move into contact with enemy models. There's no explanation as to why this is the case. Possibly if they try it a German voice shouts at them "Nein! You must do zat in ze designated phase!"
But whatever. We then move onto the psychic phase and then onto the shooting phase. Okay.
And then we get onto the second movement phase. Except that this one can only be used to make contact with enemy models. You can't use this movement phase to, for example, move away from the enemy after shooting (even if you didn't move at all in the first movement phase). Also, it's fine to charge after you spent time shooting but (usually) not if you ran (clearly those advancing vehicles are just too tired to move any further this turn).
When you move in this second movement phase, your movement characteristic ceases to matter and you only ever go 2d6". This time you are not only allowed to move into contact with enemy models you must move into contact with them. Not only that, but a unit wishing to move must declare any and all targets in advance. Should it fail to make contact with even a single one of those targets, fate will intervene and reverse time such that that unit never actually moved at all.
Oh, and despite units being too tired to charge after moving an extra 1d6", units that didn't move that 1d6" are not remotely tired after moving 2d6" and so will move an extra 3" to pile in and then another 3" after attacking to consolidate.
When I see how other wargames do movement I can't help but see the above as being unbelievably clunky for a game that's currently in its 9th iteration.
vipoid wrote: On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.
First we have a movement phase where models can move or run. If they move, they move up to their Movement characteristic. Makes sense. If they run, they can move their Movement Characteristic + 1d6. Huh. Oh and models moving in the movement phase can't move into contact with enemy models. There's no explanation as to why this is the case. Possibly if they try it a German voice shouts at them "Nein! You must do zat in ze designated phase!"
But whatever. We then move onto the psychic phase and then onto the shooting phase. Okay.
And then we get onto the second movement phase. Except that this one can only be used to make contact with enemy models. You can't use this movement phase to, for example, move away from the enemy after shooting (even if you didn't move at all in the first movement phase). Also, it's fine to charge after you spent time shooting but (usually) not if you ran (clearly those advancing vehicles are just too tired to move any further this turn).
When you move in this second movement phase, your movement characteristic ceases to matter and you only ever go 2d6". This time you are not only allowed to move into contact with enemy models you must move into contact with them. Not only that, but a unit wishing to move must declare any and all targets in advance. Should it fail to make contact with even a single one of those targets, fate will intervene and reverse time such that that unit never actually moved at all.
Oh, and despite units being too tired to charge after moving an extra 1d6", units that didn't move that 1d6" are not remotely tired after moving 2d6" and so will move an extra 3" to pile in and then another 3" after attacking to consolidate.
When I see how other wargames do movement I can't help but see the above as being unbelievably clunky for a game that's currently in its 9th iteration.
IIRC this additional "movement phase" for charging was introduced in 3rd edition where the Assault phase came after the shooting phase. In 2nd edition charging happened in the movement phase and were the same as running was at that time - double the movement stat.
I find it quite unintuitive too, but I speculate that it was introduced to increase the lethality of the game so you could shoot a target prior to charging in for melee.
Killteam uses a charge during the movement phase.
TBH I think it works very poorly, but that's mostly due to how Killteam handles the movement phase in general, as a concept it's a lot better and it's how a lot of other games treat it as well.
I agree that it was presumably done to allow a unit to shoot before charging. Over the editions the amount of damage any given can do in a turn has just increased and increased.
When I started you couldn't even move and fire a heavy weapon, even rapid fire weapons were very limited.
Now though, you can move and fire a heavy weapon with only a minor penalty, and then even charge straight after!
Movement should be to move your movement stat, run to be +1/2 your movement stat, and if you touch an enemy unit with your movement it counts as a charge.
Is a problem that even a humble ork boy can move 5" advance d6" charge 2d6" (Normally with bonuses) and then normally pile in 3" and maybe even consolidate 3". Thats a ton of movement for infantry in just a single phase, and slingshoting units with charges is some of the stuff that makes proper, fast units feel too... meh.
And thinking about rules, I tought how better Challenges would be if it just ported over MESBG duel rules. We'll try it in my group for HH.
Both players roll a number of dice equal fo the number of attacks of his character. The one that gets the biggest dice wins the duel (so max 6). If they are tied, the one with the biggest WS wins. If they are tied in WS they roll a dice, 1-3 for one, 4-6 for the other. And the character with the highest Initiative can reroll one duel roll.
IIRC this additional "movement phase" for charging was introduced in 3rd edition where the Assault phase came after the shooting phase. In 2nd edition charging happened in the movement phase and were the same as running was at that time - double the movement stat.
I find it quite unintuitive too, but I speculate that it was introduced to increase the lethality of the game so you could shoot a target prior to charging in for melee.
I do get why it was introduced. But given that that was 6 editions ago, I'd have thought it might have become a little more refined since.
That said, it also seems to tie into this aspect of 40k models increasingly being able to do everything at full effect with no tradeoff.
In other games, models usually have a limited number of actions (or similar restrictions). So that a model might be able to move and shoot or move and cast a spell (or use some other action/ability) or maybe not move and instead shoot twice, but not all of these things at once.
Contrast that with 40k, where a model can potentially move and then cast any number of spells, then shoot any number of weapons, and then move again and then fight. Obviously not all models have this capacity but it seems that the game has been designed so that the models who can do this must be able to do so without penalty or trade-off. Psykers, for example, have limits on the number of powers they can use but casting these powers doesn't inhibit their ability to do anything else (they don't have to cast a spell instead of shooting a weapon or making melee attacks).
I'll say that when you can only play 5 turns, having a unit just do 2 actions in a game feels a little meh.
If this was like Infinity were games are shorter, and YOU are the one that decides how many actions any of your units does, is different. But in 40k with 2-3 hour games it doesnt feel right.
I play Star Wars Legion, that's 5 turns with units taking 2 actions a turn. Not only that, but often units can't even take both of their actions due to being suppressed!
Yet I prefer it. You have to play smarter rather than just yeeting your assault unit across the board.
When I play 40k, my only strategy is really what do I delete?
In Legion there's a lot more.
Galas wrote: Movement should be to move your movement stat, run to be +1/2 your movement stat, and if you touch an enemy unit with your movement it counts as a charge.
Is a problem that even a humble ork boy can move 5" advance d6" charge 2d6" (Normally with bonuses) and then normally pile in 3" and maybe even consolidate 3". Thats a ton of movement for infantry in just a single phase, and slingshoting units with charges is some of the stuff that makes proper, fast units feel too... meh.
And thinking about rules, I tought how better Challenges would be if it just ported over MESBG duel rules. We'll try it in my group for HH.
Both players roll a number of dice equal fo the number of attacks of his character. The one that gets the biggest dice wins the duel (so max 6). If they are tied, the one with the biggest WS wins. If they are tied in WS they roll a dice, 1-3 for one, 4-6 for the other. And the character with the highest Initiative can reroll one duel roll.
Your proposed method is remarkably similar to 40k’s 2nd edition’s close combat system. Back then 40K was much more a skirmish game so this system was mostly fine, but even then it was pretty time consuming when whole squads were involved! I wouldn’t fancy it for a 2000pt game if 9th edition!!
solkan wrote: why on Earth would you want the previous edition's "If you fail your leadership test, you just don't shoot anything at all" rule?
This has never been a rule in 40K and nobody is asking for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.
Very good post, and I would point out that the random advance and charge distances are at odds with what is otherwise a, aside from dice rolls, very deterministic game. You can position your troops to be exactly 31" from the enemy and know for certain that they cannot move up and shoot, but the only safe distance against charging is where the enemy cannot even possibly roll high enough to contact you.
The 'everyone does everything in every phase' approach is a legacy of 80s/90s game design, while more modern games tend to use an action-based system like Kiro pointed out. One action to move, both actions to run or charge is a pretty common paradigm, as is having the run/charge distance just be double the basic movement. Spend one action to shoot, spend both actions to perform sustained fire (with a bonus or re-roll or whatnot). And then you can also spend actions for unique abilities or interacting with the battlefield... kind of like what 40K is now doing with objectives.
Sometimes, in systems that emphasize friction, basic movement will be random as well, but typically not in beer-and-pretzels wargames along the same lines as 40K.
vipoid wrote: On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.
First we have a movement phase where models can move or run. If they move, they move up to their Movement characteristic. Makes sense. If they run, they can move their Movement Characteristic + 1d6. Huh. Oh and models moving in the movement phase can't move into contact with enemy models. There's no explanation as to why this is the case. Possibly if they try it a German voice shouts at them "Nein! You must do zat in ze designated phase!"
But whatever. We then move onto the psychic phase and then onto the shooting phase. Okay.
And then we get onto the second movement phase. Except that this one can only be used to make contact with enemy models. You can't use this movement phase to, for example, move away from the enemy after shooting (even if you didn't move at all in the first movement phase). Also, it's fine to charge after you spent time shooting but (usually) not if you ran (clearly those advancing vehicles are just too tired to move any further this turn).
When you move in this second movement phase, your movement characteristic ceases to matter and you only ever go 2d6". This time you are not only allowed to move into contact with enemy models you must move into contact with them. Not only that, but a unit wishing to move must declare any and all targets in advance. Should it fail to make contact with even a single one of those targets, fate will intervene and reverse time such that that unit never actually moved at all.
Oh, and despite units being too tired to charge after moving an extra 1d6", units that didn't move that 1d6" are not remotely tired after moving 2d6" and so will move an extra 3" to pile in and then another 3" after attacking to consolidate.
When I see how other wargames do movement I can't help but see the above as being unbelievably clunky for a game that's currently in its 9th iteration.
100% agree. Especially for horde armies like orks having to touch units of 30 models four times per turn is super annoying and wastes a lot of time.
I thought the killteam solution was rather elegant, just allow assault weapons and pistols to be shot in the turn your made a charge move - it would give those weapons a reason to exists besides being the "vanilla" weapon type.
That would also eliminate that weird "don't shoot what you want to charge" thing.
The school year is ending this Friday and today I played a farewell Warmachine game against two of my soon-to-be-former students (18y.o.). One plays more 40k and WM&H very rarely and the other plays WM&H only (and a lot of modern board games - we have a boardgaming club at school) but maybe we'll set up a game during holidays to show him what WH40K is all about.
So the first one had plenty of habits from 40k and at some point was about to roll for charge. I told him not to roll "It WM&H, not 40k, we don't roll for charges here, we manage and interrupt threat ranges and LOS with gameplay instead "
At this point the other student asked, wide-eyed "You roll for charge range in WH40K?" He just literally couldn't believe when we said yes, he was sure we're making fun of him, that's how silly it sounded to him. "So you just roll and if you don't roll enough the charge fails and you stand there wiating to be killed? How does it make any sense or interesting gameplay?"
Once he realised we're serious, he started laughing and couldn't stop for some time.
So, yeah. I'm so used to playing GW games that I underestimate how silly and unfun those rules are for someone from outside the bubble :]
Jidmah wrote: 100% agree. Especially for horde armies like orks having to touch units of 30 models four times per turn is super annoying and wastes a lot of time.
I thought the killteam solution was rather elegant, just allow assault weapons and pistols to be shot in the turn your made a charge move - it would give those weapons a reason to exists besides being the "vanilla" weapon type.
That would also eliminate that weird "don't shoot what you want to charge" thing.
I like that idea.
It would also give Assault and Pistol weapons more of a point. It used to be that if you wanted to charge, you *had* to have an Assault or a Pistol weapon. Now those mostly exist as Rapid Fire weapons but with half the shots.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think 40k needs a "basic" weapon category.
Traditionally Assault has filled that role, but really Assault should be it's own thing.
I actually suggested a fix for this a while back - give each weapon a rate of fire and make Assault, Pistol, Heavy and Rapid Fire into weapon abilities.
Pistol - This weapon may be fired even while the user is engaged in melee.
Assault - This weapon may be fired even after the user Advanced. In this case, it suffers a -1 penalty to hit.
Heavy - This weapon suffers a -1 penalty to hit if the user moved in the preceding movement phase.
Rapid Fire - This weapon's Rate of Fire is doubled against targets that are within half of its maximum range.
(I'm abbreviating them a little but you get the idea.)
So a Bolter would become Range 24" RoF1 S4 AP- D1 Rapid Fire
In addition to allowing basic weapons, this method would also allow weapon abilities to be mixed. So you could have an Assault Pistol (which can be fired if the user Advanced or if they're in melee) or a Heavy Rapid Fire weapon, which gets double shots at half range but gets -1 to hit if the user moved at all, etc.
Cyel wrote: A funny story from today re: random charges.
The school year is ending this Friday and today I played a farewell Warmachine game against two of my soon-to-be-former students (18y.o.). One plays more 40k and WM&H very rarely and the other plays WM&H only (and a lot of modern board games - we have a boardgaming club at school) but maybe we'll set up a game during holidays to show him what WH40K is all about.
So the first one had plenty of habits from 40k and at some point was about to roll for charge. I told him not to roll "It WM&H, not 40k, we don't roll for charges here, we manage and interrupt threat ranges and LOS with gameplay instead "
At this point the other student asked, wide-eyed "You roll for charge range in WH40K?" He just literally couldn't believe when we said yes, he was sure we're making fun of him, that's how silly it sounded to him. "So you just roll and if you don't roll enough the charge fails and you stand there wiating to be killed? How does it make any sense or interesting gameplay?"
Once he realised we're serious, he started laughing and couldn't stop for some time.
So, yeah. I'm so used to playing GW games that I underestimate how silly and unfun those rules are for someone from outside the bubble :]
I really dislike the rolling for charge distance mechanic. Also the rolling for advancing too. I think it was introduced when they let you per measure distances. IIRC back in 2nd edition charges and running were a fixed distance (double your movement stat) but you had to guess if you were in charge range. If the distance was too far the charge failed. (I think you still moved, so might be left in the open half an inch in front of the enemy!)
kirotheavenger wrote: When I started you couldn't even move and fire a heavy weapon, even rapid fire weapons were very limited.
To begin with, 'Rapid Fire' was just something that Marines could do with their bolters if they didn't move that turn...
Aash wrote: I really dislike the rolling for charge distance mechanic. Also the rolling for advancing too. I think it was introduced when they let you per measure distances. IIRC back in 2nd edition charges and running were a fixed distance (double your movement stat) but you had to guess if you were in charge range. If the distance was too far the charge failed. (I think you still moved, so might be left in the open half an inch in front of the enemy!)
This is exactly the reason. GW wanted some uncertainty in charges, so when they started allowing you to measure all the things all the time, they made charges random to compensate. Whether or not that uncertainty is actually necessary is a matter of personal opinion, but at the very least it should have a modifier tied to the unit's movement, rather than being entirely up to the whims of the dice gods.
