I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

If you scroll down a bit to the "how do you feel about the state of 40k?" thread you'll find twenty pages of argument on this and related subjects.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you scroll down a bit to the "how do you feel about the state of 40k?" thread you'll find twenty pages of argument on this and related subjects.

Oh sorry, I haven't been following that thread. Will look now.
Mods, please feel free to lock.

 bullyboy wrote:
I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

Yes - but 40k has always had variations of this. It uses complexity to make up for the game not being particularity complex. A regular wargame would strip out most of the minor decisions in equipping units (how many CC options does a space marine need in the deathwatch?) and try and up the tactical decisions on the tabletop. The 40k system and model density doesn't really allow that, so instead cards, CPs, aura, orders etc give more of a tactical level to the game.

 bullyboy wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you scroll down a bit to the "how do you feel about the state of 40k?" thread you'll find twenty pages of argument on this and related subjects.

Oh sorry, I haven't been following that thread. Will look now.
Mods, please feel free to lock.

I think this a completely different topic and deserves it own thread.

And yes, I think there are quite some things that could have been done in less time consuming ways.

 Jidmah wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you scroll down a bit to the "how do you feel about the state of 40k?" thread you'll find twenty pages of argument on this and related subjects.

Oh sorry, I haven't been following that thread. Will look now.
Mods, please feel free to lock.

I think this a completely different topic and deserves it own thread.

And yes, I think there are quite some things that could have been done in less time consuming ways.

Agree this is probably its own topic since it's more narrowly focused.

Yeah, I have to say, the Admech book is a bit of a nightmare for in-game book-keeping. Our group ended up not enjoying Crusade because it's essentially just match-play w/more note taking, and playing Admech is feeling about the same for me right now. I like a lot of what they did, but honestly, it's too much to keep track of. It sort of reminds me of the 7th ed Demon book in that regard.

It takes (potentially) four individual rolls to complete a single attack sequence. To hit > to wound > to save > feel no pains. So any single model has to go through the sequence any time it wants to do something offensively, and you can do this twice in your turn and once on your opponent's in specific circumstances. Now add rerolls to the first two sets of rolls (and possibly the latter two if something is wonky, not currently a thing but the space is there.) Now multiply that across the hundred odd models you tend to run in a single 2k army. Now add the branching decision points (which take time to determine), shuffling around models (which should be measured carefully and precisely), and all the other minutiae that crop up in game (counting dice, checking stats, reading out stratagems, cleaning up between rolls, removing casualties)... This is why 40k takes three hours or more at 2k points per side.

Compare to Warcry, where a given attack sequence is a single roll. Granted, there are other issues in Warcry, but man alive, I wish there were about half as many rolls in 40k than there currently are. A simple to injure > to save sequence, for instance.

ryzouken wrote:
It takes (potentially) four individual rolls to complete a single attack sequence. To hit > to wound > to save > feel no pains. So any single model has to go through the sequence any time it wants to do something offensively, and you can do this twice in your turn and once on your opponent's in specific circumstances. Now add rerolls to the first two sets of rolls (and possibly the latter two if something is wonky, not currently a thing but the space is there.) Now multiply that across the hundred odd models you tend to run in a single 2k army. Now add the branching decision points (which take time to determine), shuffling around models (which should be measured carefully and precisely), and all the other minutiae that crop up in game (counting dice, checking stats, reading out stratagems, cleaning up between rolls, removing casualties)... This is why 40k takes three hours or more at 2k points per side.

Compare to Warcry, where a given attack sequence is a single roll. Granted, there are other issues in Warcry, but man alive, I wish there were about half as many rolls in 40k than there currently are. A simple to injure > to save sequence, for instance.

I wish there was a way to retroactively apply the structure from Apoc. Making all saves at the end of the turn not only provides mechanical benefits but seems to speed the game up immensely.

I think when it comes to over-complication it slows down the game but has a disproportionately larger effect on new players or people who don't play often enough to memorize the many bits of the rules in their codex. Y'know, like the people you're most likely to find in an FLGS on a weekend, the fresh faced newcomers to the hobby or the parent who games maybe twice a month on Sundays.

I personally like the breadth of rules available but there are an excess of options for the player. On top of that each model has layers and layers of rules that stack on top of it (Faction, Subfaction, Doctrine-equiv, Unit Special Abilities, Auras, Relics, Warlord Traits etc.). Individually most of these rule layers are fun and/or fluffy but we have reached peak onion when it comes rules layers. Holy moly, reading the Admech Codex review made me happy I don't play Admech outside of Kill Team. As a result of all these rules layers it becomes much harder to introduce a new player to the game since the amount of things they need to keep track of on a unit by unit basis is considerable.

The easiest time I've had teaching someone how to play 40k was early 8e, the complexity has ramped up significantly since then and doesn't look like it will be slowing down anytime soon.

 the_scotsman wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
It takes (potentially) four individual rolls to complete a single attack sequence. To hit > to wound > to save > feel no pains. So any single model has to go through the sequence any time it wants to do something offensively, and you can do this twice in your turn and once on your opponent's in specific circumstances. Now add rerolls to the first two sets of rolls (and possibly the latter two if something is wonky, not currently a thing but the space is there.) Now multiply that across the hundred odd models you tend to run in a single 2k army. Now add the branching decision points (which take time to determine), shuffling around models (which should be measured carefully and precisely), and all the other minutiae that crop up in game (counting dice, checking stats, reading out stratagems, cleaning up between rolls, removing casualties)... This is why 40k takes three hours or more at 2k points per side.

Compare to Warcry, where a given attack sequence is a single roll. Granted, there are other issues in Warcry, but man alive, I wish there were about half as many rolls in 40k than there currently are. A simple to injure > to save sequence, for instance.

I wish there was a way to retroactively apply the structure from Apoc. Making all saves at the end of the turn not only provides mechanical benefits but seems to speed the game up immensely.

Agreed. It's a simple change that really improves all sorts of issues with the game.

I design a lot of tracking sheets and cards to print before game to help me; it's particularly important in Crusade, where there's even more book keeping.

Personally, I don't mind it because I'm a detail oriented Uber-Nerd, but this is definitely one area where I can acknowledge the legitimacy of complaints.

honestly on the time consuming and over complication of the game... I like the idea that each chapter/kulture/sept/coven etc gets their own cool rules. However now they have their own faction rules, plus their own relics, plus their own specific stratagems (and maybe matching pumps and handbags). This along with more and more overlapping rules/buffs makes for more complicated army rules, effects, etc. It all has to be remembered and or looked up during the game slowing things down.

I think there is a balance to be had between everything is the same and an overcomplicated mess. I sadly think we have jumped the shark into overcomplication here. I know my ork codex but trying to explain everything i can do and what relics/strategems can do and having to open books to show the opponent who thinks "that seems too good" etc sure does slow things down. As an example i just go ahead an open the book and relics to show here is the killer klaw, here is what it does, here is why it is paired with brutal but kunnin so later they don't complain about a reroll to hit reroll to wound D4 pk if he charged that turn and try to pick apart every word in the rules there to try and say why it shouldn't work like that before 5 min later realizing oh wait yes it does.

As an AdMech player, I've got two points about complexity. I enjoy the weird rules complexity of the faction, it feels fluffy and fun. In practice, like Jake, I have a notebook with all my information in short-hand and a guide for my turn. I don't forget any activations or rules, I just look at my guide and rattle off some effects. After some practice, it takes 30 seconds and I'm straight into the movement phase. I think pretty much every player would benefit from having notes and a guide on hand. You spend dozens of hours assembling and preparing the models, and dozens pouring over the rules to build the list, you can spend an hour or two making a cheat-sheet for yourself to actually play the game.

Regarding the complexity for my opponents, the fact is that they don't need to know every nuance of my rules. It doesn't matter that my commander can spend an action to transform its aura, or what every single one of my rotating buffs does. They don't generally need to know the specifics of ranges and activation requirements. Of course I answer any question they have. I give them a heads-up that I have buffs and here are the couple you need to be worried about. In practice, it's sufficient to say "my commander buffs this infantry squad's range and AP to this, and they ignore AP1&2". If I have something that'll cause a problem for their plan, I try to be proactive to point it out (like shooting arriving reserves, or inflicting fight last). Explaining my army is generally only a couple minutes before the game, like normal.

I don't think AdMech being complex is bad for beginners because they aren't a beginner army anyway, in the same way you wouldn't recommend a new player start with Harlequins. They're complicated to play and extremely punishing to misplay.

You're going to start a fight with that second paragraph DH...

I think Command Phase stuff is excessively messy. But that could be me not being use to it...

you kind of do need to know the basics of the other person's rules though. heck even in tournaments i have had players try to use layers of rules to make up or say things stack/ do things they don't. Have done the same in plenty of friendly pickup games to where a person says a thing is how their army works and then you later look it up because it seemed too good to be true and turns out it was. most of the latter cases are genuine mistakes but sometimes they will next game dig in their heels that their interpretation is correct despite any an all evidence and possibly FAQs later stating otherwise (more to do with gw editors in that case)

I suppose I can't help but compare the current rule structures within 40k to the rule structures within the most recent 'bucket o' D6s' wargame I played, that being Battlegroup.

Within Battlegroup, in terms of special rules the only thing that separated my Russians from my opponent's Germans was:

-A special order the russians can use to cause multiple units to activate using a single order. If you're playing Infantry, that's "all your infantry units within a particular radius of your Officer charge" and if you're playing a tank company, that's "d6 tanks charge."

-A rule representing the improved suspension of the T-34 tank chassis over other contemporary tanks.

That's it. Every other distinction between my tanks, my infantry, my guns, my artillery, and his respective stuff for his germans was entirely represented by the core stats of the game: the ranges of the guns, the number of men in a unit, the 'unit experience level' roll, the armor values of the tanks.

In spite of all that, though, the rules were structured to create many more 'authentic-feeling' moments of world war 2 combat than the rules of warhammer 40k are able to generate authentic moments that feel like the fluff of warhammer.

German panzergrenadiers holding fast in a captured farmhouse, firing their rifles and MG42 out into the fields while the first wave of Russian tank riding infantry took cover and fell back and the line of T-34s advanced undeterred, until a truck containing a sapper team jumped out and cleared them out with a flamethrower while the MGs from a lend-lease tank pinned them down.

Russian tanks lighting up like firecrackers while the russian army of 1943 unleashed all hell and creation to try to bring down the few tiger tanks standing firm amid the wreckage of the outdated Panzer IIIs and panzergrenadier halftracks that the T-34s were able to bring down.

The battle resolving in an operational victory for the Russians despite massive casualties, as the germans took attritional losses from needing to keep their much fewer tanks unpinned and firing against the unending waves of T-34 tanks.

The hit-wound-save IGOUGO structure I was familiar with from 40k was present, but with so much of the pointless bloat of unending special rules and complex statlines carved away in favor of just...having more options of things to do. I could set up overwatch actions to fire or move in my opponent's turn, shoot to pin the enemy down rather than kill them which was more reliable but less effective, engage in flanking maneuvers and mass assaults or defensive holding patterns, target more vulnerable units to try and drive up my victory points while I protected my cheap transport trucks or choose to sacrifice multiple pieces to try and bring down one of the few super-deadly tigers.

Multiple times I actually felt clever for having pulled off a trick that was more about deception than just...my opponent not knowing how the rules of my army worked. A couple of turns in a row I used 'reserve move' orders on my tanks to sneak them out of line of sight of the pieces I knew were the most important thing for my opponent to keep firing, so on one of my turns when I had extra orders to spare, I put a couple more onto my faster light tanks, so my opponent didn't target them. Instead at the end of his turn, I used those reserve moves to charge all those tanks up the board into the perfect firing positions to target one of the up-armored, up-gunned panzer 4 tanks containing a senior officer, and then I could issue them the 'stand still and shoot twice' order on my turn to blow the panzer away. Just an absolutely fantastic feeling of having done a cool tactical thing.

Lammia wrote:
You're going to start a fight with that second paragraph DH...

I think Command Phase stuff is excessively messy. But that could be me not being use to it...

My second paragraph comes off a bit harsh on re-reading. I meant they don't need to know about obscure niche rules up front. It's not a worthwhile time investment to explain if it never comes up. Actually dealing with the command phase should just be "this squad is getting these two buffs from here, and this squad's getting this buff" and then you move on.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
you kind of do need to know the basics of the other person's rules though. heck even in tournaments i have had players try to use layers of rules to make up or say things stack/ do things they don't. Have done the same in plenty of friendly pickup games to where a person says a thing is how their army works and then you later look it up because it seemed too good to be true and turns out it was. most of the latter cases are genuine mistakes but sometimes they will next game dig in their heels that their interpretation is correct despite any an all evidence and possibly FAQs later stating otherwise (more to do with gw editors in that case)

Yeah, I thought about mentioning that cheaters can use complexity as a shroud, but it seemed tangential to the topic. It's pretty much impossible to know all the rules, so you have to trust your opponent is acting in good faith. There are always going to be cheaters. If you think there's a funky rules interaction, pull up Wahapedia on your phone or ask to see their codex. In a casual environment, point it out, and if they double down then you can refuse to play. In a tournament, just call a judge.

 the_scotsman wrote:
The hit-wound-save IGOUGO structure I was familiar with from 40k was present, but with so much of the pointless bloat of unending special rules and complex statlines carved away in favor of just...having more options of things to do.

I felt that same way going from D&D5e to Dark Heresy. In D&D, you interact with combat mostly by making single attack actions and moving around (there are other options, but they're situational). D&D introduces complexity by piling on special abilities and spells from your class as you level up, but the game still boils down to "kill the enemy efficiently". Dark Heresy has a bunch of meaningful combat actions, such as suppressive fire, overwatch, shooting fully automatic versus aimed shots, taking partial or full cover. You have to combine several actions together for your turn. The classes increase effectiveness and specialization as they level up, but they don't pile on more abilities. Because there isn't a simple "just attack them" action in Dark Heresy, you use the base mechanics to engage with the specific situation (which is more immersive).

The problem is that 40k is such a big, diverse setting that it's harder to distill universal actions. Not impossible, mind, but it would take a total rewrite. They're moving in a better direction with the introduction of actions. If we get Kill Team's rules scaled up, we could get Readied Shots and Overwatch as choices. I do agree it's an ideal to head towards.

I didn't think it too harsh, I just know Dakka will have someone disagree.

I've said it harshly enough myself to know.

 DarkHound wrote:
As an AdMech player, I've got two points about complexity. I enjoy the weird rules complexity of the faction, it feels fluffy and fun. In practice, like Jake, I have a notebook with all my information in short-hand and a guide for my turn. I don't forget any activations or rules, I just look at my guide and rattle off some effects. After some practice, it takes 30 seconds and I'm straight into the movement phase. I think pretty much every player would benefit from having notes and a guide on hand. You spend dozens of hours assembling and preparing the models, and dozens pouring over the rules to build the list, you can spend an hour or two making a cheat-sheet for yourself to actually play the game.

Regarding the complexity for my opponents, the fact is that they don't need to know every nuance of my rules. It doesn't matter that my commander can spend an action to transform its aura, or what every single one of my rotating buffs does. They don't generally need to know the specifics of ranges and activation requirements. Of course I answer any question they have. I give them a heads-up that I have buffs and here are the couple you need to be worried about. In practice, it's sufficient to say "my commander buffs this infantry squad's range and AP to this, and they ignore AP1&2". If I have something that'll cause a problem for their plan, I try to be proactive to point it out (like shooting arriving reserves, or inflicting fight last). Explaining my army is generally only a couple minutes before the game, like normal.

I don't think AdMech being complex is bad for beginners because they aren't a beginner army anyway, in the same way you wouldn't recommend a new player start with Harlequins. They're complicated to play and extremely punishing to misplay.

Agree with this. For me personally, I'm just at a point where I don't want to deal with the extra game aids, so they're probably not "for me" anymore, but I like this take on it.

I like the concept of the Command Phase to determine actions, but perhaps an army should be limited to only performing 2 (maybe 3 tops) Command Actions, therefore if they have more, they will need to choose what buffs to apply that turn. It's easier for an opponent to remember (great if you have a cheat sheet for your army, but what about every other army you will be facing), and is less overwhelming. It almost feels that someone who doesn't live and breathe the game is going to get beat by rules rather than skill (even more than normal). I also don't want to be the guy that keep going "hang on, what does that do again? what about that buff you applied over here?".

I'm learning a new 9th edition army (Necrons), but played a lot of 9th edition with Craftworld. The Necrons feel much more complex to play based on the command phase, among other phases. It does help me appreciate newer player challenges and to ensure I can help them through any games I play with them.

You want a shorter game? Play with fewer points.

You want a better game? Play a different edition.

You want both? Play Necromunda.

Tycho wrote:
Yeah, I have to say, the Admech book is a bit of a nightmare for in-game book-keeping. Our group ended up not enjoying Crusade because it's essentially just match-play w/more note taking, and playing Admech is feeling about the same for me right now. I like a lot of what they did, but honestly, it's too much to keep track of. It sort of reminds me of the 7th ed Demon book in that regard.

It's matched play with extra steps, but apparently that's equal to Hella narrative.

Some of the stuff highlighted in this thread is why i'll never play 40k at 2k points. 1000 points is as high as i'll go, anything more than that and it becomes a bigger headache. I don't really like games that last more than 1-2 hours anyway.

I never understood why you have to roll to wound. When a model gets hit successfully by a gun a wound roll shouldnt be necessary, at least not when gun strength is way, way above toughness. When a T3-5 model is hit by a S16 gun there shouldnt be a wound roll, it should wound automatically. There is a 1/6 chance that nothing happens. Thats just not right.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
you kind of do need to know the basics of the other person's rules though. heck even in tournaments i have had players try to use layers of rules to make up or say things stack/ do things they don't. Have done the same in plenty of friendly pickup games to where a person says a thing is how their army works and then you later look it up because it seemed too good to be true and turns out it was. most of the latter cases are genuine mistakes but sometimes they will next game dig in their heels that their interpretation is correct despite any an all evidence and possibly FAQs later stating otherwise (more to do with gw editors in that case)

This. I have seen people play GK online, change tides , but still play the next turn as if they had the old activated, making them play with something kin to all three marine doctrines at the same time by turn 3. GK are rare enough and bad army for people to not know that. Not to mention logical stuff, like playing them or csm as if they had +1W etc.

I never understood why you have to roll to wound.

technically it is so that a space marine and ork don't run around with 2Ws and a +3sv. Practically I think GW goes with the mind set that the more time you spend on something, the more will you care about it. Making quiting much harder if you spend hours painting and playing. If the game was just hit and save, it would be much shorter time wise. Plus it would start people rising question like, why do we have to roll for psychic powers, but ad mecha characters use theirs automatically.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Tycho wrote:
Yeah, I have to say, the Admech book is a bit of a nightmare for in-game book-keeping. Our group ended up not enjoying Crusade because it's essentially just match-play w/more note taking, and playing Admech is feeling about the same for me right now. I like a lot of what they did, but honestly, it's too much to keep track of. It sort of reminds me of the 7th ed Demon book in that regard.

It's matched play with extra steps, but apparently that's equal to Hella narrative.

Not all dexes' bespoke content is equal. Drukhari have the best Crusade content- there's a Necromunda style minigame built right into the dex- it's frickin exquisite. Sisters are a very, very close second- the Living Saint thing is awesome, but I'm actually am more into the Redemption points and oaths of penance- combining the two makes for a hell of a story. Admech is decent, but it's basically just questing for equipment and building Uber machines- it's good, but it doesn't feel like there is an endgame to it the way there is with sisters and Drukhari.

The SM dex allows your basic HQs to grow into Master level HQs, but that's pretty much the only real schtick, so there isn't much to it. Deathwatch builds on it with Masters of the specialisms though, and it also allows Primaris units to earn their Special Issue Ammo as a battle honour- this is one of the things that DW players didn't like about the Primaris KTs, so having it there is a big deal. The fact that Primaris have to earn it when Old Marines just get it is this neat little distrust of Primaris thing- very fluffy for the beginning of the Indomitus Crusade. Still nowhere near as cool as Drukhari or Sisters though, and I think even Admech still come out ahead.

I haven't read DA, but I know there's Fallen stuff in there, and probably promotion to the specialist wings. I think GW missed a heck of an opportunity to give DA Crusade content a boost by doing a poor job with the White Dwarf Fallen. I haven't read Blood Angels, but it's probably all about the Red Thirst or whatever.

The Death Guard stuff is probably cool, because the diseases you make could impact the story fairly profoundly if you wanted them too- many of the Plague Purge/ Charadon missions have disease effects built into Theatres of War and missions, so connecting that to the diseases you build via Crusade could give you a real story arc.

From my perspective, if you want to argue that Crusade isn't narrative, you can't also claim that Kill Team or Necromunda are- the stuff in Crusade is no more or less narrative than what you get in those games. And you also have to keep in mind that some of the things that core 40k does- like scaling game sizes, Imperial Agents, Unaligned units and detachment structures synergize with Crusade, so that you have a total package. I've had people try to argue that because these things are a part of the main game, they shouldn't enter into discussions about Crusade... Not very well thought out as an argument- Imperial Agents like the Inquisition are particularly cool in Crusade, because they only really show up when the main army is fighting their Quarry.

It isn't for everybody, but it's certainly the highlight of 9th edition for me.

It is the GW way and has been for awhile. Complexity in games rules it was for a bit, then complexity in unit rules, now we have all the faction rules, traits, strats and a zillion bespoke rules which can often mimic other bespoke rules.

As opposed to make the system itself good, they just slap a bunch of stuff around till you need a notebook to keep track of all your current conditions from phase to phase. Which I don't know maybe I'm just getting told but it feels bad man.

To many datasheets and rules bloat, that's the over complication. Core rules are pretty simple compared to older editions. Codexes are the issue.

I made a thread discussing it a while ago. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/785378.page

GW have improved some aspects of the game that were slowing things down. Choosing which unit to buff with your 10 different buffs is at least a choice, rolling FNP on Blightlords was not.

The change to auto-wound on hit rolls of 6 is a really neat change in the new AdMech codex. You roll 10 6s, 10 5s... You re-roll the 1s for your character aura. Now you take out the 1s and 2s, roll to wound for the 3s, 4s and 5s and just let the 6s sit, it is very easy.

AdMech holy orders and Doctrina Imperatives should just have been crusade content, crusaders love extra rules but matched play should not be that complicated. The answer to Holy Order WL traits being OP is not to give access to WL traits and Holy Order bonuses at the same time.

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm learning a new 9th edition army (Necrons), but played a lot of 9th edition with Craftworld. The Necrons feel much more complex to play based on the command phase, among other phases. It does help me appreciate newer player challenges and to ensure I can help them through any games I play with them.

The game definitely isn't meant to be picked up by two people that have never played the game and then learn it together. Command Protocols being automatic if you make the simplest possible army is silly, you should have to jump through a few hoops to get them.

Personally, I think Command Protocols and other Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines should be mission specific.

Have a mission telling the narrative of a Necron Tomb reawakening and going through different protocols to fend off invaders, give the Necrons Command Protocols and the invaders something to make up for the difference in terms of easier to score missions or extra points or something like that.

Have the mission give the player playing against Salamanders a reason to take both lightly armoured hordes and heavily armoured vehicles, now melta and flamers become neat and the Salamanders player can feel good about their fluffy weapon choices in that mission.

A good, elegant game should achieve interesting, complex game states with simple rules.

WH40K achieves simple game states with complex rules.

You mention that you like depth of 40k. But it's all width, no depth. Want depth? ?Try something less grounded in the design philisophy straight from the 80's

 vict0988 wrote:
I made a thread discussing it a while ago. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/785378.page

GW have improved some aspects of the game that were slowing things down. Choosing which unit to buff with your 10 different buffs is at least a choice, rolling FNP on Blightlords was not.

The change to auto-wound on hit rolls of 6 is a really neat change in the new AdMech codex. You roll 10 6s, 10 5s... You re-roll the 1s for your character aura. Now you take out the 1s and 2s, roll to wound for the 3s, 4s and 5s and just let the 6s sit, it is very easy.

AdMech holy orders and Doctrina Imperatives should just have been crusade content, crusaders love extra rules but matched play should not be that complicated. The answer to Holy Order WL traits being OP is not to give access to WL traits and Holy Order bonuses at the same time.

 Sarigar wrote:
I'm learning a new 9th edition army (Necrons), but played a lot of 9th edition with Craftworld. The Necrons feel much more complex to play based on the command phase, among other phases. It does help me appreciate newer player challenges and to ensure I can help them through any games I play with them.

The game definitely isn't meant to be picked up by two people that have never played the game and then learn it together. Command Protocols being automatic if you make the simplest possible army is silly, you should have to jump through a few hoops to get them.

Personally, I think Command Protocols and other Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines should be mission specific.

Have a mission telling the narrative of a Necron Tomb reawakening and going through different protocols to fend off invaders, give the Necrons Command Protocols and the invaders something to make up for the difference in terms of easier to score missions or extra points or something like that.

Have the mission give the player playing against Salamanders a reason to take both lightly armoured hordes and heavily armoured vehicles, now melta and flamers become neat and the Salamanders player can feel good about their fluffy weapon choices in that mission.

I've played every edition and while I enjoy 9th, the new armies have quite a bit more in built complexity which does not make for a quicker game. I don't recall GW stating they were trying to speed up the game, but remember some playtesters making that claim in videos when the game was being released. After nearly a year, I don't see the game as being any quicker to play. It seems like the time consuming aspects of the game got shifted into different game mechanics.

Why would the game not be intended for two new players to learn the game together? That idea is counter to expanding a customer base, intent on making more money. Is it easier with one person familiar with 40K? Yes. Is the game designed with that in mind? I've yet to read any publication stating such.

The Command Protocol is unnecessarily cumbersome in my opinion. The Admech mechanic (forgot its name) of just picking one and can't pick it again is much easier and still offers the player choices.

Doctrina Imperatives got stripped out of the Skitarii codex to be gatekept as stupid Stratagems.

Them being back is literally the least that GW could do for how badly they mishandled that design element. Couple with the asinine restriction on special weapons now and it shows the wild disconnect between players, designers, and playtester groups.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to screw with those special weapons counts on Skitarii needs a slap upside the head. If the problem was, as always, plasma being too good...maybe it's time to really sit down, shut up, and think about why it stands out so heavily across factions.

I find it kind of funny that people are trying to defend the rules bloat by saying they just have a notepad of reminders. 40k is a casual game for most people and always has been, it shouldn't need people to have to take notes (or in the case of one of my groups players, a spreadsheet and checklist). People play 40k to roll dice and have some laughs with their friends, not to stop to look at extra documentation or flick through their codexes every time they want to shoot at the opponent.
Most of the games of 9th I've watched in person involve at least 1/3 of the game time consisting of people looking up what weapons, stats or rules a squad has on their phones.

Something that I really wish GW did for 40k is the warscroll/datasheet cards that we get in AoS.

They really do make a big difference, in my experience, as having handy reference makes a a lot of the "your thing does what now?!" moments irrelevant.

 bullyboy wrote:
I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

I'll be honest, i played against 2 Ad mech armies in my recent tournament and dear lord in heaven above does their turn take a ridiculous amount of time. I had more than 2x as many models on the table as him and it took me less time to do my turn

SemperMortis wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I will caveat this by saying I do love depth in the 40K setting, but I also appreciate that the game should be playable in 2 1/2hrs.

After watching a BR this morning, watching an Admech command phase seemed like an absolute nightmare. Way too many effects to keep track of. I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Anyone else feel the same way, or is everyone enjoying the extra layers of complexity being added?

I'll be honest, i played against 2 Ad mech armies in my recent tournament and dear lord in heaven above does their turn take a ridiculous amount of time. I had more than 2x as many models on the table as him and it took me less time to do my turn

Does player familiarity with a new codex play a factor in this? For, there is a big difference in my speed of play with my Craftworld (70+ 9th edition games played) vs Necrons (3 games played).

 Kanluwen wrote:
Something that I really wish GW did for 40k is the warscroll/datasheet cards that we get in AoS.

They really do make a big difference, in my experience, as having handy reference makes a a lot of the "your thing does what now?!" moments irrelevant.

I honestly don't know why every tabletop minis wargame doesn't have physical stat card. Playing Malifaux and Warmahordes is so much faster and easier with them.

The modern design of 40k is removing all depth and replacing it with layers upon layers of complexity.

How many words are dedicated across all books to basically say “add +1 to your hit roll”?

 Sim-Life wrote:
I find it kind of funny that people are trying to defend the rules bloat by saying they just have a notepad of reminders. 40k is a casual game for most people and always has been, it shouldn't need people to have to take notes (or in the case of one of my groups players, a spreadsheet and checklist). People play 40k to roll dice and have some laughs with their friends, not to stop to look at extra documentation or flick through their codexes every time they want to shoot at the opponent.
Most of the games of 9th I've watched in person involve at least 1/3 of the game time consisting of people looking up what weapons, stats or rules a squad has on their phones.

You can definitely just play the game casually if you know your armies. Maybe you forget a rule here or there, who cares? You may have rose tinted glasses for older editions, because you still needed your codex on hand to look stuff up then. Particularly in 2nd.

Pretty much every up and coming tabletop game I've seen in the last couple years has included stat cards with all the rules for their units. The fact is any game plays faster and simpler if you have reminder cards. Having a cheat sheet doesn't make it any less casual, you already spend time doing all the other prep. And once you have one, then the game gets a lot easier to play (more casual?).

I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

 DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

 DarkHound wrote:
...I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

Progressive scoring makes the game a little deeper once you've gotten past the vast gulf between good models/Codexes and bad models/Codexes. If you're playing models you like rather than what's good it's much easier to have lost during list-building than it was in past editions, which I think makes the game much shallower.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

 DarkHound wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

 DarkHound wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I'd also push back against the idea that 40k has less depth (especially compared to previous editions). I don't think the depth of the rules has changed very much. However, the progressive scoring and secondaries make for extremely dynamic games where you have to re-evaluate your strategy every turn to accomplish competing interests. Old editions of 40k were either "score points for killing everyone" or "you win if a Troop unit is on their objective on the last turn".

40k was never a deep game in any edition, even some of the simplest modern tabletop games have a deeper decision space than 40k. And the game is still kill everyone for points, the only difference is now you have the option of either standing still and killing everyone then score points when they're all dead, or moving up to score points WHILE killing everyone. And it's usually the player that gets the first turn who gets to make that choice.
inb4 "jUsT pLaY wItH dEnSeR tErRaIn!!"

It's comments like these that make me wonder if I'm even playing the same game as some of this forum.

In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

The game is still complex, and most matches I've seen in my league have come down to the wire. Players have to switch their plans around turn 3 and start scrambling for points any way they can.

Thats a complicated way to say you killed stuff then moved up to take objectives. You didn't actually refute my argument or back up yours.

You said secondaries are more dynamic but scoring them is still just a matter of not being killed as much as the other guys. When I think of dynamic I think of stuff like pushing models out of zones or clever positioning and model combos to avoid/enable killing the warcasters in Warmachine or using fast models designed for speed and avoiding damage to place scheme markers in Malifaux. What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have? Nothing. Because to score it needs to be able to kill whatever is standing near the objective. If it can't do that its worthless. Thats why every model in 40k is rated by "how well can this kill stuff?" or "how well can this makes stuff kill stuff better?" and sometimes "how well can this NOT be killed by stuff?" (usually the tie breaker if there are two units that kill stuff equally well) . There is almost no other metric because no other aim exists in 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:
...I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

Pretty much. I've played about five actual games of 9th, and the thing that's convinced me it's time to quit playing with GW's rules was that when I asked people why I got steamrolled the answer was pretty universally "you bought the wrong minis, go buy a new army of minis you don't like or wait months or years for a new army book and pray GW has noticed that your models are useless and need fixing, and then you're allowed to participate." If I can make the game not work by buying minis outside of whatever narrow subset of models the game does work for I think I'm going to accuse the game of not working. The game works for balanced matchups, but the subset of minis you can use to make a balanced matchup is pretty small.

(I played a lot more of 8th, and while I don't like 8th much either because of the level of abstraction I wasn't steamrolled because I bought the wrong minis anything like as much until SM2.0 came along.)

 Jidmah wrote:


I think the big difference is that, unlike most people posting this, you are playing the game regularly. I have experienced similar things as you have in game. For games that were bland and had little depth, there either was a massive mismatch in power or the board was set up in a very bad way (shooting gallery/more obscuring than silent hill/no movement for vehicles).

I would say our boards have an above average level of terrain but not so much that its constricting. There us never a clear line from one side to the other and often the largest open space (if there isn't a simple barricade or something it) is about 1" square, just to keep things interesting. But hey, just go and keep making baseless accusations of a group of very veteran 40k players. I'd say collectivly we have about 100 years experience in the hobby but sure, we just have bad board set ups.

Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.

GW likes width over depth, width sells new rules supplements and promotes churn.

If you look at the new AOS 3.0 rules, there's even more bookkeeping in the hero phase (their version of the command phase) than there is in 9th edition. It's clearly something they think is a positive, not a negative. Give the player a bunch of "choices" to make (that usually aren't really much of a choice at all as there is a clearly optimal choice in almost every circumstance) and it creates the illusion of depth, whether there actually is any or not.

The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

yukishiro1 wrote:

The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system.

I'm going to guess it's because 40k outsells Lord of the Rings by 10, 15 or even 20 times.

Edit: Not to invalidate your point at all- just in terms of raw numbers, if you looked at the annual balance sheet, you'd assume 40k was doing just fine and probably that LOTR needed work.

Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

 Jidmah wrote:
Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/731663.page

Here's a thread of batreps from 8th one of our group did. The level of terrain is still about the same for 9th but he hasn't be writing reports so much, feel free to critique our terrain set ups.

Pancakey wrote:
The modern design of 40k is removing all depth and replacing it with layers upon layers of complexity.

How many words are dedicated across all books to basically say “add +1 to your hit roll”?

Far too many words, in tortured paragraphs. At the least, they could use profiles and keywords again.

Reading the war scrolls for Dominion and the 3.0 "core" rules, I was overwhelmed by how boring it is. Everything boils down to modifiers to hit, to save, to cast, rerolls, running and charging, mortal wounds, etc. That's 40k as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

LOTR SBG is not marketed remotely as vigorously as 40k and AOS. Nor does it receive new releases as frequently.

Sad. LOTR is a fantastic game- one I do not have opponents for in my area. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

LOTR alternates phases. Heroes have a variety of Heroic Actions they can make, like challenging an enemy hero (although this mechanic is non-functional RAW ) Heroic Shoot, allowing warriors to shoot out-of-sequence, Heroic Move to move out-of-sequence, and so on.

Magic is rare and powerful. Buffs, rebuffs, blasts that knock warriors back, possibly into an obstacle or off a ledge.

Monsters have unique abilities, like grabbing and throwing an enemy, trampling through enemies, etc.

Heroes have 3 special resources: Might, Will, and Fate. Might points allow Heroes to reroll dice for duels, attacks, and other things. Will points are expended to resist magic, or to cast spells. Fate can be expended to prevent wounds.

Heroes often have their own unique abilities.

Terrain matters. Warriors gain bonuses when defending from behind a wall, can climb and jump by taking appropriate tests.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

I'm not an expert by any means myself. But the short version is that LOTR's rules system is really easy to learn, but hard to master, because the decision points are more about what to activate when as opposed to what weird gotcha special rule to spring on your opponent. The system is very tight in the sense that units don't tend to have a lot of weird bespoke special rules of the type that characterize AOS or 40k. Stuff pretty much just does what it says on the tin. The strategy comes not so much from leveraging wombo combos, but more from how you position and engage, and how you use your heroes, who feel like real heroic individuals thanks to special resources only they can use, not just a stat brick. A lot of the strategy in the game comes from deciding when to use these limited resources your heroes have, because they can do quite dramatic things that can turn a game on its head if used correctly. There is a lot of depth in all the systems - for example, smart movement can allow you to block off areas of the board with much greater impact than it has in 40k, and the way combat works is really interesting in that the losing model is forced backwards, which again can do quite dramatic things re: positioning on the battlefield (and with dramatic impacts if a model can't back away). Add to all this a semi-alternating activation system (player with priority moves, then opponent proves, priority player shoots, then opponent shoots, whereas combat is a contested roll-off so it's not like one player's model strikes first and then the other strikes back, it happens together).

Someone who plays the game more regularly can probably give a more in-depth answer.

Thanks for both your answers, sounds like quite a fun game that doesn't overly rely on special abilities. The heroic resources sound like the best part as well as fun monster abilities like throwing a unit.

I'm curious how the Middle Earth rules when you mention that smart movement can block off areas of the board. I'm guessing that's in reference to reinforcements? If so, how is that different than screening deep strikes like we do now?

Thanks again.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The fascinating thing is that in ME:SBG, GW has proven it can actually create a tight, balanced rules system with a tremendous amount of depth but comparatively little width when it wants to. It is a continuing puzzle to me why they have shown so little inclination to learn from their success with that rules system. Now the system itself obviously can't be adopted wholescale in 40k or AOS because of the scale differences...but a lot of the approaches to the basic design could be, if they showed any interest in it.

I've never played their Middle Earth game but always found it interesting. Would you mind elaborating on the parts of the game where there's a lot of depth but not so much width compared to 40ks width but not depth? Thanks

I'm not an expert by any means myself. But the short version is that LOTR's rules system is really easy to learn, but hard to master, because the decision points are more about what to activate when as opposed to what weird gotcha special rule to spring on your opponent. The system is very tight in the sense that units don't tend to have a lot of weird bespoke special rules of the type that characterize AOS or 40k. Stuff pretty much just does what it says on the tin. The strategy comes not so much from leveraging wombo combos, but more from how you position and engage, and how you use your heroes, who feel like real heroic individuals thanks to special resources only they can use, not just a stat brick. A lot of the strategy in the game comes from deciding when to use these limited resources your heroes have, because they can do quite dramatic things that can turn a game on its head if used correctly. There is a lot of depth in all the systems - for example, smart movement can allow you to block off areas of the board with much greater impact than it has in 40k, and the way combat works is really interesting in that the losing model is forced backwards, which again can do quite dramatic things re: positioning on the battlefield (and with dramatic impacts if a model can't back away). Add to all this a semi-alternating activation system (player with priority moves, then opponent proves, priority player shoots, then opponent shoots, whereas combat is a contested roll-off so it's not like one player's model strikes first and then the other strikes back, it happens together).

Someone who plays the game more regularly can probably give a more in-depth answer.

Yes and no. How you position and engage, how you pick your fights, keeping your shieldwall in place and positioning it to do what you need it to do, keeping your flanks secure, etc. are very important, but there are absolutely silly wombo-combo lists that can just run over whatever you put in front of them. Aragorn can and will solo armies by himself (which is great for narrative PvE, but less great for PvP), trolls are incredibly hard to do anything to if you don't have specific named heroes, and there are some pretty extreme elf combo lists (the Thranduil death-ball, and the family outing list that uses Elrond and Lindir to Wrath every turn, with Arwen for backup if Elrond's doesn't go off) that I've never found an effective counter to.

LotR can be one of GW's best-written games if you have a friendly environment and people aren't too attached to getting to use specific named characters in every game, but in a tournament setting it can be just as bad as any other GW game.

I disagree. All heroes including Aragorn can be played agaisnt even if you don't have heroes that can go toe to toe with them, and no matter how powerfull a tool is, if used badly, like Sauron or the Balrog, it won't make the impact it should.

The same goes for monsters. Yeah there are some lists like Gallawhir carryng the Mirror of Galadriel to regain full Fate each turn that are more of a broken rule that hasn't been fixed yet , but even competitively it doesnt approachs the levels of AoS or 40k.

At the end of the day, the best part of the LoTR ruleset is that it made playing like playing a total war how you should play without half the rules Fantasy had.

Making a proper cavalry charge from the flank, making a good shield wall or spear wall, using properly your shooting units, is much more satisfactory in LOTR that it was ever in Fantasy, for example, and it has no bonus for flanking, no bonus for attacking reaguard, etc...

Yeah, I wasn't talking about balance so much as the basic structure of the game. It's still a GW game, it's still going to have balance problems.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

Some of that is the setting (and armies). Its a different market, more similar to historicals (in that the game can make things happen wrong)

Don't get me wrong, I like LotR a lot, I just don't want to try and sell it to anyone as the perfect solution if they're grouchy about 40k buff-stacking shenanigans or combo play because that does still exist.

(Also I don't know why the writers decided that the only army special rule Mirkwood gets is giving Thranduil a buff aura.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.

Some of that is the setting (and armies). Its a different market, more similar to historicals (in that the game can make things happen wrong)

There's also the chicken/egg problem of GW not making a lot of plastic minis for the game, and the supply chain challenges of actually getting the minis. I'm still using pre-Hobbit-movies metal Thranduil because the newer resin one was completely unavailable for years.

I think my criticism (which surely comes up about as common as the "40k is a shallow game/no it isn't) - is that resolving dice rolls seems to get longer.

GW seem to take a one step forward, two steps back approach to this. I really feel there should be a total prune of rerolls - but also this growing trend of having something happen if you roll a 6.

In a small skirmish scale sort of game these might just add a bit of flair, simulating critical hits etc. But when you have the buckets of dice in modern 40k, its just kind of annoying to have to fish out 1s and 6s.

Which isn't strictly about the game being complicated. I don't find it hard to remember "Blade Artisans" when playing DE for instance. But it does feel like artificial extension that just results in the above.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.

Thats a complicated way to say you killed stuff then moved up to take objectives. You didn't actually refute my argument or back up yours.

Any wargame can be boiled down to "kill the enemy and take objectives" if you ignore all nuance. That's the nature of it being a wargame.

You said secondaries are more dynamic but scoring them is still just a matter of not being killed as much as the other guys. When I think of dynamic I think of stuff like pushing models out of zones or clever positioning and model combos to avoid/enable killing the warcasters in Warmachine or using fast models designed for speed and avoiding damage to place scheme markers in Malifaux. What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have? Nothing. Because to score it needs to be able to kill whatever is standing near the objective. If it can't do that its worthless. Thats why every model in 40k is rated by "how well can this kill stuff?" or "how well can this makes stuff kill stuff better?" and sometimes "how well can this NOT be killed by stuff?" (usually the tie breaker if there are two units that kill stuff equally well) . There is almost no other metric because no other aim exists in 40k.

Everything you mention in other games is in current 40k. Good positioning matters. Controlling areas can literally be using giant base sized models to prevent enemies from getting on objectives, or it can be the projected threat of a unit's charge range preventing enemies from moving forward. Good combinations of attacks will break down nearby squads and expose characters to fire. Plenty of units are taken specifically so they can complete actions to score secondaries.

On that point, I don't know how you could play Matched Play games and come to this conclusion: "What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have?" Just as the two most prominent examples, Engage on All Fronts and Deploy Scramblers were the go-to secondaries for most competitive armies, and virtually all competitive armies were designed to fall back on them. Lots of units and strategies say play specifically because they got into the right position and scored, even if they didn't do any damage to the enemy. Most armies try to avoid giving up any killing secondaries, and so a significant amount of the game revolves around non-killing strategies.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/731663.page

Here's a thread of batreps from 8th one of our group did. The level of terrain is still about the same for 9th but he hasn't be writing reports so much, feel free to critique our terrain set ups.

Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.

 DarkHound wrote:

Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.

I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.

I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.

Quantity alone is not a boon. The terrain layout defined how that game was played. Most of his army was untargetable, and the threat of his Thunderwolves' charge range through the central ruin kept my army back. Because I could not move forward, he was able to move to the bottom left ruin without getting shot. I had to use my Warglaives to run out to the edge of the board to get line of sight to the Thunderwolves, and in the mean time his assault units got into position on the left flank. His plan was to assault my army from ruin before my Warglaives could get back. I couldn't run away due to the mission objectives. Except for his Long Fangs on the rooftop, I didn't get to shoot his army with the bulk of mine until turn 3. It was a tough, maneuvering game where he pulled off a distraction and flanking maneuver to nullify my superior firepower.

Let's take a look at your examples with lots of terrain.

On this board, there's plenty of random barricades, but but only two obstructions and one has a big hole in it. The armies can shoot clear across to each other. There's no way to hide your armies either during deployment, or when they move forward. You just line up your armies and walk them forward and shoot at each other.


In here, again, one building in the middle (maybe two if you count the little cottage) and otherwise the sides of the board are open. Just line up your armies and shoot whomever.


This board is almost great, but all the board's buildings are on the edges where they don't do anything. The left side of the board seems interesting, with that big grey building in the way. However the right side is all open space again which ruins the rest of the board. Everything deployed on the right half can see clear across, and even into the left flank. If those buildings in the corners had been piled up in the open courtyard, and those barricades used in the streets, then you'd have an interesting board. You'd have to fight your way through the narrow streets, with the barricades both providing light cover, but also slowing movement. You'd have to find your best chance to break though by outmaneuvering your opponent and allocating more forces to a street than he can defend. Likewise, you'd have to delay his push through other streets with a smaller force.

 bullyboy wrote:
I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.

Too late

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW likes width over depth, width sells new rules supplements and promotes churn.

If you look at the new AOS 3.0 rules, there's even more bookkeeping in the hero phase (their version of the command phase) than there is in 9th edition. It's clearly something they think is a positive, not a negative. Give the player a bunch of "choices" to make (that usually aren't really much of a choice at all as there is a clearly optimal choice in almost every circumstance) and it creates the illusion of depth, whether there actually is any or not.

It super interesting to see people championing these design decisions!

Thank you for your accurate synopsis of modern GW “Design techniques”.

 DarkHound wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.

Quantity alone is not a boon. The terrain layout defined how that game was played. Most of his army was untargetable, and the threat of his Thunderwolves' charge range through the central ruin kept my army back.

Both tables look relatively empty. Your table, Dark Hound, just has impressive tall pieces on it. It's still mostly open.

There's a picture I kept from years back as it shows off a bad set of terrain:

Replace each of those hills with a tall fancy looking building and it'd still be just as open.

Or maybe I just have a bias for my own stuff.

As I said, I'd have liked some barricades or craters to fill the open spaces, but those pieces have such a small impact as to almost be aesthetic. Again, my point is line of sight blocking terrain, congregated in the middle, is what makes for good boards. That's what creates fire lanes and demands decisive movement.

I think your boards are great. At worst, the third desert one is a little vacant in the middle. I'd have moved the buildings toward the middle and put the rock formations towards the sides, but it probably plays fine.

Here's the board I played on yesterday. We counted all terrain bases as obscuring ruins (imaging tremendous smog and dust kicked up by the machinery). The fact that these blocked line of sight is what created the opportunity for strategy. If none of the terrain had been obscuring, there'd be no way to make meaningful strategy, it'd just be a turkey shoot.


To bring this point back on topic, I think the additional complexity of the terrain rules has created huge opportunities for interesting gameplay.

The weird part about that table is that it has a decent spread of terrain everywhere... except on your side. The terrain basically stops where those Armigers are, leaving a big empty nothing between that line and the back edge.

Weird...

We set the terrain up for that game, and neither of us had any deepstrikers or outflankers, so putting terrain in the back wouldn't have mattered. His deployment zone is similar, with the terrain basically starting at its front edge. Still, that's good thing to point out, and I'll keep it in mind when setting up future boards.

When it comes to slowing the game, I think that the endless rolling is more of an issue. The other day I read something by a guy who was just rolling (without really looking anything up) for his 2k army (Dark Eldar, so not a massive horde or whatever) and timed himself for what all the attacks/shots for one turn would take.

And that added up to 30 minutes. For one turn. And if you assume that every unit gets to do it once, you get a whole hour of just rolling dice already. And none of that time is spent making any kind of decisions.

In theory, shouldn't a player be making at least one decision per firing unit? More, if there are a mix of weapons with different preferred target profile?

 Dysartes wrote:
In theory, shouldn't a player be making at least one decision per firing unit? More, if there are a mix of weapons with different preferred target profile?

There is, but most of that time is spend on the resolution, not on actual decision making. Once shots are declared, it's just a huge pile of dice that takes up quite a lot of time. Of course, that's a natural consequence of the whole bucket of dice philosophy the game runs on.

From experience to the OP yes 9th edition drags, the constant re-rolls the gotcha card/strat combinations. getting a re-roll in the previous editions was a HUGE deal. not only did you pay extra for it, it was also a bit more rare. generally you rolled what you rolled and lived with it. On average for comparable 2K level games when players at our FLGS play 9th i can get through a full game of our hybrid 5th including both optional turns 6&7 while they are still on turn 3.

On the matter of terrain, the posted pics are a bit misleading for some. With the 9th ed rules for terrain based on vertical height causing blocking LOS terrain. the boards look sparse and are not very immersive.

Like H.B.M.C i have become rather obsessive about good looking tables, not only does the terrain have to do it's job of forcing tactical game play it also needs to look like it belongs.

Some examples of our tables (keep in mind these are 5th ed tables with hard cover saves or tables for DUST where all area terrain block LOS unless you are in them and within 4" of the facing edge...and this isn't even close to the amount of blocking LOS terrain needed for infinity tables).

The problem is that 40k is such a big, diverse setting that it's harder to distill universal actions. Not impossible, mind, but it would take a total rewrite. They're moving in a better direction with the introduction of actions. If we get Kill Team's rules scaled up, we could get Readied Shots and Overwatch as choices. I do agree it's an ideal to head towards.

Plenty of rulesets handle that diversity. At the end of the day it has what, 12? different armies with the rest being sub-groupings? Plenty of games have far more.

But GW sells models and the rules reflect that. You get lots of options because you can model lots of options. I was very disappointed in Apoc how much detail units had (modeling options so unit options) and how little differentiation there was where it mattered.

 DarkHound wrote:


To bring this point back on topic, I think the additional complexity of the terrain rules has created huge opportunities for interesting gameplay.

Addiitonal complexity compared to the bare minimum of 8th, but I've been playing with the far, far simpler system from AOS 3.0 recently and I've found it's actually even easier to handle and creates better decision matrices. I've modified it a bit to work with 9th 40k as opposed to AOS, and increased the beefiness a little bit to account for the increased shooting power and ranges of 9th 40k, but it provides in my opinion a better experience. Terrain feels more 'progressive' rather than binary you get it/you don't get it and it interacts with more of the game.

Basically there are three terrain 'types' which each convey their own benefits + the benefits of the previous levels

-basic cover. If you're wholly within 2" of it and its between you and the firer, or you're wholly on it, you get +1 to save rolls.

-dense cover (renamed from "Wyldwoods", lol). Blocks LOS if there's 3" or more of Dense Cover area between the firer and target, if there is <3" of dense between firer and target, firer gets -1 to hit. Note that unlike 9th there's no way to benefit from the -1 to hit from Dense and not suffer from it as well.

-defensible cover. If you start your turn wholly within 6" of it you can embark in it like it's a transport vehicle. LOS and range is now drawn from the terrain piece rather than the unit, and the unit gets -1 to hit them and +1 to their save, but the unit is now off the battlefield for the purposes of objectives, auras, stratagems, etc, so embarking within defensible cover has a cost as well as a benefit.

Personally it's my favorite terrain system for 40k so far. No crouching down and making a judgement call of what "Percentage" of a model is obscured for your opponent and you to argue about, significant enough benefits that shooting a well-protected unit they feel well-protected, and simple enough that once you get into the swing of remembering that, yes, Defensible is also Dense and is also basic Cover, determining who gets what cover and who can't shoot who is quick and easy.

I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.

it's an abstraction, but trade-offs are not a bad thing to build into the game, particularly when it comes to a game as offensively deadly as 9th ed. Multiple times both myself and my opponent were sitting there thinking "hmmm, I need this unit of Skitarii to survive but do I want to give up the character buffs/stratagems they can use..." and that's a much healthier decision point in my eyes than 'welp, I get +1 to my save and -1 to hit for doing this, and I lose nothing, so, guess I'd better plop all my units into buildings as fast as I can to take advantage of it and sit there for the whole game!'

I'll be honest though mostly I just love the "Wyldwood" system for dense cover way better than current dense cover, because it helps to reduce the stupid 'through a window past a unit and over a wall I can see the antenna of your tank sticking out' type of shots and it organically creates the opportunity for units to hide inside out of LOS, then move up to the edge of the terrain piece so that theyre still wholly on and getting standard Cover but they don't suffer the -1 to hit and they can launch their attacks at full effect. I'm a sucker for simple game systems like that that "organically" create moments that feel like a thing soldiers would do in a battle.

Similarly I like that they went back to the 8th ed style 'all or nothing' system for models within a unit claiming cover because it organically creates, but doesn't actually REQUIRE the player to allow the few straggling models in the unit that hadn't reached the safety of cover yet to get cut down first so that the remaining models gain the benefit to their saves. Always kind of liked that as a feature of 8th style terrain.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.

It used to exist in 5th edition and it wasn't an abstract.

Intact buildings were immobile vehicles with embarkation points as well as fire points and an armor value (bunkers were 14) you could target them and destroy them like any other vehicle but instead of exploding, destroying them just made them a ruin. this also led to related rules designed to breach fortifications like the old siege dreds from forgeworld.

It wasn't a big issue in 5th because units didn't rely on auras to get their full value, and what abilities were conferred were 'always on', none of this "my chaplain can't inspire his men because they're currently in the null dimension inside the landraider".

I remember there being quite some issues with models doing weird things while embarked because they were in range of some effect.

I do remember something about models falling back while inside transports?

I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.

 bullyboy wrote:
I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.

Personally I think the targeted buffs are fine, it's the variable army-wide rules I despise. I really REALLY wish I didn't have to track stuff like turn-by-turn PFP, doctrines, doctrinas/canticles, Rites, etc on top of the mental real estate required to remember my subfaction trait.

So 40k has always had this problem, and to some extent it's always been a problem for wargaming in general.

It takes a truly elegant design to have a game run well and quickly while also including all the important elements (especially a game as diverse as Warhammer. It's easier with World War II, though even then complexity can overwhelm the system).

Now, some games turn slowness into an asset - it may take a while to adjudicate an action, but that adjudication process is fun, so it doesn't feel like a slog. A perfect example is Malifaux, which has quite a complex process for action adjudication that is a mini-card-game in and of itself. To adjudicate any given action (e.g. a single ability/shot/whatever from a model) may take 10 minutes of gameplay! But those 10 minutes are actually quite fun and tense, a little game played with a deck of cards beneath the actual gameplay of the minis on the board.

Malifaux of course is flawed in other ways, but I think 40k needs to take a lesson here. The problem isn't how long things take to adjudicate - it's a hobby game, after all, the time and game size can be adjusted and tailored to suit the needs (e.g. tournaments could go to 1k points or whatever). What's crucial is that the adjudication is worth the time it takes to execute - that is to say, that the amount of fun extracted from the process is worth the time spent.

I'm not sure how to do this off the top of my head, but I wanted to comment that the problem isn't really "time" in the abstract (lots of games take time to adjudicate actions" but rather "amount of fun per unit time".

EDIT: The special rules addendum!
So, there's a separate issue of rules bloat and special rules. I think this is where 40k is at its worst. This has also been a problem in every edition except early 3rd and Indexhammer 8th. I think this is because of a weakness in the core rules.

To elaborate, it is my personal opinion that what an army is good at (or bad at) should largely be determined by the statlines, which encompass the capabilities of the troops "in the raw" as it were. Statlines have all the information required for an adequate abstraction. Good leadership? A higher leadership value than someone who isn't as good. High strength? Well, strength. Good shooting? Ballistic skill and weapon statline, etc.

The problem is that 40k's core rules never really let statlines shine that well. The difference between, say, Ld 10 and Ld 9 wasn't ever that important, so being a "better leader" meant little. Thusly, you got rules like ATSKNF, which made Marine leadership MEAN something... but diminished the value of the core rules surrounding leadership even more.

If 40k's design team took effort into making statlines have greater significance, they could capture things like "extra durable" or "extra well led" or "extra good shooting" in statlines, though of course this would have to revamp the whole game. It isn't really a suggestion to fix 9th so much as it is an examination of how other games encapsulate faction differences in the gear/equipment/statlines available to each faction, rather than sheer special rules bloat.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.

Personally I think the targeted buffs are fine, it's the variable army-wide rules I despise. I really REALLY wish I didn't have to track stuff like turn-by-turn PFP, doctrines, doctrinas/canticles, Rites, etc on top of the mental real estate required to remember my subfaction trait.

I don't mind specific known variable rules like PFP and doctrines (except Deathwatch), it's the ones that players have to choose the order that I don't like. It's more book keeping to make sure he's not using one he already did earleir etc. If I'm playing vs regular marines, I know that we're going Dev, Tactical then Assault. That's not difficult.

As for my current Dark Angels force (and I'm having to grab my codex since I don't know this by heart yet), things I have to remember in each Command Phase (that isn't part of the normal phase such as gaining a CP, seeing how many objectives I have etc:

First Command phase I need to decide which Objective I'm going to use Stubborn Defiance
Talon Master has to decide which unit benefits from Brilliant Strategist
Talon Master has to decide which enemy unit in LOS is the target for No Escape
Sammael has to decide which unit gets full rerolls
Ancient has to decide which Deathwing unit is the target for Pennant of Remembrance
Luckily my current list doesn't have a Chaplain, but that would be another action to perform/remember.

The thing is, if I'm playing with buddies, I can stroll a nice 3-4 hour game and get all this right. But in a 2 1/2 hour time constraint game? Ouch.

edit: And yes, I do get that this becomes much easier if you're playing frequently, some of us just don't get that luxury.

Gaming Tables are for wargames what custom cars are for racing entusiasts.

No one has them as good as yours.

 Galas wrote:
Gaming Tables are for wargames what custom cars are for racing entusiasts.

No one has them as good as yours.

That's definitely true, but it's also important to talk about because it so drastically effects the game. There's no standardization and that can lead to hugely disparate play experiences; we're often not talking about the same game at all. I think HBMC and Aphyon's boards are great examples of modern boards. Boards rolled over from earlier editions run into trouble because area terrain cover saves were sufficient, and lines of sight blocking wasn't as important. In older editions, everything was less lethal, less mobile, and basically every instance of cover (standing in terrain, near terrain, half out of LoS, intervening models, smoke launchers, etc. etc.) granted a 4+ invulnerable save. Standing in a crater in 5th halved damage received. Standing in a crater in 9th might not reduce damage at all. That's not an indictment of either system, but it does create a disparity of expectations.

I agree with the general sentiment that 40k takes so long principally because physically resolving anything takes a long time. Having trouble remembering rules because you don't get to practice enough is unfortunate, but not a priority for a game designer. You can mediate your experience by playing smaller games (I think 1k and 1500 on the 60x44 boards are ideal anyway).

Removing template weapons was a huge step in speeding up the game because you didn't have to spend ages fiddling with spacing (could you imagine template weapons in 9th?). Granted they then filled that extra time.

Re-rolls I'm of two minds about: on the one hand they improve the game by drastically smoothing out expected result curves, but on the other hand they take more time. Perhaps a solution is to limit re-rolls to smaller, important die rolls like special weapons. You don't really need to worry about the standard deviation of line infantry weapons because they roll a lot anyway so the variance is low. A Captain could have "each squad within 9" can re-roll two hit rolls" which is just enough for the special weapons (or use them on bolters if both weapons hit).

The other problem is repeatedly having to move the models between move, charge, pile-in, and consolidation. At least they folded running into advancing in the movement phase, it used to be a separate action in the shooting phase. I think the game would be better if charges were done in the movement phase, and pile-in was done immediately. Sure, you lose the opportunity to shoot big weapons, but having a trade-off isn't bad itself and pistols become important again (maybe you could let assault weapons fire on the turn you charge, like older editions when their perk was that you could charge after shooting them).

 DarkHound wrote:

Removing template weapons was a huge step in speeding up the game because you didn't have to spend ages fiddling with spacing (could you imagine template weapons in 9th?). Granted they then filled that extra time.

Funny you mention that. 8th took away template to speed up the game where previously you could spend forever fiddling with spacing to make sure each troop is exactly this many inches apart thus making templates harder to use. Then 8th introduced Aura's to make movement all fiddly since you had to ensure your units are within X inches of an independent character. One step forward and one step backwards in my opinion.

Ah, that's one different. I agree that was a problem in 8th. The introduction of the Core keyword limits the auras anyway so you don't have to worry about fitting the entire army within range of a Captain. It's not wholly within, so you just need to keep the edge of one model's base close enough. In practice, now it takes only a couple seconds to figure out.

I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Yeah. The game didn't actually speed up with the removal of templates.

Roughly the same number of models (or less!) on the board as in 7th, when 2.5 hours was pretty standard, and 2.5 hours is still pretty standard.

If it did speed up gameplay, it wasn't measurably so. A game still takes about the same amount of time.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Streamlined templates!

I am sure auras never create “friction” in games like those gross templates did.

Pancakey wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Streamlined templates!

I am sure auras never create “friction” in games like those gross templates did.

Now I want GW to do Warmachine-style acrylic aura-measuring sticks for four times the price.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Streamlined templates!

I am sure auras never create “friction” in games like those gross templates did.

Now I want GW to do Warmachine-style acrylic aura-measuring sticks for four times the price.

Funny that you mention that, but i just sent a list of abilities that could probably use tokens to be represented across the game as a suggestion to a popular WMH accessory maker. Maybe they do them, maybe they dont, but it would be a cool idea i think.

 DarkHound wrote:
There's no standardization and that can lead to hugely disparate play experiences; we're often not talking about the same game at all.

Picking this line out because that word - standardisation - is a word that scares me when it comes to terrain/boards.

There actually is some level of standardisation creeping into terrain, specifically the ITC terrain set up (two L-shaped things in the middle, and then mirrored terrain on either side of the board). Those words of set ups terrify me, as as someone who likes making dense thematic boards, they run contrary to creativity. Sure, you can make those standard terrain sets up be anything from ruins to giant trees, but ultimately they just become 'skins' for Default Terrain Setup #1, and I rebel at the very concept of standardised terrain layouts.

 DarkHound wrote:
I think HBMC's are the greatest ever and he should be in charge of the whole world.

Aw! Thanks man.

I agree that standardization is a really risky thing to include or advocate for. I wouldn't want uniform board layouts for pick-up games at my shop. It certainly makes sense to create standardization for tournament boards, and I'm all for that. However, I think 40k could stand to have in writing "we expect a board to contain these many obscuring area terrain, these many obstacles, etc.". There'd still be plenty of room to go off on your own, but at least for casual matched play there'd be some consistency, both in terms of the play experience from match to match, but also in terms of matching the game designer's expectation for balance.

I will say, the "Example Battlefields" section in the 9th edition rulebook is the best material they've had so far on actually setting up boards. It gives examples of good and bad boards for matched play games, and lots of examples of the expected terrain amounts (rather than older editions just saying one piece per whatever size). However, it just provides a picture and says 'this is the right amount of terrain' without specifying.

By the way, I did take your observation to heart when we built the board for tonight's game. It was against Imperial Scions, and they found lots of places to hide in my backline. Made for an extremely close game right up until the end.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:

Removing template weapons was a huge step in speeding up the game because you didn't have to spend ages fiddling with spacing (could you imagine template weapons in 9th?). Granted they then filled that extra time.

Funny you mention that. 8th took away template to speed up the game where previously you could spend forever fiddling with spacing to make sure each troop is exactly this many inches apart thus making templates harder to use. Then 8th introduced Aura's to make movement all fiddly since you had to ensure your units are within X inches of an independent character. One step forward and one step backwards in my opinion.

They also missed a trick to make command abilities different.

For example astartes auras cover the whole table due to superior command and control. Also easiest for new players.

Ork auras cover 1/2/X different units within 6" shouting distance.

Ad mech auras cover X units per turn players choice to show specific interference in unit subroutines.

Guard abilities affect one unit within X, unless the commander has access to a vox in which case affect anyone also with a vox.

And so on.

Ork's auras already were very different from marines... except for apothecaries, who finally understood that orks are superior and are now identical to pain boyz

The_Real_Chris wrote:

They also missed a trick to make command abilities different.

For example astartes auras cover the whole table due to superior command and control. Also easiest for new players.

Ork auras cover 1/2/X different units within 6" shouting distance.

Ad mech auras cover X units per turn players choice to show specific interference in unit subroutines.

Guard abilities affect one unit within X, unless the commander has access to a vox in which case affect anyone also with a vox.

And so on.

Those sound like fun ways to differentiate auras for each factions lore. Personally I would have preferred we avoid auras in general, unless it's a very large distance like in your SM example just to avoid finnickyness in the movement / charge phases. Your Admech / Guard example, similar to Necron's My Will Be Done, would be the simplest in terms of the movement phase, pick X units to receive this benefit is much cleaner.

 DarkHound wrote:
I agree that standardization is a really risky thing to include or advocate for. I wouldn't want uniform board layouts for pick-up games at my shop. It certainly makes sense to create standardization for tournament boards, and I'm all for that. However, I think 40k could stand to have in writing "we expect a board to contain these many obscuring area terrain, these many obstacles, etc.". There'd still be plenty of room to go off on your own, but at least for casual matched play there'd be some consistency, both in terms of the play experience from match to match, but also in terms of matching the game designer's expectation for balance.

The problem with GW stating a minimum is that then that becomes the standard. I mean just look at their 'recommended' board sizes and how quickly the tournament scene leapt to adopt that table size. Gaming mat companies were offering new sizes virtually over night.

I'm afraid that if they give that level of detail, then stuff like this will become the norm. Even fancy 3D printed stuff in that set layout is still bad.

Note: I said ITC terrain earlier. This appears to be the standard layout for the NOVA tournament.

 DarkHound wrote:
I will say, the "Example Battlefields" section in the 9th edition rulebook is the best material they've had so far on actually setting up boards. It gives examples of good and bad boards for matched play games, and lots of examples of the expected terrain amounts (rather than older editions just saying one piece per whatever size). However, it just provides a picture and says 'this is the right amount of terrain' without specifying.

Giving examples are good, but I'd prefer they kept from specifying.

 DarkHound wrote:
By the way, I did take your observation to heart when we built the board for tonight's game. It was against Imperial Scions, and they found lots of places to hide in my backline. Made for an extremely close game right up until the end.

Looks awesome. Fancy 'Nid terrain too.

I agree I prefer they give examples of good terrain placement on a board rather than putting out a minimum required since that will very quickly morph into a standard.

Oh I missed the picture earlier, that is some beautiful terrain!

To give FLG some credit, when you are building terrain for 250+ tables (I think that was the number, can't remember), making it look "decent" and playable is very admirable. I was impressed at LVO last 2 years, that's no mean feat. Especially if you compare to the LGT pics from a few years ago, that was an absolute disgrace.

For 1 or 2 home tables with friends or your LGS? yeah, go to town, you can do a lot with such minimal requirements.

GW did it well I think with Epic A with its tournament scenario. For a 6x4 board you had 12 pieces of terrain, max 30cm at its widest point. Each table would have a different set up, but broadly similar encounters. Of course in Epic part of the game was to allow certain armies to dictate the battlefield, so say Space marines would always choose the board edge (or corner) when playing Guard, and normally go first each turn as well. Sucks to be guard!

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Or make the painboy work like ad mecha buffs. Point at a unit, it gets the buff and after the commande phase you don't worry about it till your next turn.

Karol wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Or make the painboy work like ad mecha buffs. Point at a unit, it gets the buff and after the commande phase you don't worry about it till your next turn.

I would love Command Phase targeted buffs if it werent for the stupidity of never getting to use them if you

A) deep strike

B) disembark from a transport

given that that screws over particular armies, like lets say for the sake of argument I don't know maybe grey knights.

Command Phase targeted buffs have two problems;

1. I need to remember which unit I targeted, and for what, in the phase I use the ability.

2. The biggest issue, I can't use them if I'm in deepstrike or a transport. This massively reduced the usability of the ability and also feels silly, without any realistic justification beyond "he doesn't exist when he's not specifically on this table".

 DarkHound wrote:
I will say, the "Example Battlefields" section in the 9th edition rulebook is the best material they've had so far on actually setting up boards. It gives examples of good and bad boards for matched play games, and lots of examples of the expected terrain amounts (rather than older editions just saying one piece per whatever size). However, it just provides a picture and says 'this is the right amount of terrain' without specifying.

I dunno if this is an unpopular opinion or what but I still think the best terrain guidance GW ever did was specifying a percentage and suggesting a mix of terrain types.

25% terrain coverage is easy. Take your terrain pieces and start piling them up in a corner. When you've completely covered a corner of the board, distribute them out. Voila, a consistent and standardized amount of terrain coverage. The exact sizes and types you use will have a big impact on the game, but I find it makes getting enough terrain much easier than just looking at an example and eyeballing it, and about a million times more useful than the vague '[X] pieces of terrain'.

Yeah. I just played my first game with the Sisters codex and oh my GOD are command phase buffs annoying to remember.

"Did I turn on my miracle thingy from the Beneficents thingy?"
"Which hymn did I intone and who did I put it on again?"
"What unit did I put the stratagem on that gives one unit an extra Sacred Rite?"

Not sure if that last one is the command phase, but playing the new Sisters is not a tactical exercise - it's a memory one.

I found that there was so much going on between my opponents army and mine that I didn't really have the RAM left (as it were) to clearly think through my tactical decisions. I'm probably just stupid, and it was my first game with the book so there was a LOT of flipping around, but every single time myself or my opponent did anything ever I felt like there was some collection of rules governing it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I just played my first game with the Sisters codex and oh my GOD are command phase buffs annoying to remember.

"Did I turn on my miracle thingy from the Beneficents thingy?"
"Which hymn did I intone and who did I put it on again?"
"What unit did I put the stratagem on that gives one unit an extra Sacred Rite?"

Aren't such effects represented by tokens with their names put near affected units? In Warmachine an ongoing effect not explicitly represented with a token is considered non-existant - it's just unreasonable to expect your opponent to remember everything.

Cyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I just played my first game with the Sisters codex and oh my GOD are command phase buffs annoying to remember.

"Did I turn on my miracle thingy from the Beneficents thingy?"
"Which hymn did I intone and who did I put it on again?"
"What unit did I put the stratagem on that gives one unit an extra Sacred Rite?"

Aren't such effects represented by tokens with their names put near affected units? In Warmachine an ongoing effect not explicitly represented with a token is considered non-existant - it's just unreasonable to expect your opponent to remember everything.

Yes.

Which is even more fun when I am blobbed up around a palatine/canoness combo with 40+ bolter sisters in 4-5 different units and the token is just kinda "there".

Oh and I hoped I remembered to move it during a fiddly pile-in, but not too close or else we have to move it back away again for my OPPONENT's fiddly pile-in. And if someone wins we get to consolidate, which is definitely never fiddly.

GW doesn't even provide official tokens, so you need to make or improvise them yourself.

That's not impossible, but it's inconvenient, and when there's so many you run out of different coloured beads or whatever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes.

Which is even more fun when I am blobbed up around a palatine/canoness combo with 40+ bolter sisters in 4-5 different units and the token is just kinda "there".

Oh and I hoped I remembered to move it during a fiddly pile-in, but not too close or else we have to move it back away again for my OPPONENT's fiddly pile-in. And if someone wins we get to consolidate, which is definitely never fiddly.

Well it is the persons job to make their units easily recognisible. So if they plop 40 models in 8 squads, and no one can say, including them, which unit is which, then they are breaking core mechanics of the game. Specially if it actually matters in the case of buffs or different special rules etc. Most people paint each squads base in a specific colour or mark it in some other way. Like all units with ork skulls on bases are unit 1, all with nothing on the base squad 2, grass bases are squad 3 etc.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yes.

Which is even more fun when I am blobbed up around a palatine/canoness combo with 40+ bolter sisters in 4-5 different units and the token is just kinda "there".

Oh and I hoped I remembered to move it during a fiddly pile-in, but not too close or else we have to move it back away again for my OPPONENT's fiddly pile-in. And if someone wins we get to consolidate, which is definitely never fiddly.

Well it is the persons job to make their units easily recognisible. So if they plop 40 models in 8 squads, and no one can say, including them, which unit is which, then they are breaking core mechanics of the game. Specially if it actually matters in the case of buffs or different special rules etc. Most people paint each squads base in a specific colour or mark it in some other way. Like all units with ork skulls on bases are unit 1, all with nothing on the base squad 2, grass bases are squad 3 etc.

I can see which is which. I can tell there are 8 units blobbed up there.

Now, this token that was just near the blob and has doubtlessly been bumped several times - which of the eight clearly-distinct but entertwined units did it apply to?

Well if your opponent says the token is one the "orange squad" then technicaly a bird could swoop in and eat it, and the token would still be there , only just metaphorically. If there are 8 squads on top of each other and you don't know to which squad the token belongs, then they are not marked properly. Or in a rare case, you didn't pay attention, when your opponent was placing it, and now just don't remember which is which. But then it is kind of a your fault not his.

Karol wrote:
Well if your opponent says the token is one the "orange squad" then technicaly a bird could swoop in and eat it, and the token would still be there , only just metaphorically. If there are 8 squads on top of each other and you don't know to which squad the token belongs, then they are not marked properly. Or in a rare case, you didn't pay attention, when your opponent was placing it, and now just don't remember which is which. But then it is kind of a your fault not his.

But if I say "the token is on orange squad" and can remember that forever, then I don't need a token at all - I can just remember "my hymn was on orange squad."

Which, if that worked, would negate my complaint in the first place (which is that I can't always remember).

Karol wrote:
Well if your opponent says the token is one the "orange squad" then technicaly a bird could swoop in and eat it, and the token would still be there , only just metaphorically. If there are 8 squads on top of each other and you don't know to which squad the token belongs, then they are not marked properly. Or in a rare case, you didn't pay attention, when your opponent was placing it, and now just don't remember which is which. But then it is kind of a your fault not his.

No.

This is a bad argument. Seriously, why would you even make this post?

Well the physical representation of the token doesn't change the fact if the buff is or isn't there. And you should be able to recognise easily which squad is which, and which one gets the buff. If this doesn't happen, then your opponent is playing the wrong, and you are allowing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But if I say "the token is on orange squad" and can remember that forever, then I don't need a token at all - I can just remember "my hymn was on orange squad."

Which, if that worked, would negate my complaint in the first place (which is that I can't always remember).

I don't understand this line of argument. The game doesn't have rules that cover stuff like that. I don't get social interactions very well, but GW expects to deal with rules problems exactly in the way I am not suited for. There is no rule that says, and in case you don't or can't talk it out with your opponent do this.

Either mark squads and tokens, or have good memory for which marked squads has what. There is now space for unmarked squads, no tokens and bad memory, and something the game still being functional.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW doesn't even provide official tokens, so you need to make or improvise them yourself.

That's not impossible, but it's inconvenient, and when there's so many you run out of different coloured beads or whatever.

I always have a pen and block of post-its in my gaming box for this reason. If my opponent doesn't mark his buffs properly, I'll just scribble the name/effect of the buff on the post-it and stick it near the unit.

For my own buffs, I just have cards, for some that I use a lot I just kit-bash some sort of token onto a base.

 DarkHound wrote:
I agree that standardization is a really risky thing to include or advocate for. I wouldn't want uniform board layouts for pick-up games at my shop.

Well, it seems that GW now has an article showing off boring symmetrical terrain.

I would love to know what that terrain is mounted on though...

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I agree it's easier when it comes to smaller sized units or larger auras. But take a painboy for instance, the FnP aura is only 3" which makes his positioning and nearby units very important, both for movements phase, charging and piling in. That kind of finnangling wouldn't really matter if you could just attach an IC to a unit as an option still.

Then you have auras that are "wholly within" which are a whole other headache, those can take quite a bit longer than a few seconds.

Or make the painboy work like ad mecha buffs. Point at a unit, it gets the buff and after the commande phase you don't worry about it till your next turn.

I would love Command Phase targeted buffs if it werent for the stupidity of never getting to use them if you

A) deep strike

B) disembark from a transport

given that that screws over particular armies, like lets say for the sake of argument I don't know maybe grey knights.

Pretty sure this is on purpose to limit the from-deep-strike bombs that were emblematic of 8th. If you want to fully buff up a squad it has to start on the table.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I agree that standardization is a really risky thing to include or advocate for. I wouldn't want uniform board layouts for pick-up games at my shop.

Well, it seems that GW now has an article showing off boring symmetrical terrain.

I would love to know what that terrain is mounted on though...

Looks like pretty standard plexiglass to me.

It looks really ugly though. Why bother putting fulling painted terrain on a glossy surface that makes it look unfinished? Base your ruins, people. (or don't mount them at all).

Voss wrote:
It looks really ugly though. Why bother putting fulling painted terrain on a glossy surface that makes it look unfinished? Base your ruins, people. (or don't mount them at all).

I disagree. Why go the trouble of getting expensive terrain mats if you're just going to cover up big chunks of them with flat blocks covered in sand and brown paint.

I didn't even notice the plexiglass. Terrain setup looked so bad that I didn't want to take a closer look. Why a mix of parallel and diagonal buildings?

Remembering a Command Phase Buff isn't a problem when there aren't many of them.

If you're running a 1000pts of Necrons and you've only got one Overlord that's easy to remember.

When you're running 2000pts of Sisters and you've got half a dozen units with Command phase buffs it gets outrageous.

As for Over-complication it seems like a quantity problem. Too many Command phase abilities and way too many Auras are available.

When it comes to putting bases on terrain that can <help/hurt> your understanding of where the actual boundary is for the area terrain.

jullevi wrote:
Terrain setup looked so bad that I didn't want to take a closer look. Why a mix of parallel and diagonal buildings?

Because NOVA terrain set up is a unnatural symmetrical nightmare.

I was considering posting about this a week ago. I think it looks great and is a huge improvement to competitive play. I don't mind the plexiglass bases. The boards look extremely clean and easy to read. You know exactly where the area terrain ends, and it is the same clean line for every base.

If you are not playing actual, competitive tournament matches (virtually no one on this forum is), then the specifics of their board layouts has no impact on you. No club is going to switch to plexiglass bases and mandatory layouts for normal play.

Players in normal pick-up games may try to replicate these layouts. The layouts are definitely more fair than whatever random assortment happens to be laying around. I think existence of these examples can only improve play experience. Players can compare their terrain layouts to a standard. They have a clearer idea whether their board is fair, even if it isn't symmetrical.

But that "standard" will become the "only", and another element of creative colour will drain from 40k. That's the problem.

I disagree. In our 50PL Crusade league, we play on 44x60" tables rather than the "standard" "minimum" 44x30" (which is even bigger than the old 4x4' tables). Clubs and shops are going to do whatever their communities want.

I think it's fine if playing matched-play does move in the direction of standardized layouts. I'd be worried about it if narrative and casual play weren't so directly supported. Plenty of people play exclusively narrative games. The fact is that narrative play gets more campaign books than competitive. Standardized layouts aren't going to invade narrative because they don't make any sense for narrative games; the mission structures are almost always asymmetrical.

If this were back in 5th edition, I'd have agreed with you. There was exactly one way to play, and everything else was an after-thought or practically a homebrew. However, GW is doing a good job of supporting specific hobby niches: different game sizes and different levels of competition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that "standard" will become the "only", and another element of creative colour will drain from 40k. That's the problem.

People are going to get angry with me and accuse me of blaming the players when I say this.

But in this one case, I think it is very fair to say if this thing happens to you and your group, it is you and your group's fault and not GW's problem. If they start doing it at your store, be polite about it, be rational, and accept compromise when it is offered, but USE YOUR VOICE and don't let it happen. It's your hobby.

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that "standard" will become the "only", and another element of creative colour will drain from 40k. That's the problem.

People are going to get angry with me and accuse me of blaming the players when I say this.

But in this one case, I think it is very fair to say if this thing happens to you and your group, it is you and your group's fault and not GW's problem. If they start doing it at your store, be polite about it, be rational, and accept compromise when it is offered, but USE YOUR VOICE and don't let it happen. It's your hobby.

A game designer's job is to ensure their game is fun, that means attempting to limit the amount of people that optimize the fun out of the game. If Warcraft 4 Return of the Legion has a mission that is fun and appropriately difficult normally but boring and easy if you wait 5 minutes after every encounter to heal your units then the designer has made a mistake. Either the difficulty should be increased and fast healing should be provided or a mission timer should be added to reward fast or punish slow play.

PenitentJake wrote:
People are going to get angry with me and accuse me of blaming the players when I say this.

But in this one case, I think it is very fair to say if this thing happens to you and your group, it is you and your group's fault and not GW's problem. If they start doing it at your store, be polite about it, be rational, and accept compromise when it is offered, but USE YOUR VOICE and don't let it happen. It's your hobby.

It's hard to use your voice when tournaments are just doing it as normal.

 DarkHound wrote:
No club is going to switch to plexiglass bases and mandatory layouts for normal play.

Hahahahahaha

Ya, my local community doesn't actually go to the big events, but they only play tournament style games. I've tried to organize one off narrative events like "bring 25PL and see how long your can stand up against the infinite Tyranid Infestation/Awakening Tomb world/Ork Infestation" for one afternoon, everyone said they'd be interested, but then some huge meta thing dropped and they all bailed to "get in tournament practice".

Apparently that's not an uncommon scene.

Wow, what a bunch of super-boring maps. No barricades or dense terrain anywhere...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's hard to use your voice when tournaments are just doing it as normal.

But you don't play at those tournaments. Let the tournament players do their own thing.

 Blndmage wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
No club is going to switch to plexiglass bases and mandatory layouts for normal play.

Hahahahahaha

Ya, my local community doesn't actually go to the big events, but they only play tournament style games. I've tried to organize one off narrative events like "bring 25PL and see how long your can stand up against the infinite Tyranid Infestation/Awakening Tomb world/Ork Infestation" for one afternoon, everyone said they'd be interested, but then some huge meta thing dropped and they all bailed to "get in tournament practice".

Apparently that's not an uncommon scene.

I'm sorry to hear that, but it does also sound like a bit of a big ask to set up a big homebrew event. Consider what you actually want to get out of it, and maybe start smaller. If you just want to play games, maybe ask to play missions out of the narrative section (a lot of them are really thematic and even scale fine outside their designated point size). You could get a couple friends to play a small Crusade league (with a pre-defined end point) or play through a campaign book. It's one thing to say "I tried to start a big homebrew event and people weren't interested" and another to say "nobody plays anything except GT missions".

But you don't play at those tournaments. Let the tournament players do their own thing.

In the end what and how stuff get played at tournaments, ends up on the tables in pick up games at the store.

And stuff like crusade or open don't really help either, because the rule sets, while different, give more then enough opportunity to break stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake 799082 11161205 wrote:

People are going to get angry with me and accuse me of blaming the players when I say this.

But in this one case, I think it is very fair to say if this thing happens to you and your group, it is you and your group's fault and not GW's problem. If they start doing it at your store, be polite about it, be rational, and accept compromise when it is offered, but USE YOUR VOICE and don't let it happen. It's your hobby.

Yeah just come in to the start pimp slapping people left and right, telling them they have to obey you, just so you can have fun. How stuff like this suppose to even work in communities? I can imagine the store or club owner to implement the rules, because if someone ignores them, they will just get a life long ban , and good bye investment of 800+$ down the drain. But a regular person, or better yet a teen trying to covince a 30+ year old to play his way and the the way the rules are set up in the rule book. That stuff a person would have to check mark for this to work are long list, and most of them have nothing to do with the game .