Switch Theme:

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

Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 04:58:36


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


Greetings,


I played my Admech for the first time tonight, a 500 point match against ultramarines.

In two games nearly my entire army got shot off the board the bottom of turn 1.
I had to go first each game, and while there was cover terrain, not much was really tall and fully
blocking line of sight. Most were about 4" high platforms, some low walls and such.

The first match I was overly aggressive, being used to the more resilient death guard. I scored 3 VP for
a secondary objectives, and then as I said was shot off the board.
Everything of his was hidden both matches. It was move, or turtle on my part.

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal. The other cover simply didn't help much. I assaulted his
HQ the top of turn 2, in a suicidal attempt to have some fun. I lost my breachers (3) in one volley both games. My cavalry where essentially all that was left when I charged his HQ, along with Cawl.

My question -- in even small 40K matches, 500 or 1,000 points, should there still be fully blocked fire lanes?
My opponent was fine with the symmetrical setup, but his Contempter Dread's firepower was unbelievably devastating.
The shop we played at didn't have much tall terrain, but I'm wondering -- should there be really high and considerable
blocking terrain even in smaller matches? OR is this just how 40K goes, and the terrain isn't always super thick and dense?

Would someone post a pic of what terrain should look like on a Combat Patrol level?

Thanks so much. I am mainly an AoS player at the moment, and I must say, tonight was not a satisfying experience -- win or lose.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 05:06:50


Post by: p5freak


The BRB p. 269 has examples how a battlefield at 44x30 should look like. There should be sufficient LOS blocking terrain that an army can hide behind.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 05:21:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 p5freak wrote:
The BRB p. 269 has examples how a battlefield at 44x30 should look like. There should be sufficient LOS blocking terrain that an army can hide behind.
I'd argue that battlefields shouldn't be 44x30.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 05:27:19


Post by: Gert


IIRC units actually have to see the model they are firing at, not just the tip of a weapon.
But yes, there should always be LoS blocking terrain on the board even at small-scale games.
If you don't have a BRB then you absolutely should get one since it sounds like your opponent is taking advantage of your lack of rules knowledge for an in game advantage i.e. being a prat.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 05:35:53


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


If you can shoot without problems from one side of the table to the other something about the terrain placement went wrong.
However, if your opponent has enough firepower to destroy the whole army in one go it sounds like miscommunication about what kind of game you want to play (I.e. tournament list vs. normal list).


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 06:13:58


Post by: KingGarland


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal.

By RAW, yes but that is total crap and since this was not a tournament match, especially against a rookie player, they should have not have done that.

My question -- in even small 40K matches, 500 or 1,000 points, should there still be fully blocked fire lanes?
My opponent was fine with the symmetrical setup, but his Contempter Dread's firepower was unbelievably devastating.
The shop we played at didn't have much tall terrain, but I'm wondering -- should there be really high and considerable
blocking terrain even in smaller matches? OR is this just how 40K goes, and the terrain isn't always super thick and dense?


Yes you still need line of sight blocking terrain even in small matches as shooting is still a huge part of the game. One problem I see is him using a Contempter Dread in a small game against a new player which is really not fair.

One solution would be to give pieces of terrain you have on the board to Obscuring trait. Normally the trait only works on terrain 5" or higher but if you are lacking in terrain that high you and your opponent can house rule it to work on any piece of terrain.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 06:29:32


Post by: jeff white


Contemptor dread and a major named character at 500pts? Yeah, find a more reasonable partner. The choice of company seems the main problem here. That and insist on house ruling targeting and line of sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
The BRB p. 269 has examples how a battlefield at 44x30 should look like. There should be sufficient LOS blocking terrain that an army can hide behind.
I'd argue that battlefields shouldn't be 44x30.

I know, right? I can’t wait to get into a stable place… building a proper 4x8 is task one.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 07:20:04


Post by: Blackie


OP's talking about 500 points games. 44x30 is perfectly fine for that format, probably even too big actually since it's half the table that is mostly used for 2000 points games. 44x30 is perfect for 750-1000 points games.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 08:42:18


Post by: The Black Adder


Big models in small games skew the results. If you're just starting out I'd suggest agreeing some ground rules with your opponent before the game and talk about the sort of game you want to have. I'd also suggest that you discuss the intent of actions to avoid similar situations to the one you had where somebody shoots at the gun barrel of your model- for example when you make a move agree with your opponent whether a model can be seen from the likely positions they can move to. I would also look critically at the terrain setup and arrange it to limit long fire lanes across portions of the board and as others have suggested agree any necessary house rules to make sure some of the terrain counts as obscuring regardless of its height.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 08:49:11


Post by: Sherrypie


 Blackie wrote:
OP's talking about 500 points games. 44x30 is perfectly fine for that format, probably even too big actually since it's half the table that is mostly used for 2000 points games. 44x30 is perfect for 750-1000 points games.


Very much up to taste, that. Personally, I feel playing with smaller than 4' x 4' tables is a mistake if you want anything beyond one pub corner brawl from the game. At 500, maybe, but that is already stretching the current system's applicability while at 1k the 30" table is woefully inadequate and constrained. If it's the only thing you can fit in your apartment, sure, having fun is key, but if the option is there to have a wider field, it produces better games and should always be used in my opinion.

As for the OP's question, the game is a framework for you to do as you like. Vary it up. Best times are had with plentiful terrain, asymmetric setups and interesting pieces of scenery. This should include fully blocking terrain as well as lighter barricades and movement inhibitors like craters and forests. From both gameplay and diegetic points of view, terrain should always impact decision making. Force people to move to get their shots lined up and keep the fight dynamic.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 09:02:12


Post by: Slipspace


 Gert wrote:
IIRC units actually have to see the model they are firing at, not just the tip of a weapon.


You do not recall correctly. LoS is drawn to any part of the model, including gun barrels and aerials. It's a stupid rule but it is how the game works.

As for the OP's issues, I think the first thing to mention is the game is not really designed for 500 point games without some extra work on the part of the players. Big, powerful models like Contemptors and Cawl really skew things at such small points levels. 40k is a game with very high lethality. That can be a problem at 2k points but at 500 it can mean your entire army effectively gets wiped by certain combos. Terrain can help, but only to an extent. I'd advise discussing things with your opponent beforehand and probably agreeing some limits to what you both take. It's really easy to end up in situations where you have no counters to something like a Contemptor when you're only playing 500 points because it's so easy for your opponent to remove that 1 reasonable counter you were able to bring, for example.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 10:08:01


Post by: Tyel


Its not very elegant, but yes, you almost certainly want some polystyrene breeze-blocks cutting up the table so everything can't shoot everything else unless you intentionally facilitate it.

But it might be more useful to know more about the lists.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 13:05:04


Post by: the_scotsman


my general rule for 'for fun' games include:

1 - you should build in some kind of damage-mitigation factor for first turn. If neither player is bringing a drop-dead only melee charge list, then 'night fight' (limiting range to 12" on the first turn) works well for this.

2 - no individual model should be over 1/4 of your points total, whatever that is. large units have a built-in drawback that they lose extra casualties to morale, but single models like the contemptor or a big beefy named character really just become what the whole game is about.

3 - if the game seems to be swinging hard in one player's favor, just bring back one of that player's units as reinforcements. Or, to make sure the game goes to full length, allow for each player to bring back a 100pts or less unit once per game and just have them walk on to their board edge.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 13:29:30


Post by: Daedalus81


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal.


"My intention is to make sure you can't see my models - can you verify that you can't see them?"

If he has room to move laterally then you need to consider those angles of attack to stay safe. I would suggest getting a laser line tool as a helpful aid to check your vulnerabilities.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 13:36:28


Post by: Strg Alt


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Greetings,


I played my Admech for the first time tonight, a 500 point match against ultramarines.

In two games nearly my entire army got shot off the board the bottom of turn 1.
I had to go first each game, and while there was cover terrain, not much was really tall and fully
blocking line of sight. Most were about 4" high platforms, some low walls and such.

The first match I was overly aggressive, being used to the more resilient death guard. I scored 3 VP for
a secondary objectives, and then as I said was shot off the board.
Everything of his was hidden both matches. It was move, or turtle on my part.

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal. The other cover simply didn't help much. I assaulted his
HQ the top of turn 2, in a suicidal attempt to have some fun. I lost my breachers (3) in one volley both games. My cavalry where essentially all that was left when I charged his HQ, along with Cawl.

My question -- in even small 40K matches, 500 or 1,000 points, should there still be fully blocked fire lanes?
My opponent was fine with the symmetrical setup, but his Contempter Dread's firepower was unbelievably devastating.
The shop we played at didn't have much tall terrain, but I'm wondering -- should there be really high and considerable
blocking terrain even in smaller matches? OR is this just how 40K goes, and the terrain isn't always super thick and dense?

Would someone post a pic of what terrain should look like on a Combat Patrol level?

Thanks so much. I am mainly an AoS player at the moment, and I must say, tonight was not a satisfying experience -- win or lose.



Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:05:39


Post by: Daedalus81


 Strg Alt wrote:

Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


GW swiss cheese is exactly the reason they made obscuring a thing.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:20:56


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


GW swiss cheese is exactly the reason they made obscuring a thing.


Mhm ok and what advice do you have for this new player regarding the 'sighting a whole unit based on a single gun barrel' issue he seems to have had? D'you want to tell them 'welp sorry bud, gotta walk around the table and make sure you've got your gun barrels hidden, you actually asked for that unit to get wiped off the table in one shot really, that's all part of the highly skill-expressive mental chess contest that is competitive warhammer 40,000' or should I?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:29:26


Post by: Dudeface


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


GW swiss cheese is exactly the reason they made obscuring a thing.


Mhm ok and what advice do you have for this new player regarding the 'sighting a whole unit based on a single gun barrel' issue he seems to have had? D'you want to tell them 'welp sorry bud, gotta walk around the table and make sure you've got your gun barrels hidden, you actually asked for that unit to get wiped off the table in one shot really, that's all part of the highly skill-expressive mental chess contest that is competitive warhammer 40,000' or should I?


Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not, as if it was just general for funsies/learning game, most reasonable people would say "just for next time know some people will use that and count it as targetable but you're new and it's only combat patrol so don't worry".


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:36:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


I personally never use the tip of guns/flags/antennas to draw LoS, its completely ridiculous. I only consider an enemy in LoS if i can see its "vital part".

Still, i've taken the habit of moving my dudes with intent. I'll say "i move my Raptors behind this ruin so theyre hidden from you" and then if my opponent actually sees the tip of a chainsword, i remember them that i was intending on hiding them.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:38:53


Post by: Slipspace


Dudeface wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


GW swiss cheese is exactly the reason they made obscuring a thing.


Mhm ok and what advice do you have for this new player regarding the 'sighting a whole unit based on a single gun barrel' issue he seems to have had? D'you want to tell them 'welp sorry bud, gotta walk around the table and make sure you've got your gun barrels hidden, you actually asked for that unit to get wiped off the table in one shot really, that's all part of the highly skill-expressive mental chess contest that is competitive warhammer 40,000' or should I?


Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not, as if it was just general for funsies/learning game, most reasonable people would say "just for next time know some people will use that and count it as targetable but you're new and it's only combat patrol so don't worry".


The problem with this is we're talking about relatively new players here who have no reference point for what "reasonable" is. They have no way of knowing what the right amount of terrain is, or what tags they need to attach to terrain to have a good game. If GW would just have written better guidelines and core rules this wouldn't be much of an issue. Telling new players they need to modify the game based on experience they don't yet have isn't a good way to approach game design.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:40:42


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

Played at a GW store? With GW terrain which is as dense as Swiss cheese? No surprise you didn't get any suitable cover.

Next time play at home with homemade terrain and proper terrain area rules. True LOS rules are for the garbage can as you just found out by yourself.


GW swiss cheese is exactly the reason they made obscuring a thing.


Mhm ok and what advice do you have for this new player regarding the 'sighting a whole unit based on a single gun barrel' issue he seems to have had? D'you want to tell them 'welp sorry bud, gotta walk around the table and make sure you've got your gun barrels hidden, you actually asked for that unit to get wiped off the table in one shot really, that's all part of the highly skill-expressive mental chess contest that is competitive warhammer 40,000' or should I?


My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.

There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:48:14


Post by: Tyel


I feel sticking down a Contemptor Dreadnought against someone having their first game isn't really the norm.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 14:56:34


Post by: the_scotsman


Sure, there will always be people who take advantage of rules just to be dicks.

...but also, 40k's rules have several factors about them that can be INCREDIBLY unintuitive for new players and the level of lethality as noted in the post makes minor mistakes INCREDIBLY punishing compared to most other wargames out there.

A new player, who does not know any better, might do something like:

-drive a vehicle up to partially cover itself with a piece of terrain in order to gain a defensive advantage while attacking

40k's rules make that little maneuver have absolutely zero effect.

-Move a unit up into a terrain piece in order to gain a defensive advantage

40k's rules mean that entering an Obscuring ruin building causes your defenses to be reduced from 'you cannot be targeted at all' to 'you get +1 to your save, allowing you to get probably a 5+ instead of a 6+ against the huge wall of shooting youre about to receive'

-move a unit such that some of the models in that unit will benefit from cover, assuming that will help them

40ks rules are written such that that unit is effectively standing out in the open even if one single model is exposed.

I teach new players how to play 40k all the time. Even with absolutely everything stripped out, no subfactions no strats no relics no wl traits no nothing, the first reaction to an engagement happening in 40k is almost always "Woah...so theyre just dead then?"

a min squad of primaris marines takes aim at some eldar guardians while within a captain aura - "Ok, now make 7 6+ saves....no 6s, guess that's 7 wounds."

A single ork Kustom Mega Kannon shoots at a sisters Immolator - "OK, 3 6+ saves...no 6s, roll for damage, and that's 12, so it's gone."

I've gotten to play with a lot of people that are outside my usual gaming group since the pandemic began. The reaction of 'oh, wow, theyre just gone?' or 'so all your stuff is gone, but its only turn 3, is that normal?' is a basically universal reaction to a new player's first exposure to the current edition of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
I feel sticking down a Contemptor Dreadnought against someone having their first game isn't really the norm.


I dunno, one big thing/one walker in a 500pts list is basically what I'd consider the norm...sure a contemptor is like, 30pts more than a regular dread? But it aint no 'i stuck a land raider/guilliman/knight in my 500pt list' level dick move.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:06:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah I mean I might put a Leman Russ into a 500pt game and still have something like 60 infantry


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:19:30


Post by: Tyel


 the_scotsman wrote:
I dunno, one big thing/one walker in a 500pts list is basically what I'd consider the norm...sure a contemptor is like, 30pts more than a regular dread? But it aint no 'i stuck a land raider/guilliman/knight in my 500pt list' level dick move.


I guess it depends on whether its your basic one - which isn't unreasonable and shouldn't really have "unbelievably devastating" firepower, unless your opponent is getting lucky - or a relic contemptor with some combination of magic forgeworld guns (which is sort of where my mind went), which I think is sort of moving up the power scale.

I'm guessing its probably the former - which to my mind speaks to the player just having good luck. Which is why it would be nice to know the armies on both sides.

I mean Breachers are 3 wounds, T5, 2+/6++ save. They shouldn't really die from one volley from most things in a 500 point list. I could send say a 3-lance Ravager at them - but the odds of getting 3 hits, 3 wounds, no saves are incredibly remote.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:20:06


Post by: ccs


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I personally never use the tip of guns/flags/antennas to draw LoS, its completely ridiculous. I only consider an enemy in LoS if i can see its "vital part".

Still, i've taken the habit of moving my dudes with intent. I'll say "i move my Raptors behind this ruin so theyre hidden from you" and then if my opponent actually sees the tip of a chainsword, i remember them that i was intending on hiding them.


I'd accept that once & then remind you on future turns to actually move your models correctly.
It's not hard to do....


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:21:36


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:23:35


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


I will share thoughts soon, thanks for the considerate feedback everyone. Here were our lists:
HIS:
Primaris Captain
Redemptor Dreadnought
10x Primaris Intercessors

Captain has The Burning Blade Relic. Warlord Traits include Adept of the Codex and Calm Under Fire.

Captain - Heavy Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Power Sword, Relic Shield

Dreadnought - Macro Plasma Incinerator, 2x Storm Bolter, Icarus Rocket Pod, Onslaught Gatling Cannon.

Intercessors - 10x Bolt Rifle, 10x Bolt Pistol, 2x Astartes Grenade Launchers.


My List:
Cawl HQ
Masterwork Bionics

Kataphron Destroyers x 3
- Cognis Flamers
Skitari Rangers x 5
-arquebus
taser goad
skitari rangers x 5
data-tether
arguebus
taser goad

Serberys Raiders
Enhanced Data Tether
CP 2/5


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:23:37


Post by: VladimirHerzog


ccs wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I personally never use the tip of guns/flags/antennas to draw LoS, its completely ridiculous. I only consider an enemy in LoS if i can see its "vital part".

Still, i've taken the habit of moving my dudes with intent. I'll say "i move my Raptors behind this ruin so theyre hidden from you" and then if my opponent actually sees the tip of a chainsword, i remember them that i was intending on hiding them.


I'd accept that once & then remind you on future turns to actually move your models correctly.
It's not hard to do....


ok, so i'll spend a solid 15 minutes of moving my 60 pink horrors while double checking so that no flames or hands peek out on the side of a building -.-

But i guess we just have different approaches to the game, i'm all for RAW but i found that it speeds up the game a lot when playing how i do, and with no real change to the outcome


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:45:12


Post by: KingGarland


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I will share thoughts soon, thanks for the considerate feedback everyone. Here were our lists:
HIS:
Primaris Captain
Redemptor Dreadnought
10x Primaris Intercessors

Captain has The Burning Blade Relic. Warlord Traits include Adept of the Codex and Calm Under Fire.

Captain - Heavy Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Power Sword, Relic Shield

Dreadnought - Macro Plasma Incinerator, 2x Storm Bolter, Icarus Rocket Pod, Onslaught Gatling Cannon.

Intercessors - 10x Bolt Rifle, 10x Bolt Pistol, 2x Astartes Grenade Launchers.


My List:
Cawl HQ
Masterwork Bionics

Kataphron Destroyers x 3
- Cognis Flamers
Skitari Rangers x 5
-arquebus
taser goad
skitari rangers x 5
data-tether
arguebus
taser goad

Serberys Raiders
Enhanced Data Tether
CP 2/5


Well there is the first problem. You are bringing a list of mostly second stringers, Cawl is good though not as he used to be, Rangers are top tear though ypu need to take them in large mobs to get the most out of them.
As for him though if I recall a Redemptor is one of the best models in the game right now with enough firepower to desyroy small units of both heavy and light infantry. Also 10 interessors on a smaller board is a bit much.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:46:31


Post by: the_scotsman


OK, so it wasnt even a contemptor dreadnought it was just the regular old basic space marine dreadnought from the primaris range.

...which has a damage flat 3 plasma cannon that would be able to ace 3 servitors in a single shot with not particularly bonkers rolling. Just need a '5' or '6' on the shots and youre basically on the 80 yard line to scooping up your opponent's second most expensive unit in one shot with range = board. and that's one of its four ranged weapons.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:48:40


Post by: Gnarlly


 KingGarland wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I will share thoughts soon, thanks for the considerate feedback everyone. Here were our lists:
HIS:
Primaris Captain
Redemptor Dreadnought
10x Primaris Intercessors

Captain has The Burning Blade Relic. Warlord Traits include Adept of the Codex and Calm Under Fire.

Captain - Heavy Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Power Sword, Relic Shield

Dreadnought - Macro Plasma Incinerator, 2x Storm Bolter, Icarus Rocket Pod, Onslaught Gatling Cannon.

Intercessors - 10x Bolt Rifle, 10x Bolt Pistol, 2x Astartes Grenade Launchers.


My List:
Cawl HQ
Masterwork Bionics

Kataphron Destroyers x 3
- Cognis Flamers
Skitari Rangers x 5
-arquebus
taser goad
skitari rangers x 5
data-tether
arguebus
taser goad

Serberys Raiders
Enhanced Data Tether
CP 2/5


Well there is the first problem. You are bringing a list of mostly second stringers, Cawl is good though not as he used to be, Rangers are top tear though ypu need to take them in large mobs to get the most out of them.
As for him though if I recall a Redemptor is one of the best models in the game right now with enough firepower to desyroy small units of both heavy and light infantry. Also 10 interessors on a smaller board is a bit much.


LOL! Gotta love the perennial replies that state to the effect "your current models suck; buy other/more models." Keep on feeding the GW machine peeps . . .


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 15:52:20


Post by: Gert


By my tally, the SM list is over by 5pts but that's not really a huge issue. They've taken a list that has excellent shooting capability and been allowed to play on a board with no LOS blocking terrain. It's not a particularly competitive list IMO but it's not newstart friendly and in this instance, they've taken your inexperience with the game and played it to their advantage for some easy wins.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 16:07:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


Independent of the specifics of list and terrain I'd also point out that 40k is always really, really swingy at small points levels. It's always going to be possible to end up accidentally losing a rock-paper-scissors matchup that wouldn't be an issue in larger games simply because one unit getting a good round of shooting and wiping one other unit can flip the game around in a way that's not usually possible in bigger games. Someone more familiar with the exact price-performance of units/stratagems than me could probably come up with a detailed ban list that would help, but you might experiment with something like the 25% rule (no single unit can cost more than 25% of the points total for the game, so you're capped at 125pt or smaller units at 500pts) in future 500pt games. (I know this would interfere with Custodes and Knights being able to play at all, but either one is already a weird skew match at 500pts and that isn't really fixable, so go nuts.)

(I'd also suggest banning reserves since the usual counter-play of distance and screening doesn't exist at 500pts, but that's more a personal bugbear of mine and I don't know if it'd actually be necessary.)


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 16:13:25


Post by: vict0988


 KingGarland wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal.

By RAW, yes but that is total crap and since this was not a tournament match, especially against a rookie player, they should have not have done that.

Yes, you should totally do that to a rookie player. It sounds like OP hasn't even read the core rules, which you should always make rookies do. Then if the rookie is hiding his models badly you should warn him during his Movement phase so he learns to ask if he's hiding his models properly in his Movement phase and play by intent instead of learning to get take-backsies during the opponent's shooting phase after they've moved.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 16:13:43


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gert wrote:
By my tally, the SM list is over by 5pts but that's not really a huge issue. They've taken a list that has excellent shooting capability and been allowed to play on a board with no LOS blocking terrain. It's not a particularly competitive list IMO but it's not newstart friendly and in this instance, they've taken your inexperience with the game and played it to their advantage for some easy wins.


...its a captain, 10 space marines and a dreadnought. It's essentially the most basic conceivable 40k list. The take that this person is getting taken for a ride by some kind of slick power-gamer is just bonkers.

Are there problems with OP's list? Yeah and its called Belligerent Carl. He's a buffing piece and there's just nothing in the list for him to buff so his only move is to just kind of trundle across the board trying to get into melee very slowly. you'd encounter the exact same problem with basically any expensive character model priced for their capability to boost up a list - if the SM player was bringing like Marneus Calgar and then a couple 5-man scout squads and a landspeeder that'd be the only advice we'd be able to give him.

With the list OP has? My best idea is combine the skitarii squad into a squad of 10, hide them behind terrain so they arent targeted, pop them out and drop Galvanic Volley Fire+Wrath of Mars on them with cawl's re-roll to hit and that should deal about 9 damage to the dread and put it within conceivable range of popping with cawl's atomizer or the breacher's arc rifles.

Definitely any strat is going to require you to hide behind obscuring turn 1 with the whole army.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 16:41:31


Post by: Gert


 the_scotsman wrote:
...its a captain, 10 space marines and a dreadnought. It's essentially the most basic conceivable 40k list. The take that this person is getting taken for a ride by some kind of slick power-gamer is just bonkers.

I didn't say that though did I. I said it wasn't competitive but the combination of units + the board was not a beginner-friendly game. The Redemptor is vastly superior to the older Boxnaughts in every way and is one of the best units SM can take. Add on the fact that it gets rerolls from the Captain and the Intercessors who are putting out 20 shots/turn with rerolls to hit and you've got a nasty firebase. With no LOS block that army is deleting at least a unit a turn no trouble.

Are there problems with OP's list? Yeah and its called Belligerent Carl. He's a buffing piece and there's just nothing in the list for him to buff so his only move is to just kind of trundle across the board trying to get into melee very slowly. you'd encounter the exact same problem with basically any expensive character model priced for their capability to boost up a list - if the SM player was bringing like Marneus Calgar and then a couple 5-man scout squads and a landspeeder that'd be the only advice we'd be able to give him.

Agreed, Cawl is much too great a points sink for such a small game and the OP should consider swapping Cawl out for something like the Skitarii Alpha or Magos (I don't know how Admech work I just assume they're cheaper HQ's that will still do Things).


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:04:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:11:59


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.


If the "avoidable mistake" is "you bought a model you shouldn't have" I'd argue that's a pretty severe downside to the game.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:17:07


Post by: the_scotsman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.


If the "avoidable mistake" is "you bought a model you shouldn't have" I'd argue that's a pretty severe downside to the game.


I dont think its completely unreasonable to assume that certain models which have force-multiplying capabilities will not be particularly useful in small points value games as much as they will be in larger games, when they have larger units to force-multiply. That's a category of unit I'm perfectly comfortable saying probably ought to be on the less powerful side in smaller games, thats OK to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.



if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:33:48


Post by: Tyel


I think the issue is partly that the armies are not matched up well.

You've got a lot of extra gear on your guys - which makes them more fragile for your points. I'd bring 8 more Skitarii rather than spend 65 points on wargear.

Will a 500 point list kill 10 rangers and 3 destroyers? Well, before the additional stuff, its only a 40% return on their points (80+120) if everything gets to shoot/buff. Which isn't that incredible in 40k terms.

It doesn't seem like a fair fight to me, because aside from Cawl (and thats not reliable) nothing you have can really scratch the Redemptor - meanwhile it can eat through your whole list. Obviously you may be a bit unlucky if D6 shots from the Macro Plasma is producing 5-6 shots twice in a row. But its hardly that unusual an event. 3-4 shots over 2 turns would leave those destroyers just as dead.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:43:05


Post by: Spoletta


That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 17:48:28


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:00:09


Post by: ccs


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:04:48


Post by: the_scotsman


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an


Ok, can I shoot someone with the gun barrel sticking out from behind a corner? It's the gun i'm shooting with. Or what about if I shoot a target behind my model? or if I target just a target model's leg?

Boy if anyone knows anything about me from my posts its that I love and delight in socially roasting people as much as anyone, but if only there were some kind of rules structure that put some of this in place...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:12:12


Post by: macluvin


How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:38:58


Post by: vict0988


macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:46:41


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:
if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"


You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 18:51:25


Post by: Las


 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:02:31


Post by: shortymcnostrill


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an


Fully agreed, it's completely ridiculous, shatters any hint of immersion and I hate it. But, those are the rules as written. You can't even argue RAW vs RAI here, there's no ambiguity. This is how 9th should function as per the designers; any game-breaking errors are faqed pretty quickly nowadays and this hasn't been. And again, I think it's a bad rule that my group thankfully ignores.

But can you fault random opponents for playing the game by the rules, instead of adopting what would essentially be a house rule? Maybe this opponent isn't all that experienced either and just doing what the rules say; that's what 40k is supposed to play like, isn't it? At the very least not allowing you to target antennas and the like is something you should discuss and agree on beforehand, as with any house rule. Which feels absolutely ridiculous given, well, everything I just typed.

Tl;dr: don't hate the player, hate the game


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:16:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:22:31


Post by: Las


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?


It's not, and in fact those conversations do happen in 25% coverage games. The distinction here is that in the context of this discussion, that conversation is precipitated by an inelegant rule (targeting antennae or scenic rocks), which make the need to ask your opponent whether he can see literally any part of your model much more necessary.

Other targeting and line of sight mechanics would reduce the need to do that while also increasing immersion.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:45:55


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?


Its really difficult to get why this is really a point of confusion, but...it's because it's actually quite difficult to 100% hide a unit a lot of the time, and in every wargame including wh40k where this was a thing, yes you were often arguing with donkey-caves about it, but at least the rules didnt uniquivocally declare the donkey-cave to be always correct if he ever decided he wanted to pull some bs and target a unit he shouldnt logically be able to


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"


You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


Easy:

Don't allow it to supersede Look Out Sir so you can't "Vision snipe" characters, but if a player wants to use a friendly unit to claim Look Out Sir for a character the firing unit must then take casualties even if they wouldnt otherwise be visible.

....Sidebar...how does this actually work right now RAW? Can I block you from targeting my character with a non-visible friendly unit that is closer and within 3" of my character? or is vision-sniping characters currently a thing? And if it's not...why bring it up as an objection, the rule would stay as current and characters wouldnt be targetable?

and allow the controlling player, if they wish to, to remove out of sight models when the unit is being targeted. If your opponent pulls some sneaky trick and makes it so they can only see your special weapon - OK, you now have the option to either remove just that special weapon and shut down the remainder of his shooting attack, or you can remove ablative wounds as normal effectively negating his little rhino-sniping maneuver.

That puts 100% of the power in the hands of the defender to make the choice of which models to remove a tactical decision when it does matter, and when just one single model is sticking out of cover, it allows just that one single model to die and the rest of the unit to be protected.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:51:00


Post by: Spoletta


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.


If his destroyers open fire on the intercessors, that's pretty much game right there. The 44x30 is too big to be held with a dreadnaught and a char.
If he loses the destroyers that's game too. The rest of his firepower isn't really capable of much.
It's a game of who gets the other one first.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 19:54:00


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.


If his destroyers open fire on the intercessors, that's pretty much game right there. The 44x30 is too big to be held with a dreadnaught and a char.
If he loses the destroyers that's game too. The rest of his firepower isn't really capable of much.
It's a game of who gets the other one first.


Even out in the open the destroyers would only kill 4 intercessors, assuming theyre the plasma ones. Doesnt seem that devastating of a hard counter idk. if the dreadnought wasnt there itd be a fairly rough match up for the intercessors but I feel like in the current config id just take the chunk out of my ints and then the dreadnought would carve up the destroyers no prob.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 20:47:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 20:51:24


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.


Or, as this is a tabletop game, force them to move out, take a shot. Stop. That's the end of it, go back to weapon arcs maybe (albeit in a looser format) to make the facing matter a little. The cost of getting the shot off should be positioning, there shouldn't be a magical move back section.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 21:15:34


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.


Or, as this is a tabletop game, force them to move out, take a shot. Stop. That's the end of it, go back to weapon arcs maybe (albeit in a looser format) to make the facing matter a little. The cost of getting the shot off should be positioning, there shouldn't be a magical move back section.


Sure, though stopping has certain pathologies (now the whole army can maneuver around my current position and shoot me, rather than what happened to be positioned specifically to overwatch me).

Allowing specifically tasked units to shoot the tank as a reaction is the good middle ground between "everyone maneuvers and reacts to me" and "no one whatsoever can react to me"


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 22:10:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.
Why do I even bother replying to you if you're going to come back at me with this kind of stuff?

*sigh*

ccs wrote:
You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an
No. You're just following GW's rules. Again, don't make judgements of the people playing the game because they're playing the game as written. Blaming the players is not the answer here.

Or, as shorty put it so succinctly: Don't hate the player, hate the game.





Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/21 23:40:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.
Why do I even bother replying to you if you're going to come back at me with this kind of stuff?

*sigh*


Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.

Sorry. I'm probably being too much of a dick right now so I'll try to post less for a while and go work on projects.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/22 01:41:17


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.


Deflecting legitimate criticism of the current rules by blaming the player for playing the game as written is not 'trying to help people use the rules'. Frankly, you're doing the opposite of trying to help people use the rules: You're telling OP that his opponent is a dick for following the rules.

Then you respond to HBMC's criticism of this attitude by strawmanning him into saying that the game shouldn't allow you to make mistakes. As if that's what anyone was talking about.

Portraying this exchange as 'at least I'm trying to help' is utter bs.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/22 09:51:15


Post by: Tyel


 the_scotsman wrote:
Even out in the open the destroyers would only kill 4 intercessors, assuming theyre the plasma ones. Doesnt seem that devastating of a hard counter idk. if the dreadnought wasnt there itd be a fairly rough match up for the intercessors but I feel like in the current config id just take the chunk out of my ints and then the dreadnought would carve up the destroyers no prob.


By points I'd guess grav - although it doesn't change things that much.
The Marine player should also use transhuman on those intercessors every day of the week, which probably saves one.
I guess there are a few things you can do to boost output on the destroyers.

But all in all the odds of wiping all 10 seem very low.

And by degree, if the Redemptor turns round, kills the destroyers and guts one of the Skitarii squads (need a lucky number of shots with the macro plasma but not that unlikely), it seems like you still have a game - 3 units to 2. And the only thing that can really hurt the Dread is Cawl's unreliable atomiser - the rest is plinking off the odd wound. Not unreasonable to end up at the top of turn 3 with Cawl versus a dread minus some wounds+captain and a "camp the objectives" approach isn't going to work.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/22 11:52:28


Post by: Cronch


At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/22 22:10:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.


Deflecting legitimate criticism of the current rules by blaming the player for playing the game as written is not 'trying to help people use the rules'. Frankly, you're doing the opposite of trying to help people use the rules: You're telling OP that his opponent is a dick for following the rules.

Then you respond to HBMC's criticism of this attitude by strawmanning him into saying that the game shouldn't allow you to make mistakes. As if that's what anyone was talking about.

Portraying this exchange as 'at least I'm trying to help' is utter bs.


I guess? I'm not saying the guy is a dick for following the rules. I'm saying he's a dick for working over a new player and not letting them know how the game works or offering forgiveness for being new.

Is that how you train new employees? Beat them on their mistakes? Or understand that they lack full knowledge and give them leeway? I know one of those approaches works better than the other.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/22 22:30:46


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


First, thanks everyone for exploring my situation. All of your input is appreciated.

I'll begin responding to individuals when I have feedback, but for now I want you to know that I am going to:

1.) have a thorough read-through again of the rules.
2..) Have a sit down with my opponent and chat about what we want out of our games together. This includes at the least:
A.) Our need for more terrain, per the main rule books suggestions and possibly some YouTube tutorials on the subject. This includes not making everything symmetrical (which seems to open up firing lanes as well).
B.)Negotiating lists prior to playing -- explore if he wants to bring a tournament ready list, or do we want to do something more toned down.
This will either help me prepare for the occasional lower point tourneys that happen in town with my Deathguard, or on the flipside learn my secondary Admech army and try out different fluffy units.

I've taken into account a lot of what is said here, and again it is appreciated.
I will say also that a few months ago I strongly encouraged him to find other 40K opponents as he was waiting on me to finish my AoS league. He has, and it is time I do the same if I wish to learn the game. This will only benefit both of us.

Cheers



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 01:29:44


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.


Deflecting legitimate criticism of the current rules by blaming the player for playing the game as written is not 'trying to help people use the rules'. Frankly, you're doing the opposite of trying to help people use the rules: You're telling OP that his opponent is a dick for following the rules.

Then you respond to HBMC's criticism of this attitude by strawmanning him into saying that the game shouldn't allow you to make mistakes. As if that's what anyone was talking about.

Portraying this exchange as 'at least I'm trying to help' is utter bs.


I guess? I'm not saying the guy is a dick for following the rules. I'm saying he's a dick for working over a new player and not letting them know how the game works or offering forgiveness for being new.

Is that how you train new employees? Beat them on their mistakes? Or understand that they lack full knowledge and give them leeway? I know one of those approaches works better than the other.


I wonder if you know which one you're using.

Why approach the situation as 'someone is being a dick' at all? Why use false positivity as a bludgeon to try reframe the conversation into something it isn't?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 02:19:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Nope...not worth the time.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 03:16:42


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


Cronch wrote:
At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Oddly enough, it has not yet transpired in any of my AoS games. perhaps it will, be we are so accustomed to not a lot of terrain that this issue hasn't arisen.
I cannot put my finger on why terrain seems to be so much less significant for me in my Sigmar matches, save the fact that melee is the main form of combat in AoS, and firing generally is in 40K.

I played a Tzeentch force, and he was shooting the gak out of me across mostly an open field (The store doesn't haven't much terrain yet). But between Soulblight spells, and my Command abilities, we still
ended up having a blazing good match that ended in a draw. The first full draw of the league.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 04:14:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Nope...not worth the time.
This ain't the time to try and take the high road...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 06:26:44


Post by: Dudeface


Voss wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.


Deflecting legitimate criticism of the current rules by blaming the player for playing the game as written is not 'trying to help people use the rules'. Frankly, you're doing the opposite of trying to help people use the rules: You're telling OP that his opponent is a dick for following the rules.

Then you respond to HBMC's criticism of this attitude by strawmanning him into saying that the game shouldn't allow you to make mistakes. As if that's what anyone was talking about.

Portraying this exchange as 'at least I'm trying to help' is utter bs.


I guess? I'm not saying the guy is a dick for following the rules. I'm saying he's a dick for working over a new player and not letting them know how the game works or offering forgiveness for being new.

Is that how you train new employees? Beat them on their mistakes? Or understand that they lack full knowledge and give them leeway? I know one of those approaches works better than the other.


I wonder if you know which one you're using.

Why approach the situation as 'someone is being a dick' at all? Why use false positivity as a bludgeon to try reframe the conversation into something it isn't?


It's down to the context of the conversation. If experienced player can tell the person they're playing doesn't know the rules as well, then the polite and helpful thing to do is to educate as you go. The commonly acceptable level of politeness here is to make allowances as they've made an error and you don't want to stomp them as that creates bad feelings, when you want perspective new players to feel engaged.

Just playing to win at the expense of your opponent, who clearly doesn't understand what is happening fully is the "being a dick" in question here. Educate and encourage.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 18:11:04


Post by: Cronch


But why, steamrolling newbies had SUCH a great effect on Warmahordes playerbase !


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 19:21:26


Post by: Slipspace


Cronch wrote:
But why, steamrolling newbies had SUCH a great effect on Warmahordes playerbase !


That's definitely a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud whenever you see it. I don't think we can say that's what happened here though. The SM army wasn't exactly some OP abomination and the LoS rules were followed in the same way I've seen numerous new players follow them. Some posters just seem to be very keen to blame the players for the shortcomings of the rules.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 19:48:35


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Slipspace wrote:
Cronch wrote:
But why, steamrolling newbies had SUCH a great effect on Warmahordes playerbase !


That's definitely a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud whenever you see it. I don't think we can say that's what happened here though. The SM army wasn't exactly some OP abomination and the LoS rules were followed in the same way I've seen numerous new players follow them. Some posters just seem to be very keen to blame the players for the shortcomings of the rules.


Agreed. The lists look like two people throwing their Starterboxes against each other. And yes, since 8th RAW everything you can see from a model counts as in los. So if you're not familiar with older editions or don't really have a clue what makes sense you go by what the rulebook says. Also 500 points are especially prone to onesided matches, and I've seen that in most Wargames I played, not just 40K. One bad die roll can screw you up. All that being said, too little terrain played into it as well. Basically you shouldn't even be able to see most of your enemy in first turn, at least not without moving into dangerous positions yourself, no matter what terrain keywords you use.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/23 21:24:17


Post by: the_scotsman


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Cronch wrote:
At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Oddly enough, it has not yet transpired in any of my AoS games. perhaps it will, be we are so accustomed to not a lot of terrain that this issue hasn't arisen.
I cannot put my finger on why terrain seems to be so much less significant for me in my Sigmar matches, save the fact that melee is the main form of combat in AoS, and firing generally is in 40K.

I played a Tzeentch force, and he was shooting the gak out of me across mostly an open field (The store doesn't haven't much terrain yet). But between Soulblight spells, and my Command abilities, we still
ended up having a blazing good match that ended in a draw. The first full draw of the league.



I'll give you a hint:

150pts shooting unit in AOS:

Auralan Sentinels, 4+sv target, successfully cast their self-buff spell to do MWs on a 6, within 18" range: 4.43 damage

150pts shooting unit in 40k

Eradicators, T7 3+sv target, within 12" range, no other buffs: 19.96 damage


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/24 11:31:51


Post by: Jidmah


How powerful are those sentinels compared to other shooting units? More on the strong side or average? Honest question, because compared to flash gits or intercessors, 4.43 damage doesn't seem too bad.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/24 14:24:57


Post by: Cronch


They're one of the strongest shooting units in the game, mostly because they don't need LOS at all with their self-boost.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/24 16:21:00


Post by: Spoletta


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Cronch wrote:
At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Oddly enough, it has not yet transpired in any of my AoS games. perhaps it will, be we are so accustomed to not a lot of terrain that this issue hasn't arisen.
I cannot put my finger on why terrain seems to be so much less significant for me in my Sigmar matches, save the fact that melee is the main form of combat in AoS, and firing generally is in 40K.

I played a Tzeentch force, and he was shooting the gak out of me across mostly an open field (The store doesn't haven't much terrain yet). But between Soulblight spells, and my Command abilities, we still
ended up having a blazing good match that ended in a draw. The first full draw of the league.



I'll give you a hint:

150pts shooting unit in AOS:

Auralan Sentinels, 4+sv target, successfully cast their self-buff spell to do MWs on a 6, within 18" range: 4.43 damage

150pts shooting unit in 40k

Eradicators, T7 3+sv target, within 12" range, no other buffs: 19.96 damage


While it is kind of true that shooting in AoS is generally less oppressive than 40K (but it still dominated the meta for a good while), that comparison is incredibly misleading.

First of all, you are comparing a slow short ranged unit to a unit that fire with no-LoS and can shoot up to 30" with minimal impacts on its damage. Second, most of that damage you mentioned are actually mortal wounds (3.33 MW). Third, the points per wound in AoS is on average higher than in 40k, so you can't compare directly the damage inflicted. Last, you are using an AT platform from 40K, which is really apples to oranges compared to AoS, since in AoS damage spills and in 40K it doesn't.

A more apt comparison would be the shooting of 19 admech rangers (152 points), which are a top meta choice. On a T4 3+ target, which is the closest thing to a 4+ save in Sigmar (Sigmarine profile), they inflict 6,27 damage. Considering that one is a no-LoS platform which inflicts MW, you can see that there isn't that big of a difference between the systems.

(Also consider that the sentinels have a Deny roll included in those 150 points)

What really sets apart AoS shooting from 40K shooting, are the ranges. Ranges in 40K are on average much longer.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/24 19:54:48


Post by: the_scotsman


 Jidmah wrote:
How powerful are those sentinels compared to other shooting units? More on the strong side or average? Honest question, because compared to flash gits or intercessors, 4.43 damage doesn't seem too bad.


Considered a fairly top-tier unit. Also, 1W 5+Sv, 15pts per model. Note that this firepower is at 18" range and with the successful casting of effectively a WC6 psychic power (works the same as in 40k except denies in AOS are generally more common, if you want to attack out of LOS or at 30" range you need to use the weaker profile.

Weaker profile, without the self-buff power on them, same 4+sv target: 2.53 damage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Cronch wrote:
At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Oddly enough, it has not yet transpired in any of my AoS games. perhaps it will, be we are so accustomed to not a lot of terrain that this issue hasn't arisen.
I cannot put my finger on why terrain seems to be so much less significant for me in my Sigmar matches, save the fact that melee is the main form of combat in AoS, and firing generally is in 40K.

I played a Tzeentch force, and he was shooting the gak out of me across mostly an open field (The store doesn't haven't much terrain yet). But between Soulblight spells, and my Command abilities, we still
ended up having a blazing good match that ended in a draw. The first full draw of the league.



I'll give you a hint:

150pts shooting unit in AOS:

Auralan Sentinels, 4+sv target, successfully cast their self-buff spell to do MWs on a 6, within 18" range: 4.43 damage

150pts shooting unit in 40k

Eradicators, T7 3+sv target, within 12" range, no other buffs: 19.96 damage


While it is kind of true that shooting in AoS is generally less oppressive than 40K (but it still dominated the meta for a good while), that comparison is incredibly misleading.

First of all, you are comparing a slow short ranged unit to a unit that fire with no-LoS and can shoot up to 30" with minimal impacts on its damage. Second, most of that damage you mentioned are actually mortal wounds (3.33 MW). Third, the points per wound in AoS is on average higher than in 40k, so you can't compare directly the damage inflicted. Last, you are using an AT platform from 40K, which is really apples to oranges compared to AoS, since in AoS damage spills and in 40K it doesn't.

A more apt comparison would be the shooting of 19 admech rangers (152 points), which are a top meta choice. On a T4 3+ target, which is the closest thing to a 4+ save in Sigmar (Sigmarine profile), they inflict 6,27 damage. Considering that one is a no-LoS platform which inflicts MW, you can see that there isn't that big of a difference between the systems.

(Also consider that the sentinels have a Deny roll included in those 150 points)

What really sets apart AoS shooting from 40K shooting, are the ranges. Ranges in 40K are on average much longer.


(minimal impact to damage here meaning "-1 to hit, no AP instead of -1AP" btw.)

Basic space marine in 40k: 2W, 3+sv, T4, 20ppm
Basic Sigmarine in AOS: 2W, 4+sv, no toughness cus its AOS, 19ppm

pts per wound might be very slightly higher on average....but not much as far as I can tell.

We are also ABSOLUTELY steel-manning this comparison with AOS vs 40k. The rangers, for example, get stackable passive auras, stratagems, doctrinas, and two forge world bonuses rather than 1.

A unit of 19 Mars rangers can decide, "You know what, I'd really like to kill something. Let's do just that", declare the relevant doctrina and canticle, and

-up their shots per model to 3
-hit on 2s, with 2 rerolls
-wound on 4s, with a bonus mortal wound on 6s, with 1 reroll
-save on 4s, ignoring cover if they decided they wanted the 5pt upgrade to always ignore light cover

and just cheerfully deal 20 wounds to those space marines.

The lumineth? They can make themselves +1 to hit, upping their max potential damage to 6.66.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and because I know what Daed is going to say here - yes, that is a quarter of your CP, a limited resource, but it does enable you to neatly remove 10% of your opponent's army with one single shooting attack with 30" range ignoring Light Cover, and it isnt even taking into account what any of your other units can accomplish in that turn. You've used 150pts/2000pts in your army and your opponent is down 200pts. The fact that you're able to amp up your big combo-wombo units by blowing all your CP in one go to force your opponent to shovel 50% of his army off the board in a single turn is not a good feature that 40k has.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/25 00:38:34


Post by: Jidmah


Cronch wrote:They're one of the strongest shooting units in the game, mostly because they don't need LOS at all with their self-boost.


the_scotsman wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
How powerful are those sentinels compared to other shooting units? More on the strong side or average? Honest question, because compared to flash gits or intercessors, 4.43 damage doesn't seem too bad.


Considered a fairly top-tier unit. Also, 1W 5+Sv, 15pts per model. Note that this firepower is at 18" range and with the successful casting of effectively a WC6 psychic power (works the same as in 40k except denies in AOS are generally more common, if you want to attack out of LOS or at 30" range you need to use the weaker profile.

Weaker profile, without the self-buff power on them, same 4+sv target: 2.53 damage.


Thanks. I guess having an output comparable to flash gits or intercessors to be considered top tier wouldn't be so bad.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/25 05:01:29


Post by: Spoletta


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
How powerful are those sentinels compared to other shooting units? More on the strong side or average? Honest question, because compared to flash gits or intercessors, 4.43 damage doesn't seem too bad.


Considered a fairly top-tier unit. Also, 1W 5+Sv, 15pts per model. Note that this firepower is at 18" range and with the successful casting of effectively a WC6 psychic power (works the same as in 40k except denies in AOS are generally more common, if you want to attack out of LOS or at 30" range you need to use the weaker profile.

Weaker profile, without the self-buff power on them, same 4+sv target: 2.53 damage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Cronch wrote:
At the very least OP got an accurate sample of what 40k is, down to the long-winded discussion of the absurd LOS rules here

The same rules do apply to AoS though, so I'm not sure how they missed it there. Sniping nighthaunt characters because their banner/sword sticks out is the main way to deal with them by shooting armies among other examples.


Oddly enough, it has not yet transpired in any of my AoS games. perhaps it will, be we are so accustomed to not a lot of terrain that this issue hasn't arisen.
I cannot put my finger on why terrain seems to be so much less significant for me in my Sigmar matches, save the fact that melee is the main form of combat in AoS, and firing generally is in 40K.

I played a Tzeentch force, and he was shooting the gak out of me across mostly an open field (The store doesn't haven't much terrain yet). But between Soulblight spells, and my Command abilities, we still
ended up having a blazing good match that ended in a draw. The first full draw of the league.



I'll give you a hint:

150pts shooting unit in AOS:

Auralan Sentinels, 4+sv target, successfully cast their self-buff spell to do MWs on a 6, within 18" range: 4.43 damage

150pts shooting unit in 40k

Eradicators, T7 3+sv target, within 12" range, no other buffs: 19.96 damage


While it is kind of true that shooting in AoS is generally less oppressive than 40K (but it still dominated the meta for a good while), that comparison is incredibly misleading.

First of all, you are comparing a slow short ranged unit to a unit that fire with no-LoS and can shoot up to 30" with minimal impacts on its damage. Second, most of that damage you mentioned are actually mortal wounds (3.33 MW). Third, the points per wound in AoS is on average higher than in 40k, so you can't compare directly the damage inflicted. Last, you are using an AT platform from 40K, which is really apples to oranges compared to AoS, since in AoS damage spills and in 40K it doesn't.

A more apt comparison would be the shooting of 19 admech rangers (152 points), which are a top meta choice. On a T4 3+ target, which is the closest thing to a 4+ save in Sigmar (Sigmarine profile), they inflict 6,27 damage. Considering that one is a no-LoS platform which inflicts MW, you can see that there isn't that big of a difference between the systems.

(Also consider that the sentinels have a Deny roll included in those 150 points)

What really sets apart AoS shooting from 40K shooting, are the ranges. Ranges in 40K are on average much longer.


(minimal impact to damage here meaning "-1 to hit, no AP instead of -1AP" btw.)

Basic space marine in 40k: 2W, 3+sv, T4, 20ppm
Basic Sigmarine in AOS: 2W, 4+sv, no toughness cus its AOS, 19ppm

pts per wound might be very slightly higher on average....but not much as far as I can tell.

We are also ABSOLUTELY steel-manning this comparison with AOS vs 40k. The rangers, for example, get stackable passive auras, stratagems, doctrinas, and two forge world bonuses rather than 1.

A unit of 19 Mars rangers can decide, "You know what, I'd really like to kill something. Let's do just that", declare the relevant doctrina and canticle, and

-up their shots per model to 3
-hit on 2s, with 2 rerolls
-wound on 4s, with a bonus mortal wound on 6s, with 1 reroll
-save on 4s, ignoring cover if they decided they wanted the 5pt upgrade to always ignore light cover

and just cheerfully deal 20 wounds to those space marines.

The lumineth? They can make themselves +1 to hit, upping their max potential damage to 6.66.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and because I know what Daed is going to say here - yes, that is a quarter of your CP, a limited resource, but it does enable you to neatly remove 10% of your opponent's army with one single shooting attack with 30" range ignoring Light Cover, and it isnt even taking into account what any of your other units can accomplish in that turn. You've used 150pts/2000pts in your army and your opponent is down 200pts. The fact that you're able to amp up your big combo-wombo units by blowing all your CP in one go to force your opponent to shovel 50% of his army off the board in a single turn is not a good feature that 40k has.


Your math is off.
Sentinels don't need to cast a power to give themselves an MW on 6.
They do so by default. When they cast the power, they do MW on 5.
That's why they don't care about firing at 30", since they care only about the 5 and 6 to hit. They don't care about hitting on 3+ or 4+. They don't care about the -1 AP.
When firing at a target with 10 arrows, 3.33 will be MW with no other effect. Then the other arrows will cause 1 or 2 saves at AP 0 or 1... you don't care about those.
Also, there is no char protection aside from a -1 to hit in AoS, so guess what... they don't care about that one too. They only need the unmodified 5 and 6s. They are incredibly good char killers. If a char is within 30" of 2 of those units (LOS ignoring), he is dead. Just pure MW spam.

Now, you won't get full leafblower lists in AoS, and that's for the reason you said. Less stackable buffs, especially now in 3th edition (2th edition was worse than 40K in that regard).
One thing to consider though is that Overwatch in AoS is a lot stronger. It works even if you are not the unit charged, and it fires at just -1 to hit. I have seen 400 points of models being destroyed in a single overwatch.

So, obviously they are different games with different dynamics, but make no mistake. Shooting in AoS is very scary, just for different reasons than in 40K.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/25 11:17:45


Post by: Galas


I have to say that even it all the math ot The_Scotsman is true, Sentinels feel extremely opressive in AoS in a way not many units feel in 40k.

It helps that 40k tables are normally played with proper terrain and AoS still uses by the most part fantasy-like tables.

Lethality in AoS is not lower than in 40k. Everything that touches anything makes it explode. And shooting units exist in just two states: They are useless or they are so good and oppresive than can basically single handely win the game with a double turn and you can't do nothing, not even protect your characters.

No leafblowers lists in aos? then what are tzeentch and kharadron armies? (My knowledge probably is a little outdated at this point but whatever) As an ogre, khorne and minotaur player, I know my armies have always been middle-low tier but feth that. At no point in time 40k has felt less "fair" to play than AoS, even if you are just hidding behind terrain and scoring objetives.

AoS is so much simpler than the mathematics behind lists matter so much more. The unwinabble scenarios are much more common.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/25 11:54:42


Post by: Tyel


Rather than damage shouldn't you talk about expected percentage of points return?

The issue in 40k is that getting a 40%ish return is relatively standard. 2000 points will quite reliably kill 800 points if it can "see" 800 points worth of stuff. Many units manage more due to a range of buffs. You can try to protect yourself with your own stratagems - things like Transhuman, minuses to hit etc, but this can be more limited. I'm not going to count - but I feel there are considerably more damage boosting stratagems than debuffing stratagems.

So 500 points of Marines is very likely to pop 3 destroyers+10 Skitarri at 200 points. The fact you've given them a load of extra stuff so they cost 260 does nothing to change this - except rather than a 40% return, they are now getting a 52% return.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/25 12:53:30


Post by: Cyel


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
.

My question -- in even small 40K matches, 500 or 1,000 points, should there still be fully blocked fire lanes?



My almost 20y experience with this game says that open fire lanes should be a rarity rather than a norm for the game to be about more than just dice rolling and who has better stats on guns.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 00:34:08


Post by: macluvin


... what if terrain was tooled up to strip the mechanics that amplify shooting? Removing rerolls, blunting AP characteristics or guaranteeing a cover save, etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming it’s a viable idea the tricky part would be how the heck you would put those rules on terrain and not require multiple terrain peices intervening or how to have a piece of terrain that doesn’t require multiple paragraphs to explain....


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 00:48:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


macluvin wrote:
... what if terrain was tooled up to strip the mechanics that amplify shooting? Removing rerolls, blunting AP characteristics or guaranteeing a cover save, etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming it’s a viable idea the tricky part would be how the heck you would put those rules on terrain and not require multiple terrain peices intervening or how to have a piece of terrain that doesn’t require multiple paragraphs to explain....


"Blunting AP characteristics" is what the +1 to save was supposed to do in the first place, but GW keeps putting more and more and more AP on things, so unless you're planning on starting to give terrain more and more and more +save...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 01:05:30


Post by: macluvin


 AnomanderRake wrote:
macluvin wrote:
... what if terrain was tooled up to strip the mechanics that amplify shooting? Removing rerolls, blunting AP characteristics or guaranteeing a cover save, etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming it’s a viable idea the tricky part would be how the heck you would put those rules on terrain and not require multiple terrain peices intervening or how to have a piece of terrain that doesn’t require multiple paragraphs to explain....


"Blunting AP characteristics" is what the +1 to save was supposed to do in the first place, but GW keeps putting more and more and more AP on things, so unless you're planning on starting to give terrain more and more and more +save...


So go with the 4+ cover save? Maybe a rule that cuts AP in half or limits it to -1? It seems like the solution is really to scale back AP and make damage more expensive to inflict. Regardless, if we are discussing how to hypothetically change a system to improve it we need not be confined to boxes.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 02:07:45


Post by: AnomanderRake


macluvin wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
macluvin wrote:
... what if terrain was tooled up to strip the mechanics that amplify shooting? Removing rerolls, blunting AP characteristics or guaranteeing a cover save, etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming it’s a viable idea the tricky part would be how the heck you would put those rules on terrain and not require multiple terrain peices intervening or how to have a piece of terrain that doesn’t require multiple paragraphs to explain....


"Blunting AP characteristics" is what the +1 to save was supposed to do in the first place, but GW keeps putting more and more and more AP on things, so unless you're planning on starting to give terrain more and more and more +save...


So go with the 4+ cover save? Maybe a rule that cuts AP in half or limits it to -1? It seems like the solution is really to scale back AP and make damage more expensive to inflict. Regardless, if we are discussing how to hypothetically change a system to improve it we need not be confined to boxes.


Eh. To me GW can and will break 100% of systems with power creep; there is no core-system fix for what's fundamentally a stat-assigning problem.

In my own systems I tend to favor making cover a to-hit penalty just because there's so much piled onto the save step in Warhammer (armor, AP, AP modifiers, save modifiers, Invulnerable saves...) and not that much in the to-hit step.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 03:38:09


Post by: Spoletta


I agree that cover doesn't provide enough of a bonus.
In the other thread I proposed that all cover types should add 1 to the save roll, and then have an additional effect. Dense -1 to hit, Light Ignore AP-1, Heavy reduce attacks.

This way cover matters a bit more.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 04:03:14


Post by: Insectum7


Spoletta wrote:
I agree that cover doesn't provide enough of a bonus.
In the other thread I proposed that all cover types should add 1 to the save roll, and then have an additional effect. Dense -1 to hit, Light Ignore AP-1, Heavy reduce attacks.

This way cover matters a bit more.
^I could get behind that.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 04:17:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


EDIT: Wrong thread! Too many windows open!




Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 05:18:02


Post by: tneva82


 Jidmah wrote:
How powerful are those sentinels compared to other shooting units? More on the strong side or average? Honest question, because compared to flash gits or intercessors, 4.43 damage doesn't seem too bad.


Strong. Their power comes from being mw(opponent save irrelevant), obscene range(not much 30" premove range) and ability to ignore los at near will(can't split attacks. Boo).

But 30 of those will put quite a dent to lots of stuff. There's also spell allowing rerolls vs target unit increasing mw output to 55%.

One of top shooting units in game. But not in terms of wipe any unit. Main offencing feature is deleting those key characters melee can't deal with because they are behind wall of heroes. Some armies find this particularly irritating. Nighthaunt without support heroes is sorry sight for example.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 09:48:01


Post by: Altima


Getting back to the OP, there's a couple things you can do.

There's a fair few terrain videos on YouTube to watch. What's good about these is that they get you used to placing terrain and recognizing their uses.

For example, on one board you might have along the middle third on one side of the map a LOS blocking structure, which means you can hide your bigger stuff there turn on. The other side of the table might be open but have heavy cover or forest next to an objective.

As long as these terrain features are more or less in the center, they won't theoretically favor one player over another. If at all possible, try to avoid any sort of terrain in the deployment zones that will encourage turtling or even completely block LOS (instead, use that terrain in the center of the board so players will have to fight over it).

For your opponent, you have a couple options. You can accept that they're leaning into WAAC and you'll need to update your lists to be as competitive as his. Another option is to just find another player that's more concerned with having fun than winning (and can differentiate the two). Something else to consider is perhaps a change in format--see if you can find someone who can run a crusade for you or something similar until you're more comfortable with the ruleset. Right now I'm experimenting running a story campaign basically like a dungeon master with a handful of players and using my collection of minis to play the opposing forces whenever the players aren't going for the same objective and everyone's having a blast.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 11:31:41


Post by: the_scotsman


....Again, I love the implication that somehow, a dude that took

-the space marine captain that comes in the starter box (walky cap with shield and sword)

-10 intercessors

-1 space marine dreadnought

Is somehow this evil sinister WAAC player...for not knowing which of the game's rules he's supposed to ignore to have a good time.

I'd hazard to say MOST people who are new to a game as their first instinct dont go 'hmm lets see now which of these rules should I not follow to avoid giving everyone a miserable time'?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 13:47:58


Post by: Yoyoyo


I don’t think it’s an unfair list, that said people do struggle against Redemptors at 500 points.

The SM list is really easy to construct and pilot. Everything is solid and straightforward.

The Admech list is another story. Kataphrons don’t have the core keyword so 300+ points in this list is tied up in units thats don’t have any real synergy together.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 15:22:17


Post by: Slipspace


 the_scotsman wrote:
....Again, I love the implication that somehow, a dude that took

-the space marine captain that comes in the starter box (walky cap with shield and sword)

-10 intercessors

-1 space marine dreadnought

Is somehow this evil sinister WAAC player...for not knowing which of the game's rules he's supposed to ignore to have a good time.

I'd hazard to say MOST people who are new to a game as their first instinct dont go 'hmm lets see now which of these rules should I not follow to avoid giving everyone a miserable time'?


I completely agree. It's another case of the blaming the player instead of the game. A list with a basic character, the army's most basic infantry and a single vehicle is hardly a heinous skew list and it definitely doesn't feel like an attempt to dominate a new player.

It's true that the game doesn't work too well below ~1000 points and that could be causing balance problems here. Again, that's not the fault of the players.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/26 19:53:52


Post by: Yoyoyo


I think the strategy here would be using Skitarii to take an objective with a 2+ save in cover, while ignoring -2AP shooting from Logi.

The Grav Kataphrons outrange the Intercessors and have a great offensive profile against Marines. They want to be held back and not exposed to fire immediately.

The Serberys Raiders are probably best used to steal objectives once other units start dying.

Cawl should probably just be replaced with a generic HQ and a Neutron Laser/2x Stubber Dunecrawer.

So basically:

- Tech-Priest, Logi
- 10x Rangers
- 3x Destroyers, Flamers
- 3x Serberys Raiders
- Dunecrawler, Neutron Laser, 2x Stubber

There’s a lot of options for Relics and Forge Worlds, but I think the -1 to hit from Stygies is going to be more forgiving for someone learning 40k. Games at this scale will always be swingy but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily unbalanced.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 07:04:48


Post by: Dudeface


 the_scotsman wrote:
....Again, I love the implication that somehow, a dude that took

-the space marine captain that comes in the starter box (walky cap with shield and sword)

-10 intercessors

-1 space marine dreadnought

Is somehow this evil sinister WAAC player...for not knowing which of the game's rules he's supposed to ignore to have a good time.

I'd hazard to say MOST people who are new to a game as their first instinct dont go 'hmm lets see now which of these rules should I not follow to avoid giving everyone a miserable time'?


I love the implication a new player in their first few games willing ignores rules to take advantage of others like some sinister WAAC player.

It's not about ignoring the rules, it's about how you enlighten your opponent. Would it really hurt them to have said "it's true LOS btw and I can see that 1 gun barrell, did you mean to keep them all hidden?". Thats not even something that applies just to new players, you even see that happening in tournaments when they play by intent.

If they moved up, said "lol it's TLOS and I can see your gun barrell git gun noob" then yeah, they're being an ass to a new player.

You'll also note none of that is relevant to the list taken as it's down to the human behind the army.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 07:33:44


Post by: Slipspace


Dudeface wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
....Again, I love the implication that somehow, a dude that took

-the space marine captain that comes in the starter box (walky cap with shield and sword)

-10 intercessors

-1 space marine dreadnought

Is somehow this evil sinister WAAC player...for not knowing which of the game's rules he's supposed to ignore to have a good time.

I'd hazard to say MOST people who are new to a game as their first instinct dont go 'hmm lets see now which of these rules should I not follow to avoid giving everyone a miserable time'?


I love the implication a new player in their first few games willing ignores rules to take advantage of others like some sinister WAAC player.

It's not about ignoring the rules, it's about how you enlighten your opponent. Would it really hurt them to have said "it's true LOS btw and I can see that 1 gun barrell, did you mean to keep them all hidden?". Thats not even something that applies just to new players, you even see that happening in tournaments when they play by intent.

If they moved up, said "lol it's TLOS and I can see your gun barrell git gun noob" then yeah, they're being an ass to a new player.

You'll also note none of that is relevant to the list taken as it's down to the human behind the army.


The problem is newer players often have no context for the etiquette in these situations. Maybe they consider taking advantage of positioning errors to be part of the game. All these conventions around playing by intent or when to allow players to go back to do something they forgot are social constructs that seem obvious to experienced players but may not be so for newer ones, especially if they learn the game away from an established group.

Again, it's perfectly possible to write better LoS rules than we currently have in 40k. Blaming the players for following the rules is the wrong approach, and basically calling them TFG for doing so is wrong without more context.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 08:20:28


Post by: Yoyoyo


You don’t need to be rules guru to understand the difference between:

- playing 40k with the overall goal of both players enjoying the experience; and
- playing 40k with the overall goal of maximizing your enjoyment at the expense of the other player.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 09:53:04


Post by: tneva82


It's easy to claim something is X when it's actually not so black and white. It's easy to claim the opponent is WAAC TFG.

I can assure you odds here is he's not though.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 10:46:39


Post by: Yoyoyo


I don't think so either. Even if both players are prosocial and cooperative, there's still lots of game interactions in 40k to trip over. Terrain, list building, rules interpretations, etc.

It's more about having constructive processes to resolve those issues than expecting that they never arise in the first place.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 11:47:19


Post by: Da Boss


I think if we get the point that just playing the game by the rules gets you defined as tfg then we've got a problem with the rules by definition. It's just nonsensical to think about it in any other way.

A problem doesn't mean "throw the entire game out, it's garbage" it just means there's something in the rules that requires improvement.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 12:13:25


Post by: the_scotsman


Dudeface wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
....Again, I love the implication that somehow, a dude that took

-the space marine captain that comes in the starter box (walky cap with shield and sword)

-10 intercessors

-1 space marine dreadnought

Is somehow this evil sinister WAAC player...for not knowing which of the game's rules he's supposed to ignore to have a good time.

I'd hazard to say MOST people who are new to a game as their first instinct dont go 'hmm lets see now which of these rules should I not follow to avoid giving everyone a miserable time'?


I love the implication a new player in their first few games willing ignores rules to take advantage of others like some sinister WAAC player.

It's not about ignoring the rules, it's about how you enlighten your opponent. Would it really hurt them to have said "it's true LOS btw and I can see that 1 gun barrell, did you mean to keep them all hidden?". Thats not even something that applies just to new players, you even see that happening in tournaments when they play by intent.

If they moved up, said "lol it's TLOS and I can see your gun barrell git gun noob" then yeah, they're being an ass to a new player.

You'll also note none of that is relevant to the list taken as it's down to the human behind the army.


Or, lets say theyre both newer players, and one goes "I think I can see a little bit of that model - does it say anything in the rulebook about whether i'm allowed to target him?"

Again, to reiterate: It actually takes a bit of knowledge of the rules to know which rules are crap and you shouldn't use them to avoid giving your opponent a bad time. And also, a reminder: People are mostly proclaiming this guy a WAAC TFG because he...plays space marines and brought a fething dreadnought.

A new player is not going to know that there are 'tournament units' that you should only bring if youre a big stinky douchebag and 'fluffy units' you shouldnt bring because theyre like 3x worse than the tournament units. Theyre going to see points values and go 'oh, this is how much this unit is worth'.

Theyre not going to know you shouldnt bring X amount of your list as a single vehicle in a small pts game. Theyre also not going to know this rule and that rule should be ignored to 'give your opponent a pass' theyre going to go in with the expectation that the game is going to work.

This is like how in DnD 5e DMs are supposed to know that encounters with a party of adventurers against a single high-CR monster (You know, like is portrayed on the cover of EVERY DND BOOK EVER MADE) dont work like at all and you HAVE to give the large single monser a couple of minion creatures in order to keep them from getting dumpstered by action economy.

New players are going to walk face-first into 'dick moves' in 40k all the time because the game is so massively unforgiving. In a normal wargame, where a shot at a 99% obscured enemy is going to be 1% as effective as a shot against a 0% obscured enemy, this would be fine. You'd *maybe* be able to kill that one single guy you can spot, if you get super lucky and get past all the enhanced defenses that a cover system designed by a fully mentally capable adult would convey.

In 40k, however, if you spot that gun barrel you can literally vaporise not just that guy you can see, but ALL HIS BUDDIES YOU CANT SEE as well.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 12:14:54


Post by: Sim-Life


Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't think so either. Even if both players are prosocial and cooperative, there's still lots of game interactions in 40k to trip over. Terrain, list building, rules interpretations, etc.

It's more about having constructive processes to resolve those issues than expecting that they never arise in the first place.


But even if you disregard that two new players with no context to the game aren't going to immediately understand stuff like why D3+3 dmg is better than D6 dmg etc, or how a S7 weapon isn't much of an improvement over a S6 weapon, or in what context D3 mortal wounds are good. Thats stuff that only comes when you start really analysing the maths or from experience. Its entirely possible for two new players to inadvertently have incredible uneven armies because external balance in 40k is not great.

I wish Karol was here, hes been arguing this point for years.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 12:48:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah.

Plus, the "informing your opponent" thing may or may not be acceptable to certain degrees.

Let's say our hypothetical new kiddos are coming from Chess. In chess, if your opponent is about to make a bad move (e.g. one that exposes their Queen to an uncontested capture), you don't butt in and say "maybe you should ~" - that kind of handicapping can actually get you looked at funny in Chess Clubs. (Now if you're playing someone DRAMATICALLY outside your skill level and helping them practice, that changes a bit, but for two random players who are approximately of equal skill? Nah).

So you're moving so that I can see your gunbarrel. Fair enough, but much like exposing your queen in Chess, that's on you. At least, it's on you until we realize how absolutely absurd the situation is ("oh, you see the front of my gun barrel, that's okay. I moved that guy badly, you deserve the shot - wait what? You wiped out him AND his buddies in one shot? WHAAT?")

That absurdity is really the problem, and that absurdity is completely down to the rules.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:15:11


Post by: Gert


So now the discussion has moved on from a new player getting burned by an experienced one who could easily have made the game a better experience, to two completely new players who instead of coming from another Warhammer game, have come from chess, all because people think that discussion between players after one has multiple bad games is a crazy expectation?
Am I the only one who thinks this line of thinking is just silly?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:22:10


Post by: Da Boss


Do you not understand that rules that require players to know the bad bits to ignore have bad bits that should be fixed? Sorry, if that seems rude, but that is the point here.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:34:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I suppose the meat and potatoes of the point is:

if the rules weren't bad in the first place, it wouldn't matter whether a player was new, coming from Chess, particularly WAAC or particularly CAAC. Whether he was or wasn't playing by intent, whether she was or wasn't going to interrupt their enemy whilst they made a mistake, etc. etc.

All of these social factors are ONLY relevant (and subject to both intense community judgement and are themselves very delicate) because the rules are crap.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:42:14


Post by: Yoyoyo


 the_scotsman wrote:
A new player is not going to know that there are 'tournament units' that you should only bring if youre a big stinky douchebag and 'fluffy units' you shouldnt bring because theyre like 3x worse than the tournament units. Theyre going to see points values and go 'oh, this is how much this unit is worth'.

Right, and Admech are particularly opaque as far as that goes. Skitarii infantry aren't particularly oppressive by their datasheet. It's more the combination of Forge World bonuses, buffing characters, stratagems, doctrines, and scaling the unit to 20 models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All of these social factors are ONLY relevant (and subject to both intense community judgement and are themselves very delicate) because the rules are crap.

Sure. But aesthetics and lore are a huge draw in 40k as well. The rules aren't designed to be bulletproof, they're balanced against those considerations as well.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:52:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yoyoyo wrote:
Sure. But aesthetics and lore are a huge draw in 40k as well. The rules aren't designed to be bulletproof, they're balanced against those considerations as well.

Are they?

What about 9th edition is more lore-friendly or aesthetically pleasing than, say, 4th edition? (Other than models were less high quality in 4th edition; but that has very little to do with the rules)


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:54:02


Post by: Voss


Yoyoyo wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
A new player is not going to know that there are 'tournament units' that you should only bring if youre a big stinky douchebag and 'fluffy units' you shouldnt bring because theyre like 3x worse than the tournament units. Theyre going to see points values and go 'oh, this is how much this unit is worth'.

Right, and Admech are particularly opaque as far as that goes. Skitarii infantry aren't particularly oppressive by their datasheet. It's more the combination of Forge World bonuses, buffing characters, stratagems, doctrines, and scaling the unit to 20 models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All of these social factors are ONLY relevant (and subject to both intense community judgement and are themselves very delicate) because the rules are crap.

Sure. But aesthetics and lore are a huge draw in 40k as well. The rules aren't designed to be bulletproof, they're balanced against those considerations as well.


How so? What difference do the aesthetics make to the rules? (examples please). It is certainly a draw for the game, but I'm hard pressed to think of any place where it influences the rules.

As for the lore... GW has long ago convinced me that the narrative lore and the game are entirely separate. It was always a suspicion, but when they did the 'Movie Marines' article for WD, they absolutely nailed down they were entirely serious about it. When they doubled down on special characters for every trivial fight, they reinforced it. The two vaguely influence each other, but the game rules (and game on the table) are absolutely not related to or beholden to 'the lore.'


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 13:59:56


Post by: Gert


 Da Boss wrote:
Do you not understand that rules that require players to know the bad bits to ignore have bad bits that should be fixed? Sorry, if that seems rude, but that is the point here.

Really? Because I was under the impression that the OP was asking for help with their situation and not asking for yet another thread where people just whine about 40k, which is what this has turned into.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I suppose the meat and potatoes of the point is:

if the rules weren't bad in the first place, it wouldn't matter whether a player was new, coming from Chess, particularly WAAC or particularly CAAC. Whether he was or wasn't playing by intent, whether she was or wasn't going to interrupt their enemy whilst they made a mistake, etc. etc.

All of these social factors are ONLY relevant (and subject to both intense community judgement and are themselves very delicate) because the rules are crap.

Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in.
So what do you think is more helpful to a new player? Whining about how bad the rules are or actually giving them advice on how to approach the situation with their opponent?
By all means, have your opinion but how about offering help instead of making up random hypotheticals that aren't actually relevant to the OP's situation.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 14:07:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Gert wrote:
Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in.
So what do you think is more helpful to a new player? Whining about how bad the rules are or actually giving them advice on how to approach the situation with their opponent?

Por que no los dos?
One helps them solve the problem with one opponent.
The other warns them that maybe if they want to get into wargaming, 40k isn't the best ambassador of the whole world of excellent rulesets and not to get turned off of the whole affair.
.
 Gert wrote:
By all means, have your opinion but how about offering help instead of making up random hypotheticals that aren't actually relevant to the OP's situation.

Plenty of help has already been offered, but if you'd rather I fill the thread with the same replete banalities and repetitions as others, I'm sorry I can't indulge you.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 14:11:25


Post by: Da Boss


I don't think it's helpful to give the new player the idea that their opponent is some sort of cut throat and unpleasant person.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 14:19:04


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gert wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Do you not understand that rules that require players to know the bad bits to ignore have bad bits that should be fixed? Sorry, if that seems rude, but that is the point here.

Really? Because I was under the impression that the OP was asking for help with their situation and not asking for yet another thread where people just whine about 40k, which is what this has turned into.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I suppose the meat and potatoes of the point is:

if the rules weren't bad in the first place, it wouldn't matter whether a player was new, coming from Chess, particularly WAAC or particularly CAAC. Whether he was or wasn't playing by intent, whether she was or wasn't going to interrupt their enemy whilst they made a mistake, etc. etc.

All of these social factors are ONLY relevant (and subject to both intense community judgement and are themselves very delicate) because the rules are crap.

Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in.
So what do you think is more helpful to a new player? Whining about how bad the rules are or actually giving them advice on how to approach the situation with their opponent?
By all means, have your opinion but how about offering help instead of making up random hypotheticals that aren't actually relevant to the OP's situation.


Well, depending on whether he'll be playing in a wider group or just with this one friend, I have two different solutions I'd go for.

Wider group: You're basically left with 'Git Gud' or engage in the ol' classic 9th ed 40k "Nuclear Arms De-Escalation Negotiation" pre-listbuilding phase of the game where you try to finagle the game into a playable and enjoyable state by agreeing to not use the many many tools at your disposal to make the game a miserable experience.

One Player: Just houserule the terrain system to something that makes sense. I would suggest:

1) Penalties and bonuses to hit and wound only cap at +1/-1 if they're imposed by special rules, datasheet abilities, psychic powers, auras, or stratagems. Penalties and bonuses conveyed by battlefield rules, weapon types, and terrain rules can stack higher than +1/-1

2) If at any point during the resolution of a shooting attack all models in the attacking unit can no longer see any models from the target unit, the attack immediately ends and any remaining save rolls are treated as automatically passed.

3) All terrain features have the following 4 rules:

-All terrain features have the Obscuring trait (as described in the core rulebook) for any models physically shorter than the piece of terrain, rather than if the terrain feature is 5" or taller.

-All terrain features regardless of height have the Dense trait

-Any model within 1" or touching a terrain feature adds +1 to its save rolls if that terrain feature is closer to the attacking model than the target model

-models may only end their move on upper levels of any terrain feature if the entire base of the model can be placed over the terrain feature. Models without bases cannot end their moves on upper levels of terrain features. Models may freely move over terrain features by moving up, across, and down the feature using their normal movement, and may also move through terrain as if it were not there by giving up 1/2 of the movement that they would normally be allowed to make

(for example, a unit with a Movement of 12 that is making an Advance move and rolled a 2, could move 7" if it wished to pass through a terrain piece rather than going over it, and a unit making a Charge move that rolled a 9 could move 4.5" if it wished to pass through a terrain feature.)

4) bases, basing features, weapons, banners, antennae and other features not part of the main body of the model cannot be used for drawing line of sight to or from the model.

^to me, that's a terrain system that I can fairly quickly explain, has more versimilitude than GW's current system while also being much simpler, but also has enough abstraction to avoid weird situations like every terrain feature ever basically being a Death Box of No Movement Allowed for large models like Baneblades and Imperial Knights.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 14:44:07


Post by: Dudeface


 Da Boss wrote:
I don't think it's helpful to give the new player the idea that their opponent is some sort of cut throat and unpleasant person.


There's too much context missing to know one way or the other. All we know is that OP came away feeling a little hard done to because their opponent knows the rules better and didn't make exceptions for them. Without knowing how that was framed it's hard to say.

I don't think the rules being shoddy is ever a fair excuse for leaving someone feeling they had a bad time though. "The rules made me take advantage of a daft mistake you evidently weren't fully aware of!"


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 14:55:10


Post by: the_scotsman


Dudeface wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I don't think it's helpful to give the new player the idea that their opponent is some sort of cut throat and unpleasant person.


There's too much context missing to know one way or the other. All we know is that OP came away feeling a little hard done to because their opponent knows the rules better and didn't make exceptions for them. Without knowing how that was framed it's hard to say.

I don't think the rules being shoddy is ever a fair excuse for leaving someone feeling they had a bad time though. "The rules made me take advantage of a daft mistake you evidently weren't fully aware of!"


Boy Howdy, the number of times I have had to deal with someone getting huffy because I called them out for breaking the rules because their favorite unit isnt as good as they think they should be according to the lore...

I am 100% down with altering the rules of the game for mutual enjoyment. Love doing it. Absolutely a huge fan. But I do think its something you ought to be able to do prior to the game, before youve sat down with your opponent and started to play a game with mutually agreed-upon terms.

Would I choose to target an enemy model using only a tiny bit of a weapon or head? Nah, I wouldnt. But I do prior to the game point out to my opponent that I like to play by intent - as in, i'll ask my opponent 'are you aiming to hide that model behind that building?' and if they say yes, I'll make sure none of my stuff has LOS to it, and if on my turn I notice a little bit of it sticking out, I wont take advantage of that because we discussed it.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:13:54


Post by: Yoyoyo


Voss wrote:
How so? What difference do the aesthetics make to the rules? (examples please). It is certainly a draw for the game, but I'm hard pressed to think of any place where it influences the rules.

I mean the interactions between fluff and crunch -- why Dark Eldar have so many negative leadership interactions, why a Warlord Titan has those stats on that datasheet, etc.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:14:43


Post by: Dudeface


 the_scotsman wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I don't think it's helpful to give the new player the idea that their opponent is some sort of cut throat and unpleasant person.


There's too much context missing to know one way or the other. All we know is that OP came away feeling a little hard done to because their opponent knows the rules better and didn't make exceptions for them. Without knowing how that was framed it's hard to say.

I don't think the rules being shoddy is ever a fair excuse for leaving someone feeling they had a bad time though. "The rules made me take advantage of a daft mistake you evidently weren't fully aware of!"


Boy Howdy, the number of times I have had to deal with someone getting huffy because I called them out for breaking the rules because their favorite unit isnt as good as they think they should be according to the lore...

I am 100% down with altering the rules of the game for mutual enjoyment. Love doing it. Absolutely a huge fan. But I do think its something you ought to be able to do prior to the game, before youve sat down with your opponent and started to play a game with mutually agreed-upon terms.

Would I choose to target an enemy model using only a tiny bit of a weapon or head? Nah, I wouldnt. But I do prior to the game point out to my opponent that I like to play by intent - as in, i'll ask my opponent 'are you aiming to hide that model behind that building?' and if they say yes, I'll make sure none of my stuff has LOS to it, and if on my turn I notice a little bit of it sticking out, I wont take advantage of that because we discussed it.



That's all good and fair, onboard with that entirely, but I'd still give someone even more leeway on their intro game. As you say they don't know what to ignore yet, so better to teach them.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:25:18


Post by: PenitentJake


For the record- I lost my first game of chess in 12 moves.

I didn't win until my 34th game.

No one is going to argue that chess is poorly designed. But why do we hold some games to different standards than others?

Again- not saying 40k can't be improved. Not saying it's perfect. Though of course, if you're SimLife and you're reading this, I know you'll ignore this line of text and accuse me of being a white knight anyways- I hope the rest of you appreciate (or at least recognize) the effort I put into diplomacy.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:37:58


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:
For the record- I lost my first game of chess in 12 moves.

I didn't win until my 34th game.

No one is going to argue that chess is poorly designed. But why do we hold some games to different standards than others?

Again- not saying 40k can't be improved. Not saying it's perfect. Though of course, if you're SimLife and you're reading this, I know you'll ignore this line of text and accuse me of being a white knight anyways- I hope the rest of you appreciate (or at least recognize) the effort I put into diplomacy.


40k isn't held to a different standard really, I don't think anyone expects chess from it. It's held to a very basic standard for a game (i.e be fun without a bunch of extra legwork), one which it routinely fails to meet.

Also I don't consider you a white knight. I just feel like that despite your claims that you agree that 40k has a lot of flaws, you're very quick to defend it or dismiss them when people point out those flaws, and it's usually with a defence that misses or is tangential to the point being made or handwaves it which derails the conversation. But that applies to several other posters who defend 40k as well, not just you. See for example, how Tyel I think it was who asked me to name Initiative systems that worked in another thread. I don't know if that was an unconscious or conscious attempt to deviate from what I was saying, but it had nothing to do with the point I was making.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:48:16


Post by: PenitentJake


Fair enough- thanks for clarifying.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 15:48:22


Post by: the_scotsman


PenitentJake wrote:
For the record- I lost my first game of chess in 12 moves.

I didn't win until my 34th game.

No one is going to argue that chess is poorly designed. But why do we hold some games to different standards than others?

Again- not saying 40k can't be improved. Not saying it's perfect. Though of course, if you're SimLife and you're reading this, I know you'll ignore this line of text and accuse me of being a white knight anyways- I hope the rest of you appreciate (or at least recognize) the effort I put into diplomacy.


Because different games are good for different kinds of people who want different things from them, and simply declaring them a "game" is not enough of a commonality to enforce a universal standard? And all of this is opinions, and many people appear to be unified in expressing the opinion that a miniatures game where an army costs 1000$+a couple hundred hours to paint probably isn't a great fit with rules where the tiniest mistake causes your entire army to get deleted in a single turn?

The purpose of Warhammer 40,000, the miniatures game, is to allow players to re-enact battles from the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe. A lot of the stories in that universe feature different characters getting into duels - swinging their weapons at each other, blocking, dodging, etc.

The fact that the current rules edition for Warhammer 40,000, the miniatures game, doesn't really support this kind of engagement. When a character charges into combat with another character, most of the time one single round of attacks from the character that charged instantly ends the fight.

This is a little bit like if the game designer in the Star Wars Legion game decided "well, we're going to base the defenses of our models according to how much armor they're wearing. And jedi wear robes - so clearly they should have no save and die the first time theyre hit or struck, but lightsabers can cut through anything instantly, so they should instantly kill anything they manage to get to."

You could actually argue that, in a vacuum, this could be fine, but it's basically unarguably a gak representation of the universe of Star Wars, which is probably what the playerbase of Star Wars Legion is hoping to re-enact. Because the Jedi characters in Star Wars dont instantly die the second someone shoots a blaster or swings a lightsaber at them, they get into big, epic back-and-forth duels, and they can dodge and block ranged weapon attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, to put it another way, people consider War of the Ring to be a much better LOTR game than Monopoly: Lord of the Rings edition.

But, I would point out, Monopoly: Lord of the Rings edition uses a whole bunch of licensed images both in cards and on the box of the Lord of the Rings films by Peter Jackson, while War of the Ring contains only unpainted plastic miniatures and features drawn art, which often looks quite different from the film, why therefore is Monopoly Lord of the Rings edition not considered the superior Lord of the Rings game?

Checkmate, Atheists.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 17:04:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


PenitentJake wrote:
For the record- I lost my first game of chess in 12 moves.

I didn't win until my 34th game.

No one is going to argue that chess is poorly designed. But why do we hold some games to different standards than others?

Again- not saying 40k can't be improved. Not saying it's perfect. Though of course, if you're SimLife and you're reading this, I know you'll ignore this line of text and accuse me of being a white knight anyways- I hope the rest of you appreciate (or at least recognize) the effort I put into diplomacy.


Because it isn't about winning or losing.

When you lose a game of chess, you were outplayed and outmaneuvered by your opponent.

When you lose a game of 40k in a single shooting phase before you even got to move one of your models... well, it's not your opponents strategic genius that defeated you.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 19:10:56


Post by: Yoyoyo


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
When you lose a game of 40k in a single shooting phase before you even got to move one of your models... well, it's not your opponents strategic genius that defeated you.

It’s interesting to note what happened in the LGT final.

Goonhammer wrote:Go first lists dominated this event, and a large number of games in the top brackets (often Ad Mech mirrors and Ad Mech/Iron Hands showdowns), including the grand final (which was called after turn one) came down to a pure roll off. You can argue that it’s driven by the lists that the format encouraged, and there was room to improve some of the terrain maps, but nothing is stopping players running these kind of all-in alpha builds at any event, and builds using planes are far harder to shut down with terrain anyway.

I am not in the camp that believes every game is one where you want to go first, and that the incentives will vary substantially matchup to matchup and mission to mission. However, the evidence from this event strongly suggests that when you ask the best players to build the most vicious lists they can you create an environment that increases the number of games where going first is critical, and that the games where going first is a major advantage are far more likely to be uninteresting non-games than those where there’s an advantage to going second.


Anyway, the motivated can find more commentary elsewhere.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 19:12:11


Post by: the_scotsman


I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 19:25:56


Post by: Galas


 the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 20:39:25


Post by: The Servant


As many people have posted, you want at least 75% of your army hidden turn one with decent terrain set up. Obscuring, dense cover, whatever it takes.

500 point games are kind of boring and prone to alpha strikes anyway. A much better mode for smaller games is Kill Team Dominator 600 (KTD600). This is probably the most tactical style of lower point games out there but it does require 3 players instead of two. More the merrier though.

Rules for this smaller FFA style can be found here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801635.page


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 21:00:52


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


 Galas wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.

This really is about me doing the following from what I can tell:

A.) taking a more durable low-point list that can absorb some fire and dish out a bit more as well, per suggestions above.
and
B.) negotiating with this player on placing more terrain, and larger pieces, even if we must bring them from home.
He was carefully, gingerly hiding his dreadnaught during deployment. He knows how cover works and why it is important.
I'm hoping he'll be amicable with adding in some layers and levels mid - board and in advancement areas.
C.) bump up to 750 or 1K when possible to make those first turns more forgiving.

This is a fascinating discussion, however, and again I appreciate the input.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 21:07:08


Post by: Dudeface


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.

This really is about me doing the following from what I can tell:

A.) taking a more durable low-point list that can absorb some fire and dish out a bit more as well, per suggestions above.
and
B.) negotiating with this player on placing more terrain, and larger pieces, even if we must bring them from home.
He was carefully, gingerly hiding his dreadnaught during deployment. He knows how cover works and why it is important.
I'm hoping he'll be amicable with adding in some layers and levels mid - board and in advancement areas.
C.) bump up to 750 or 1K when possible to make those first turns more forgiving.

This is a fascinating discussion, however, and again I appreciate the input.



Just to draw a line under the sportsmanship aspect, would you be willing to clarify whether your opponent was friendly and helpful on your learning experience in those first 2 games?

All the steps you list are definitely good ways forwards, a good battlefield is a priority, refining your force to be more efficient is good and opening the field up in bigger games will make it feel better too.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 21:22:52


Post by: Galas


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.

This really is about me doing the following from what I can tell:

A.) taking a more durable low-point list that can absorb some fire and dish out a bit more as well, per suggestions above.
and
B.) negotiating with this player on placing more terrain, and larger pieces, even if we must bring them from home.
He was carefully, gingerly hiding his dreadnaught during deployment. He knows how cover works and why it is important.
I'm hoping he'll be amicable with adding in some layers and levels mid - board and in advancement areas.
C.) bump up to 750 or 1K when possible to make those first turns more forgiving.

This is a fascinating discussion, however, and again I appreciate the input.



I'm sorry I was making a joke about how many people puts the blame on the player when this in fact has been Sean Nayden beind obliterated turn 1, one of the best if nof the best warhammer player out there! Not taking a shot at you!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 22:13:44


Post by: Yoyoyo


It was clear to me at least!

Good luck in the next match OP


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/27 22:29:53


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Speaking of winning in one turn...




Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 00:24:19


Post by: Insectum7


Yoyoyo wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
When you lose a game of 40k in a single shooting phase before you even got to move one of your models... well, it's not your opponents strategic genius that defeated you.

It’s interesting to note what happened in the LGT final.

Goonhammer wrote:Go first lists dominated this event, and a large number of games in the top brackets (often Ad Mech mirrors and Ad Mech/Iron Hands showdowns), including the grand final (which was called after turn one) came down to a pure roll off. You can argue that it’s driven by the lists that the format encouraged, and there was room to improve some of the terrain maps, but nothing is stopping players running these kind of all-in alpha builds at any event, and builds using planes are far harder to shut down with terrain anyway.

I am not in the camp that believes every game is one where you want to go first, and that the incentives will vary substantially matchup to matchup and mission to mission. However, the evidence from this event strongly suggests that when you ask the best players to build the most vicious lists they can you create an environment that increases the number of games where going first is critical, and that the games where going first is a major advantage are far more likely to be uninteresting non-games than those where there’s an advantage to going second.


Anyway, the motivated can find more commentary elsewhere.
Haha. Not really surprising. Reminds me of starting to take Drop Pods towards the end of 5th partly for the null-deploy. But tables are smaller now and there are more restrictions for Pod deployment than there were.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 00:58:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Tables don't have to be smaller...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 01:35:40


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...
They are for tourneys though, yeah? And I've noticed that they're smaller for the local PUGs at the FLGS. It is what it is.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 01:58:02


Post by: Shrapnelsmile


 Galas wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose the best comfort we can give this newbie is that...this literally happens to Sean Nayden, so, we can say it happens to the best of us!


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.

This really is about me doing the following from what I can tell:

A.) taking a more durable low-point list that can absorb some fire and dish out a bit more as well, per suggestions above.
and
B.) negotiating with this player on placing more terrain, and larger pieces, even if we must bring them from home.
He was carefully, gingerly hiding his dreadnaught during deployment. He knows how cover works and why it is important.
I'm hoping he'll be amicable with adding in some layers and levels mid - board and in advancement areas.
C.) bump up to 750 or 1K when possible to make those first turns more forgiving.

This is a fascinating discussion, however, and again I appreciate the input.



I'm sorry I was making a joke about how many people puts the blame on the player when this in fact has been Sean Nayden beind obliterated turn 1, one of the best if nof the best warhammer player out there! Not taking a shot at you!


No worries at all Galas and thanks Yoyoyo!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 03:24:01


Post by: Apple fox


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...
They are for tourneys though, yeah? And I've noticed that they're smaller for the local PUGs at the FLGS. It is what it is.


As more companies support the size, I think other miniature games will probably have to follow. As it adds more burden to start the game if you need to also get larger table sizes.

It’s a bit of a pain. Possibly a smart move from GW.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 03:30:16


Post by: Platuan4th


Apple fox wrote:
As more companies support the size, I think other miniature games will probably have to follow.


No other game company is going to alter their play area to fit GW's card play mats that only exist in the size they do to fit into a GW box.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 03:37:04


Post by: H.B.M.C.


GW wants them to, but they won't.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 03:47:37


Post by: Apple fox


 Platuan4th wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
As more companies support the size, I think other miniature games will probably have to follow.


No other game company is going to alter their play area to fit GW's card play mats that only exist in the size they do to fit into a GW box.


If mat company and stores only have mats sized to GW games, it ads a burden to starting the games. It’s already happening, and happens with terrain as well


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 06:09:25


Post by: Racerguy180


Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...
They are for tourneys though, yeah? And I've noticed that they're smaller for the local PUGs at the FLGS. It is what it is.

Which is fething lame...
Thank god this cancer hasn't spread to our flgs yet.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 06:52:31


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...


No, but the minimum size is more practical and appealing for many. That's why it became the most common size.

Also the 2000 points format or rule of 3 don't have to be standard and yet everybody use them as standard.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 07:13:19


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...


No, but the minimum size is more practical and appealing for many. That's why it became the most common size.

Also the 2000 points format or rule of 3 don't have to be standard and yet everybody use them as standard.


It became the most common size because 40k players rigidly stick to the rules for some reason. Presumably because it keeps everything standardised, not because its appealing. Its the same reason the majority of people play Matched 2000pts games as standard. When you go to an FLGS for a game everyone knows where they are because everyone brought a list for a Matched 2000pts game on standardised table size so they don't need a bunch of pre-game discussion about stuff. They can just get on with the game.

Moreover, the table sizes are printed in the rulebook and remember the context is that for new players they're not going to know that 6'x4' was ever a thing so they're not going to assume that its an option to play on a larger table, they're going to do what the BRB tells them to do.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 07:30:25


Post by: Blackie


Well to me smaller table size is appealing because I can now play at home with the table I already had . Couldn't do it on a 6'x4'.

But I agree that many players rigidly stick to the rules for no real reason, other than saving time and avoiding discussions. I convinced some friends to try the 1500 points format, which is my favorite one since 3rd, and they liked it. It forces to make hard decisions in listbuilding, clears space for the smaller table which isn't too crowded this way and it's high enough to avoid the skirmish vibe that the 1000 points format has. I'd always play 1500 points, but unfortunately many players won't leave their safe 2000 points comfort zone.

In a context in which players just show up in a place and want to play without pre-game discussions against random people I can understand their desire to stick with a very standardized setting. I never play that way though so that point of view is kinda alien to me.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 09:07:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Blackie wrote:
That's why it became the most common size.
No it didn't. It became the 'common size' because tournaments leapt at trying to comply with GW's changed size, and that floods into the general games.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 11:22:27


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Oh wow, the Turn 1 Shooting Victory happened AGAIN in a tournament grand final.

I'm sure it is the players'/TO's/dog's/venue's/lunch caterer's fault though, not GW.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 11:35:36


Post by: the_scotsman


Apple fox wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tables don't have to be smaller...
They are for tourneys though, yeah? And I've noticed that they're smaller for the local PUGs at the FLGS. It is what it is.


As more companies support the size, I think other miniature games will probably have to follow. As it adds more burden to start the game if you need to also get larger table sizes.

It’s a bit of a pain. Possibly a smart move from GW.


You know what also adds a burden to the game: Requiring more terrain by volume for the table than ANY OTHER WARGAME IVE EVER SEEN.

If you try to play fething necromunda on a 40k table at this point youre like 'oh wow little bit crowded'


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 12:00:23


Post by: Blackie


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh wow, the Turn 1 Shooting Victory happened AGAIN in a tournament grand final.

I'm sure it is the players'/TO's/dog's/venue's/lunch caterer's fault though, not GW.


It happens when extremely skew lists are legal and people design their lists with a rock paper scissor attitude in mind, hoping to get paper as opponent if they are scissor. That's what happened in that tournament, and what is really frequent in those kind of events.

The vast majority of players wouldn't even think to field something like that. And sooner or later it will be fixed, we all know that, which means for the regular dude lists like this one are not an issue. The average drukhari/ad mech builds are definitely more problematic.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 12:04:36


Post by: the_scotsman


 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh wow, the Turn 1 Shooting Victory happened AGAIN in a tournament grand final.

I'm sure it is the players'/TO's/dog's/venue's/lunch caterer's fault though, not GW.


It happens when extremely skew lists are legal and people design their lists with a rock paper scissor attitude in mind, hoping to get paper as opponent if they are scissor. That's what happened in that tournament, and what is really frequent in those kind of events.

The vast majority of players wouldn't even think to field something like that. And sooner or later it will be fixed, we all know that, which means for the regular dude lists like this one are not an issue. The average drukhari/ad mech builds are definitely more problematic.


The vast majority of...

MY Ork list is basically a somewhat more casual version of this crazy tournament list Because its the fething speed freeks theme, you got your bikers, you got your buggies, you got your flyers. And since the 8th ed dex I've run my speed freeks as Freebootas because the Freebootas chapter tactic feels more fun and orky to me than just 'go slightly faster', I love that my orks get all excited when someone kills something.

How is a mix of squigbuggies, warbikers, dakkajets, wazboms and dragstas some kind of ultra-zany all-scissors skew list? Youve got objective grabbers, youve got anti-infantry, youve got anti-elites, youve got anti-tank...OK, its all shooting, but then is EVERY tau list ever an ultra skew list?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 12:21:34


Post by: Blackie


Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 12:45:44


Post by: the_scotsman


 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


I'll bet i could remove at least 1500pts if you just put an enemy army in front of my freebootas list quite easily, even with my 'more casual' setup that works in things like trukk boyz, stormboyz, KBBs and BDSWs.

Or my thousand sons list that can dump out 40+MWs in a psychic phase. Or my dark eldar list that can throw a billion melee attacks. Or my deathwatch list that can drop a whole fuckton of D2 AP-1 boltgun shots. Or basically any list that's been upped to 9th ed levels of power and lethality.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 13:02:41


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


>First turn advantage isn't real
>40k is the most balanced its ever been
>Your opponent is WAAC
>You should ask him to tone down his lists
>Just use more terrain
>houserule it till it works
>Tournament data shows the game is balanced
>Tournaments aren't representitve of REAL 40K player
>Crusade is better you should play that
>It works for MY group
>Find a new group/FLGS
>You're just not playing it properly
>You're bad at the game

Edit:
>your standards are too high
>most people just play for the models/lore < You Are Here

Did I forget any?
I can't believe I used to say the same stuff about 8th.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 13:07:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh wow, the Turn 1 Shooting Victory happened AGAIN in a tournament grand final.

I'm sure it is the players'/TO's/dog's/venue's/lunch caterer's fault though, not GW.


It happens when extremely skew lists are legal and people design their lists with a rock paper scissor attitude in mind, hoping to get paper as opponent if they are scissor. That's what happened in that tournament, and what is really frequent in those kind of events.

The vast majority of players wouldn't even think to field something like that. And sooner or later it will be fixed, we all know that, which means for the regular dude lists like this one are not an issue. The average drukhari/ad mech builds are definitely more problematic.


Ah yes, the "player's fault" for playing skew lists. Got it in one.

This is literally the same old GW.

"Most players wouldn't field [armored company][grav-tank skew eldar][scatbikes][imperium superfriends]"
"It only happens when extreme skew lists blah blah blah, just a tournament problem"
"Most players won't field something so brutal"
"Sooner or later it will be fixed, therefore it isn't an issue"
"Other armies are even worse"
^ that last one's the best - but you're right. Which is the funny part. It isn't ORKS being OP in this case. It's 9th being fundamentally jank.

Anyways, same old excuses since Jervis Johnson wrote that article about Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd edition.

But don't worry, 9th is fine and the best 40k's ever been!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 13:08:09


Post by: the_scotsman


Eh, weve already had 'it works for MY group' in the thread, if we're doing Bingo I think we've hit on everything except 'Find a new group/FLGS' and 'Youre bad at the game' in some form


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We also, for added comedy, in another thread have one of the best 40k players in the world saying 'hey whadda ya want in some matchups you just get tabled in one turn! It's definitely only this one army tho that I do not play that one needs nerfed its sooooo much crazier than the other competitive dominant armies like the one i play.'


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 13:59:59


Post by: Yoyoyo


Git good scrubs

There, now we have it all!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/28 17:02:41


Post by: macluvin


9th isn’t fundamentally bad. It’s that it has incredibly limited design space, and they keep adding complex labyrinths of the same bonuses to every faction. The core rule book is actually pretty good. I would also argue that 7th edition’s rule book was fairly well designed as well, but in its complexity introduced a few problems that really were rendered moot because strength 7 s weapon spam coupled with decurions and all the other wacko stuff that existed purely in the codices and supplements ultimately killed the edition.
The same thing happened in 9th, only instead of s7 spam it’s high volume high ap attacks and bonkers amounts of rerolls. I know space marines are the tried and true punching bag but the limited design space of the current rule set and the constant need to churn out more space marine models created this issue where they needed to start ripping other factions off because there wasn’t anywhere new for them to explore. And now the rules writers are on this downward spiral of enhancing lethality for each faction.
The funny thing is that there actually are dimensions that the rules writers never bothered to explore; pinning or suppressed effects and leadership for example would have been an excellent place to start. Or using leadership tests to apply a nerf to a unit. Or bringing back toughness and strength tests for things like psychic abilities like they used to have. And heaven knows what else. They should have started by going to the stat line and working across. Flipping through the source rules and seeing what phases we can start interacting with.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 03:42:33


Post by: Apple fox


macluvin wrote:
9th isn’t fundamentally bad. It’s that it has incredibly limited design space, and they keep adding complex labyrinths of the same bonuses to every faction. The core rule book is actually pretty good. I would also argue that 7th edition’s rule book was fairly well designed as well, but in its complexity introduced a few problems that really were rendered moot because strength 7 s weapon spam coupled with decurions and all the other wacko stuff that existed purely in the codices and supplements ultimately killed the edition.
The same thing happened in 9th, only instead of s7 spam it’s high volume high ap attacks and bonkers amounts of rerolls. I know space marines are the tried and true punching bag but the limited design space of the current rule set and the constant need to churn out more space marine models created this issue where they needed to start ripping other factions off because there wasn’t anywhere new for them to explore. And now the rules writers are on this downward spiral of enhancing lethality for each faction.
The funny thing is that there actually are dimensions that the rules writers never bothered to explore; pinning or suppressed effects and leadership for example would have been an excellent place to start. Or using leadership tests to apply a nerf to a unit. Or bringing back toughness and strength tests for things like psychic abilities like they used to have. And heaven knows what else. They should have started by going to the stat line and working across. Flipping through the source rules and seeing what phases we can start interacting with.


I would think that a big issue with 9th is that it is not really fit for the purpose GW wants to use it for, rendering any positives fairly mute.
It basically ignores a good portion of the army’s faction identity and fantasy, leaves out huge portions of its design to be written and rewritten again and again over new codexes.

Terrain as well, a issue of poor design piled onto poor design. Fixing it at this point would take management much higher than the rules itself to care.
As GW would like something to sell to players for any commitment within the rules itself.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 07:08:39


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


>First turn advantage isn't real
>40k is the most balanced its ever been
>Your opponent is WAAC
>You should ask him to tone down his lists
>Just use more terrain
>houserule it till it works
>Tournament data shows the game is balanced
>Tournaments aren't representitve of REAL 40K player < You Are Here
>Crusade is better you should play that
>It works for MY group
>Find a new group/FLGS
>You're just not playing it properly
>You're bad at the game

Did I forget any?
I can't believe I used to say the same stuff about 8th.


Again, if you believe 40k is a game well designed for pick up games against strangers and tournaments maybe you've picked up the wrong game .

There's certainly much more attention from GW towards competitive gaming but this is still a game that isn't designed to be balanced, just to sell more products. Nothing will change that. So you can either change attitude towards the game or adapt. Tournaments players understand it, they accepted the rock/paper/scissor attitude that is required for that environment; now that kind of gaming can be considered boring or even repulsive by many (including me) but it indeed works as we've never seen WR this close in any other editions, when typically 3-5 factions were dominating for years. Now a few games can be over turn 1, true, but how many games were decided in turn 1 during 6th or 7th? Casual friendly ones did it as well, with chats and toning down/up their lists. There are players who can't even imagine playing 40k without doing that.

But you're right, I'm definitely there. I still haven't seen in real life an ork list with 4+ flyers for example .

I think you belong to those who want to prove something by playing games, how skilled and smart they are. Nothing wrong with that, I just think that GW games are not suited for that. Never were, never will be and intentionally.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 07:32:50


Post by: macluvin


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


>First turn advantage isn't real
>40k is the most balanced its ever been
>Your opponent is WAAC
>You should ask him to tone down his lists
>Just use more terrain
>houserule it till it works
>Tournament data shows the game is balanced
>Tournaments aren't representitve of REAL 40K player < You Are Here
>Crusade is better you should play that
>It works for MY group
>Find a new group/FLGS
>You're just not playing it properly
>You're bad at the game

Did I forget any?
I can't believe I used to say the same stuff about 8th.


The game gets a lot better once you lower your expectations or standards?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 07:55:45


Post by: Sim-Life


macluvin wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, except when you don't spam the 3-4 best units for that archetype (dakkajet, wazbom, scrapjet and squigbuggy) and you face different factions you don't have an OP list with a super high WR.

A list might be skew since all the models have the same profile, basically everything is either T5 or T6 with 4+ save. And fielding multiple planes has always been skew.

I'm also a Freebooters guy at the moment but I don't play any plane or the squigbuggies. Never more than 4 buggies in total. I never stomped 1800 points of stuff in one turn so far.


>First turn advantage isn't real
>40k is the most balanced its ever been
>Your opponent is WAAC
>You should ask him to tone down his lists
>Just use more terrain
>houserule it till it works
>Tournament data shows the game is balanced
>Tournaments aren't representitve of REAL 40K player < You Are Here
>Crusade is better you should play that
>It works for MY group
>Find a new group/FLGS
>You're just not playing it properly
>You're bad at the game

Did I forget any?
I can't believe I used to say the same stuff about 8th.


The game gets a lot better once you lower your expectations or standards?


I suppose since he just posted that I should add it to the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:


I think you belong to those who want to prove something by playing games, how skilled and smart they are. Nothing wrong with that, I just think that GW games are not suited for that. Never were, never will be and intentionally.


When you pay the prices GW are asking there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding the game to a higher standard than GW delivers. When the most very basic entry level to the game is over €/£/$200 (sometime more depending on the army and half of that being the rules themselves) you expect to get something that reflects that cost in terms of quality and that expectation is nowhere near met. If two players new to the game drop a combined $400 and get a totally unfun and one-sided experience as shown in this thread then something is wrong with the product. Its well within GWs ability to hire and write good rules but they've become their creation and are an archaic, plodding behemoth that's too big to fail. Any competitor that shows up just gets squashed by GWs sheer market presence so there is no need for them to ever try to improve.

(Better add
>Most people play for the models and lore
to the list)

As for that part about me playing for skill, thats genuinely laughable. My favourite armies are the most random ones. One of my favourite WHFB army books was 8th Daemons, my biggest army is Skaven (followed by tyranids who have been awful for a long time) and most games that actually require skill or intelligence I lose. I played a new euro game last night with my wife (Iki, for those interested) and did appallingly, even while I was playing I could see I was doing badly, but I had fun because the rules were well written, engaging and the game is well balanced. My failure was entirely on me and not because my wife just randomly happened to take the best cards/resources (as per the OP) and I'll likely do better next time and it won't require me to modify or houserule anything.

If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 11:12:01


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:


If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


You know, things aren't exclusively black or white. Game that requires no skill and game that is perfectly balanced and requires skills. There are infinite shades between the peaks. Current version of 40k already involves some skill and decision making during the game, but also the "just smash models together and enjoy the dice rolling part" part is and definitely should be a major part in 40k or any other GW game. IMHO the current version of 40k is a lot of fun to play, as it balances both parts: it's a beer and pretzels game that is somehow self-driven with the dice rolling and some decisions from players and compared to older editions it requires much less pre-game chat and fixes to work, but it might be true that I have kinda low expectations as I didn't abandon the game even in 7th or index era of 8th. IMHO the worse 40k periods ever (excluding 6th which I completely missed due to having other priorities/interests in life). If anything the biggest downside of 40k is that the game isn't enough random, with too many tools to lean toward the averages or even above the averages.

Value for GW models is not just how they act on the tabletop, there's also the hobby to consider. There's a large portion of the fan base who don't play at all and still pay for GW models and accessories. Or mostly plaint and collect and do a random game once in a while just for the fun of showing those beloved models on a nice table to others and self. Absolutely do add that to the list .

So again, if you see the value of GW plastic only, or even mostly, in the current state of the game, you've picked up the wrong game . GW sells miniatures, then games which are not even remotely close to a boardgame. Do you really think that whole armies should worth 50$, or even 100$, just because the game might be in a terrible (for you) state? If you don't see enough value in handling the expensive toys you painted why don't you try a tabletop simulator then?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 11:23:33


Post by: the_scotsman


 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


You know, things aren't exclusively black or white. Game that requires no skill and game that is perfectly balanced and requires skills. There are infinite shades between the peaks. Current version of 40k already involves some skill and decision making during the game, but also the "just smash models together and enjoy the dice rolling part" part is and definitely should be a major part in 40k or any other GW game. IMHO the current version of 40k is a lot of fun to play, as it balances both parts: it's a beer and pretzels game that is somehow self-driven with the dice rolling and some decisions from players and compared to older editions it requires much less pre-game chat and fixes to work, but it might be true that I have kinda low expectations as I didn't abandon the game even in 7th or index era of 8th. IMHO the worse 40k periods ever (excluding 6th which I completely missed due to having other priorities/interests in life). If anything the biggest downside of 40k is that the game isn't enough random, with too many tools to lean toward the averages or even above the averages.

Value for GW models is not just how they act on the tabletop, there's also the hobby to consider. There's a large portion of the fan base who don't play at all and still pay for GW models and accessories. Or mostly plaint and collect and do a random game once in a while just for the fun of showing those beloved models on a nice table to others and self. Absolutely do add that to the list .

So again, if you see the value of GW plastic only, or even mostly, in the current state of the game, you've picked up the wrong game . GW sells miniatures, then games which are not even remotely close to a boardgame. Do you really think that whole armies should worth 50$, or even 100$, just because the game might be in a terrible (for you) state? If you don't see enough value in handling the expensive toys you painted why don't you try a tabletop simulator then?


...This argument might have some validity if the RULES for games workshop games weren't equivalently as expensive as some top-end board games.

If little timmy wants to play a space marine army, he's got to buy

-rulebook 65
-codex 50
-supplement 30

145$.

Or, for 30$ less for again ZERO MINIATURES AT ALL, you could get the complete box of fething Gloomhaven which weighs approximately 45 pounds.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 11:24:27


Post by: Yoyoyo


macluvin wrote:
The game gets a lot better once you lower your expectations or standards?

I once heard a cool quote: ‘resentment is the gap between expectations and reality’.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 12:25:10


Post by: Sim-Life


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


You know, things aren't exclusively black or white. Game that requires no skill and game that is perfectly balanced and requires skills. There are infinite shades between the peaks. Current version of 40k already involves some skill and decision making during the game, but also the "just smash models together and enjoy the dice rolling part" part is and definitely should be a major part in 40k or any other GW game. IMHO the current version of 40k is a lot of fun to play, as it balances both parts: it's a beer and pretzels game that is somehow self-driven with the dice rolling and some decisions from players and compared to older editions it requires much less pre-game chat and fixes to work, but it might be true that I have kinda low expectations as I didn't abandon the game even in 7th or index era of 8th. IMHO the worse 40k periods ever (excluding 6th which I completely missed due to having other priorities/interests in life). If anything the biggest downside of 40k is that the game isn't enough random, with too many tools to lean toward the averages or even above the averages.

Value for GW models is not just how they act on the tabletop, there's also the hobby to consider. There's a large portion of the fan base who don't play at all and still pay for GW models and accessories. Or mostly plaint and collect and do a random game once in a while just for the fun of showing those beloved models on a nice table to others and self. Absolutely do add that to the list .

So again, if you see the value of GW plastic only, or even mostly, in the current state of the game, you've picked up the wrong game . GW sells miniatures, then games which are not even remotely close to a boardgame. Do you really think that whole armies should worth 50$, or even 100$, just because the game might be in a terrible (for you) state? If you don't see enough value in handling the expensive toys you painted why don't you try a tabletop simulator then?


...This argument might have some validity if the RULES for games workshop games weren't equivalently as expensive as some top-end board games.

If little timmy wants to play a space marine army, he's got to buy

-rulebook 65
-codex 50
-supplement 30

145$.

Or, for 30$ less for again ZERO MINIATURES AT ALL, you could get the complete box of fething Gloomhaven which weighs approximately 45 pounds.


Yeah. I went All In on Bloodborne which would be considered extremely extravagant which got me 216 miniatures, 12 campaigns, a randomised dungeon expansion, loads of cardboard map tiles and probably close to 1000 cards for $400 (incl. shipping). Thats like a fraction of what it would get you in GW, even compared to their own boxed games. and the model detail is good. Shallow details are still clear and there was probably less gaps than an average GW model honestly. Weirdly I find supposedly inferior board games models far better to paint than GW models. They generally have better shallow textures and ironically lend themselves really well to GWs Contrast paints as GW models tend to have loads of flat, untextured surfaces.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 12:34:50


Post by: ccs


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


You know, things aren't exclusively black or white. Game that requires no skill and game that is perfectly balanced and requires skills. There are infinite shades between the peaks. Current version of 40k already involves some skill and decision making during the game, but also the "just smash models together and enjoy the dice rolling part" part is and definitely should be a major part in 40k or any other GW game. IMHO the current version of 40k is a lot of fun to play, as it balances both parts: it's a beer and pretzels game that is somehow self-driven with the dice rolling and some decisions from players and compared to older editions it requires much less pre-game chat and fixes to work, but it might be true that I have kinda low expectations as I didn't abandon the game even in 7th or index era of 8th. IMHO the worse 40k periods ever (excluding 6th which I completely missed due to having other priorities/interests in life). If anything the biggest downside of 40k is that the game isn't enough random, with too many tools to lean toward the averages or even above the averages.

Value for GW models is not just how they act on the tabletop, there's also the hobby to consider. There's a large portion of the fan base who don't play at all and still pay for GW models and accessories. Or mostly plaint and collect and do a random game once in a while just for the fun of showing those beloved models on a nice table to others and self. Absolutely do add that to the list .

So again, if you see the value of GW plastic only, or even mostly, in the current state of the game, you've picked up the wrong game . GW sells miniatures, then games which are not even remotely close to a boardgame. Do you really think that whole armies should worth 50$, or even 100$, just because the game might be in a terrible (for you) state? If you don't see enough value in handling the expensive toys you painted why don't you try a tabletop simulator then?


...This argument might have some validity if the RULES for games workshop games weren't equivalently as expensive as some top-end board games.

If little timmy wants to play a space marine army, he's got to buy

-rulebook 65
-codex 50
-supplement 30

145$.

Or, for 30$ less for again ZERO MINIATURES AT ALL, you could get the complete box of fething Gloomhaven which weighs approximately 45 pounds.


Or, for $30 less, Timmy could skip the supplement as Coex: SM is 100% playable on its own.

Of course Timmy is also likely internet savvy & already realizes he could skip buying the40k books altogether....


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 12:55:01


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


If you're standards for 40k/GW are so low that you don't expect a game to require some semblance of skill to play then why do you even bother with rules? Just smash models together and take turns rolling dice at each other. Whoever rolls the most 6s win. That'll be €50 thanks.


You know, things aren't exclusively black or white. Game that requires no skill and game that is perfectly balanced and requires skills. There are infinite shades between the peaks. Current version of 40k already involves some skill and decision making during the game, but also the "just smash models together and enjoy the dice rolling part" part is and definitely should be a major part in 40k or any other GW game. IMHO the current version of 40k is a lot of fun to play, as it balances both parts: it's a beer and pretzels game that is somehow self-driven with the dice rolling and some decisions from players and compared to older editions it requires much less pre-game chat and fixes to work, but it might be true that I have kinda low expectations as I didn't abandon the game even in 7th or index era of 8th. IMHO the worse 40k periods ever (excluding 6th which I completely missed due to having other priorities/interests in life). If anything the biggest downside of 40k is that the game isn't enough random, with too many tools to lean toward the averages or even above the averages.

Value for GW models is not just how they act on the tabletop, there's also the hobby to consider. There's a large portion of the fan base who don't play at all and still pay for GW models and accessories. Or mostly plaint and collect and do a random game once in a while just for the fun of showing those beloved models on a nice table to others and self. Absolutely do add that to the list .

So again, if you see the value of GW plastic only, or even mostly, in the current state of the game, you've picked up the wrong game . GW sells miniatures, then games which are not even remotely close to a boardgame. Do you really think that whole armies should worth 50$, or even 100$, just because the game might be in a terrible (for you) state? If you don't see enough value in handling the expensive toys you painted why don't you try a tabletop simulator then?


Also further to what I said about Bloodborne, keep in mind that this argument is about the fact that if two new players buy the game blind, and one buys a handful of basic, easily available models that massively overpowers the other then there is a problem with the game, they effectively spent what I paid for Bloodborne to have a bad time. All your deflections about the value of the minis not being solely based in game don't work here because they were bought specifically to play the game so its not relevant and as I said, you get more for less elsewhere. I would sooner recommend someone some track down a copy of Forbidden Stars as its a better 40k game than they start the actual 40k. Also it has 127 models and 4 factions in one box for around $110, all of which are downscaled GW sculpts.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 13:20:02


Post by: Wayniac


On the subject of terrain, is it just me or does the GW recommended terrain look lame as feth? All the big tournaments seem to be kissing GW's ass over it but it looks god awful. My area pretty much uses it 100% of the time for all games, so have jumped on the bandwagon, but god damn it's so bland.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 13:56:42


Post by: Gert


Like the arrangement or the aesthetic?
The arrangement for tournaments is intended IIRC to bring a sort of balance to the table i.e. nobody has a distinct advantage because their deployment zone is covered well or a disadvantage because they have a single tree.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 15:04:40


Post by: Hankovitch


GW's terrain is fine, it's just limited in aesthetic scope. They have very little terrain that isn't "Imperial city ruins" and "Imperial industrial machinery."

If you want an interesting and attractive table (as opposed to "Sector Platonically-Balanced Tournament Field"), it's still up to the players to modify/diversify their table with crafted terrain pieces, 3rd-party kits, and so on.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 16:00:57


Post by: PenitentJake


Apple fox wrote:

I would think that a big issue with 9th is that it is not really fit for the purpose GW wants to use it for, rendering any positives fairly mute.
It basically ignores a good portion of the army’s faction identity and fantasy, leaves out huge portions of its design to be written and rewritten again and again over new codexes.


This needs a bit of clarification.

First, I'm talking only 9th ed dexes.

So if by ignoring faction identity, you mean ignoring fluff text that never made a difference on the table, I can get behind you. What's more, I mourn the loss of this material from 9th ed dexes as much as most Dakkanaughts. I was particularly disappointed, for example, with the lack of a galactic map in the Sister's dex showing the locations of all of the Orders of the Sisters.

But in terms of having a faction identity on the table, represented by unique combinations of rules for factions and sub-factions, I feel that no other edition has ever come close to 8th, and that 9th raised the bar even higher for faction/ sub-faction identity- especially if you go down the Crusade rabbit hole.

Space Marines have been spoiled with unique sub-faction content since second edition, and other editions have allowed some factions to experience that too. To my knowledge, 8th was the first edition to offer unique sub-faction rules content for every faction in the game, and again, 9th raised that bar even higher.

There's so much faction/ sub-faction identity via rules content expressing itself on tables these days that one of the most common complaints is that there's too much of it. While I personally love it, because I'm not actually a wargamer at heart, but more of an RPGer/ CCGer, I can actually understand why those with different priorities sometimes feel overwhelmed by "bloat".


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 16:45:58


Post by: Las


PenitentJake wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

I would think that a big issue with 9th is that it is not really fit for the purpose GW wants to use it for, rendering any positives fairly mute.
It basically ignores a good portion of the army’s faction identity and fantasy, leaves out huge portions of its design to be written and rewritten again and again over new codexes.


This needs a bit of clarification.

First, I'm talking only 9th ed dexes.

So if by ignoring faction identity, you mean ignoring fluff text that never made a difference on the table, I can get behind you. What's more, I mourn the loss of this material from 9th ed dexes as much as most Dakkanaughts. I was particularly disappointed, for example, with the lack of a galactic map in the Sister's dex showing the locations of all of the Orders of the Sisters.


I'm speaking for Apple Fox here, but I'm inferring that by identity and fantasy he means that the armies don't play in a way that reflects their unique character in the setting. All armies in 40k essentially operate the same on the table. They move forward, they shoot, they charge. Any other action other than those three is a waste of potential killing power.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 17:00:32


Post by: PenitentJake


 Las wrote:


I'm speaking for Apple Fox here, but I'm inferring that by identity and fantasy he means that the armies don't play in a way that reflects their unique character in the setting. All armies in 40k essentially operate the same on the table. They move forward, they shoot, they charge. Any other action other than those three is a waste of potential killing power.


I extended the "If you're talking about Codex fluff" as a shout out to the fact that from this point of view, something has been lost, and I recognise that. But like you, I suspect Applefox means they all play the same, and if he does, I dispute that.

My sisters can now take Penitent Oaths and redeem themselves; they can become living saints and they can consecrate holy sites on the battlefield. Never before has any of this been possible.

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.

So if Applefox is not talking about the lack of fluff in dexes, from my perspective, he's wrong. Yes, Space Wolves have had different rules from Blood Angels since second. And yes, in some editions from 3rd -7th, a craftworld or an IG may have played differently than another. But from 8th on, ALL sub-factions of EVERY faction have played differently, as they have different Strats, WL Traits, Sub-Faction Traits and Relics based on both faction and sub-faction, and different army purity bonuses and secondaries/ agendas plus pages of Crusade content based on faction.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 17:33:54


Post by: Las


PenitentJake wrote:
 Las wrote:


I'm speaking for Apple Fox here, but I'm inferring that by identity and fantasy he means that the armies don't play in a way that reflects their unique character in the setting. All armies in 40k essentially operate the same on the table. They move forward, they shoot, they charge. Any other action other than those three is a waste of potential killing power.


I extended the "If you're talking about Codex fluff" as a shout out to the fact that from this point of view, something has been lost, and I recognise that. But like you, I suspect Applefox means they all play the same, and if he does, I dispute that.

My sisters can now take Penitent Oaths and redeem themselves; they can become living saints and they can consecrate holy sites on the battlefield. Never before has any of this been possible.


I play sisters too, and I love the little fluff aspects like this. I think the faith dice mechanic is especially neat. Unfortunately though, at the end of the day they're just the tools I use to move forward, shoot, and then charge. Same as every other army.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 17:57:37


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:



My sisters can now take Penitent Oaths and redeem themselves; they can become living saints and they can consecrate holy sites on the battlefield. Never before has any of this been possible.


Big asterisk there. I think you need to go back to playing Matched 2000pts games for a few months.


Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:03:38


Post by: Racerguy180


My Bloody Rose play different to my buddy's Martyred Lady.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:07:15


Post by: Sim-Life


Racerguy180 wrote:
My Bloody Rose play different to my buddy's Martyred Lady.


In what way? Or do you NOT move up and shoot then charge with them?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:10:42


Post by: Racerguy180


Repentia and arcos don't have guns, seraphim are already where I want them to be, I guess the couple 5 woman squads of dominions shoot....


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:21:32


Post by: Las


Racerguy180 wrote:
Repentia and arcos don't have guns, seraphim are already where I want them to be, I guess the couple 5 woman squads of dominions shoot....


Respectfully, I think this is a bit nit-picky. Exceptions don't prove the rule here. Would you say these are fundamentally different play styles?

Move forward > shoot > charge

Move forward > charge

I play bloody rose as well, for what it's worth.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:38:30


Post by: Sim-Life


Racerguy180 wrote:
Repentia and arcos don't have guns, seraphim are already where I want them to be, I guess the couple 5 woman squads of dominions shoot....


Okay, I feel like you're not getting the point.

So lets take a look at some factions.

The T'au faction identity is based on very strong, long range firepower based on incredibly manoeuvrable battlesuits. They're hard to pin down in melee but when you close the distance they're screwed.

Tyranids are (supposed to be) a horde army, with hundred of little bugs soaking up weapons fire and depleting the opponents ammo to allow the big bugs to wreck stuff unhindered. Key to this is that every single tyranid is a part of a whole and able to flawlessly adapt and change tactics at a moment notice.

Necrons are the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy. Terrifying, ancient, undying robots who's basic guns tear you apart on an atomic level, but they've been in hibernation and a majority haven't woken up yet and when they do they can be plagued by madness if they ever wake up at all.

All of this is reflected by the models of the army moving up, shooting and then sometimes charging.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 18:46:18


Post by: the_scotsman


Hankovitch wrote:
GW's terrain is fine, it's just limited in aesthetic scope. They have very little terrain that isn't "Imperial city ruins" and "Imperial industrial machinery."

If you want an interesting and attractive table (as opposed to "Sector Platonically-Balanced Tournament Field"), it's still up to the players to modify/diversify their table with crafted terrain pieces, 3rd-party kits, and so on.


The problem is, a lot of the terrain sets sold by GW do basically fething nothing in GW's own ruleset. Let's see, what GW terrain have I painted up since 9th ed changed the terrain system..

Sector Mechanicus: This terrain is worthless. It grants Dense Cover, but due to how Dense Cover is worded (any single model in the target unit that can be spotted out without the sight line intersecting the Dense terrain piece negates the -1 to hit) the spindly girders and occasional small cylindrical pillars almost never grant the Dense -1 to hit in an actual game.

Also, the platforms are 6" off the ground, which means most units that can practically get on them require their whole move to do so and most will have to advance as well. Since objsctives can't be placed on terrain, and LOS is so easy to achieve there will never be much of an advantage to being up there, so the large platforms are effectively pointless as well in-game

Zone Mortalis: There simply isn't any part of the 9th ed terrain ruleset that works with the Zone Mortalis terrain. It will either do nothing at all (if you just give it, say, Light and Heavy and Defensible, as its not tall enough to be Obscuring) if you rule each piece as an individual terrain 'entity' per the rules, or, if you rule the whole giant structure as one big terrain piece, it will also do nothing at all because as soon as you enter a terrain piece, you remove the rules from it.

Eldar Webway Portal, ork "Speed Freeks" boxed terrain junkyards and Mekboy Workshop: These are useless. They are small decorations you can scatter around the table to do basically nothing to impact the game.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 20:01:22


Post by: PenitentJake


 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:



My sisters can now take Penitent Oaths and redeem themselves; they can become living saints and they can consecrate holy sites on the battlefield. Never before has any of this been possible.


Big asterisk there. I think you need to go back to playing Matched 2000pts games for a few months.


Nah. I know what makes me happy, and I'm content to just keep doing that. I get it- you're saying that the diversification I have discussed in my quote applies ONLY in Crusade, and for those who choose NOT to play Crusade (or perhaps they just can't find people to play it with) don't get to experience that. Fair point.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


I think implying that all armies fight the same because moving, shooting and charging are phases of the game that are shared by all armies is a bit disingenuous?

First off, it's another standard to which other games are not held.

Second, it excludes so much of what happens in this game, that it isn't really an accurate measure of what constitutes an army's identity. Kinda like saying "All human beings are identical, because they all have arms, legs and heads."




Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 20:38:02


Post by: the_scotsman


Oh, and also let's not forget the new kill team terrain! Fantastic, gw is making the kind if terrain that's mandatory for their game! Big L-shaped walls, but, oh wait, 4.25-4.5" tall, WHOOPS, also full of tiny holes, WHOOPS ITS MORE USELESS TABLE DECORATION!!!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 20:38:52


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:


I think implying that all armies fight the same because moving, shooting and charging are phases of the game that are shared by all armies is a bit disingenuous?

First off, it's another standard to which other games are not held.

Second, it excludes so much of what happens in this game, that it isn't really an accurate measure of what constitutes an army's identity. Kinda like saying "All human beings are identical, because they all have arms, legs and heads."


40k's play variation comes entirely from in game bonuses to mitigate dice rolls and all factions follow the same style of rules (+/-1, rerolls). And no, people expect other games to differentiate their factions as well. Its just that 40k seems to approach balance as if the game were chess. If everyone is roughly the same, then it's balanced right?

The most technologically advanced civilization in the galaxy can only make a laser slightly better than the archaic technology used and mass produced by the Imperium. And only if it doesn't move, in which case it gets worse? I have to wonder if you've actually played any other games if you think they don't differentiate factions. Good luck trying to play Khador like they were Cygnar in Warmachine.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 21:32:53


Post by: Las


I keep bringing up Flames of War in these discussions because it’s an incredibly similar game to most of 40k’s legacy core rules mechanically. It has move, shoot, fight, and morale phases. In each of those phases every army regardless of faction or composition does those things.

However a panzergrenadier list plays extremely differently to a Soviet conscript list. Pzrgrens are about maneuverability, using supporting fire to pin enemy units while mechanized infantry embark and disembark to breakpoints across the battlefield to score objectives and dislodge the enemy.

Conscripts on the other hand, lumber forward or more likely, don’t move at all because they’re extremely easy to hit due to their poor quality as troops. So they either try and bluntly swarm you or dig in and try to outlast the enemy by having more bodies than they have bullets.

I as a pzrgren player would need to learn how to play the conscript list before being successful with it. Note that that entails learning when and how to commit units, what to do with reserves to bolster the core list’s weaknesses etc. The point is that while there is always a move, shoot, fight phase, I don’t always want to move (I’ll be easier to hit), I don’t always want to shoot (if I do, I can’t dig in and get an extra cover save), and I don’t always want to fight (defensive fire is deadly, different context for 40k but the point stands).

In 40k, to learn how to play another army the vast majority of my learning curve is going to be memorizing new abilities and overlapping rules. It will have almost nothing to do with learning how to interact with the tabletop battle space. I will still be moving forward, shooting, and charging if the fight is favourable.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/29 21:52:46


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Plus, Crusade doesn't actually make your army play differently.

It's a Progression System - you will play Bloody Rose the same whether in 2k matched or in a Crusade. Just the crusade one accumulates experience to get better at doing exactly the same thing.

And sure individual units change (repentia can redeem themselves or whatever). But the army isn't necessarily more narrative for it - it still plays exactly the same way, still has moments that are narratively consistent and some that don't make any sense at all.

It isn't like Crusade is played fundamentally differently than 2k matched on the table in any given game, except that there's a gakload more rules to remember.

And GW, as a reminder, explicitly DESIGNED crusade to be that way, as it was sold as being able to play against 2k matched armies without much effort by either player to change things up.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 00:08:09


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


What's your point? Your question could be as easily describing the Axis & Allies game I'm playing right now.
My Japanese are sitting on Hawaii after shooting the U.S. off it & hoping to kill anything that comes to retake it.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 00:15:14


Post by: Apple fox


PenitentJake wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

I would think that a big issue with 9th is that it is not really fit for the purpose GW wants to use it for, rendering any positives fairly mute.
It basically ignores a good portion of the army’s faction identity and fantasy, leaves out huge portions of its design to be written and rewritten again and again over new codexes.


This needs a bit of clarification.

First, I'm talking only 9th ed dexes.

So if by ignoring faction identity, you mean ignoring fluff text that never made a difference on the table, I can get behind you. What's more, I mourn the loss of this material from 9th ed dexes as much as most Dakkanaughts. I was particularly disappointed, for example, with the lack of a galactic map in the Sister's dex showing the locations of all of the Orders of the Sisters.

But in terms of having a faction identity on the table, represented by unique combinations of rules for factions and sub-factions, I feel that no other edition has ever come close to 8th, and that 9th raised the bar even higher for faction/ sub-faction identity- especially if you go down the Crusade rabbit hole.

Space Marines have been spoiled with unique sub-faction content since second edition, and other editions have allowed some factions to experience that too. To my knowledge, 8th was the first edition to offer unique sub-faction rules content for every faction in the game, and again, 9th raised that bar even higher.

There's so much faction/ sub-faction identity via rules content expressing itself on tables these days that one of the most common complaints is that there's too much of it. While I personally love it, because I'm not actually a wargamer at heart, but more of an RPGer/ CCGer, I can actually understand why those with different priorities sometimes feel overwhelmed by "bloat".


I was talking about the core rules, and how they need for lots of faction and rule bloat to get to where a good core rule system would be.
As well as ignoring that army with alternative defences need support within the core rules if they want it to really be a good system.
It’s a bloat issue, with 40k having lots of little issue that make the whole thing kinda awful rather than any one big issue.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 01:20:16


Post by: Las


ccs wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


What's your point? Your question could be as easily describing the Axis & Allies game I'm playing right now.
My Japanese are sitting on Hawaii after shooting the U.S. off it & hoping to kill anything that comes to retake it.


The game loop of axis and allies is not to win dice offs though, it’s the strategic application of resources restricted by movement mechanics. You’re describing one micro (but frequent) aspect of gameplay and using it to define the whole game, which isn’t accurate.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 03:26:29


Post by: macluvin


The movement mechanic that restricts my application of 40k resources is the movement of my models off the table XD


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 04:04:32


Post by: ccs


 Las wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


What's your point? Your question could be as easily describing the Axis & Allies game I'm playing right now.
My Japanese are sitting on Hawaii after shooting the U.S. off it & hoping to kill anything that comes to retake it.


The game loop of axis and allies is not to win dice offs though, it’s the strategic application of resources restricted by movement mechanics. You’re describing one micro (but frequent) aspect of gameplay and using it to define the whole game, which isn’t accurate.


Blah blah blah.
Your anti-40k description still perfectly matches exactly what I've been playing all day.
Move unit(s) x distance to objective. Roll dice hoping for A) target #, B) trade better than my opponent.
And it'll perfectly describe nearly every other wargame be it chit based, tiny plastic figures on set board, 15mm stuff,, 40k scale, etc.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 06:47:19


Post by: Sim-Life


ccs wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


What's your point? Your question could be as easily describing the Axis & Allies game I'm playing right now.
My Japanese are sitting on Hawaii after shooting the U.S. off it & hoping to kill anything that comes to retake it.


Having never played Axis & Allies I couldn't tell you. But to use games I have played as an example, in Warmahordes Khador plays differently from Circle who play differently from Cyriss etc.

Khador is all about tanking damage and smashing face. Everything is slow, heavily armoured and hits like a truck, but they lack utility as a faction.

Circle are fast and die in a stiff breeze but they have a lot of positioning tricks for obscuring their units, teleporting around and generally out manoeuvreing opponents to get to the rear of models.

Cyriss is an army of clockwork robots and relies on synergy and almost everything in the army is a construct. Order of activation is INCREDIBLY important because they don't benefit from the Power Up rule to generate focus to fuel their warjacks. Instead when a warjack uses a focus it can pass that focus onto another warjack. You need to plan your turn carefully because one mistake can mess up your whole turn. Their warjacks also don't have their own MAT/RAT (WS/BS) and use the stat of the armies leader. Each Cyriss leader also has a unique ability it passes onto all warjacks.

If you play Khador and decide to try Circle and play it the same way you played Khador you'll have a very bad time because you'll hit like a pillow and die quickly. If you play Khador and move onto Cyriss you're going to have a lot of bad turns and focus issues because the Cyriss turn is so rigid in how it plays out. This is in contrast to 40k where the only real difference between factions are minor army wide rules like miracle dice, or synapse or resurrection protocals whose only function is a small mitigation of something. I can easily switch between all 7 of my 40k armies without really changing my style of play much, whereas with the Warmahordes factions if I went a while without playing them I'd need a few warm up games to jog my memory and shake the rust off (for Cyriss especially).

I suppose I'm trying to say 40k doesn't have any faction where the way they play is a consideration to how how you enact your turn. Because everything is bland.

Imagine if Necrons played like Cyriss where the stats of your units was based on the HQ and required you to activate in a specific order, getting bonuses if you follow a hierarchy of nobility so by the end of your turn, if you did everything right your Overlord is an absolute monster. Or if tyranids were able to use synapse to shuffle the stats of the units around at the start of a turn to adapt to the opponent. And I don't mean a measily +/-1 to something, I mean being able to have a Carnifex add some of its attack stat to its strength stat to buff itself or vice verse based on what its attacking or add its attacks to its ranged weapons shots (please do not derail the thread into being about how this would be broken in the current rules, its just an example of how things COULD be).

Something significant that actually makes the game engaging and requires some thought beyond move up and shoot. Damn, I think I made myself dislike 40k more with this post.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 07:23:03


Post by: Racerguy180


Without computer modeling the interactions and variables, 40k is limited in its decision making. An entire game of 40k is like 30-90sec of an actual battle and the amount of decisions made is huge. Modeling them into 5 IGOUGO turns isn't exactly realistic(or as much as 40k could be) but it does a "decent" faximilie.

Boiling 40k down into 5 turns of IGOUGO and saying it is anywhere near representative.(of the fluff)is asinine. Part of the fun of 40k is medieval insanity mixed with futuristic weaponry.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 08:43:29


Post by: Sim-Life


Racerguy180 wrote:
Without computer modeling the interactions and variables, 40k is limited in its decision making. An entire game of 40k is like 30-90sec of an actual battle and the amount of decisions made is huge. Modeling them into 5 IGOUGO turns isn't exactly realistic(or as much as 40k could be) but it does a "decent" faximilie.

Boiling 40k down into 5 turns of IGOUGO and saying it is anywhere near representative.(of the fluff)is asinine. Part of the fun of 40k is medieval insanity mixed with futuristic weaponry.


The decisions don't have to be boring though.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 08:56:29


Post by: Racerguy180


No one said they had to be boring, it's just GW has painted themselves into a corner & see only +/- 1 as the way to create identity on the tabletop.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 14:00:52


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I gave a chain of command example earlier (I think in this thread) where faction identity is as simple as

"This nation has fire teams in its squads, this nation does not".

That's it. No other rules or anything else.

But the core rules (section vs. team activation, movement, shock/morale, entrenchments) are deep enough to give this distinction meaning, with benefits and drawbacks to both types of organization.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 14:41:52


Post by: Las


ccs wrote:
 Las wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Furthermore, 8th was the first edition where Order of Our Martyred Lady didn't use exactly the same rules on the battlefield as any other order.


Okay so how does that change how they play compared to other armies? Or do they still just shoot the other guy till they die then hang about next to objectives hoping they kill more stuff than they do?


What's your point? Your question could be as easily describing the Axis & Allies game I'm playing right now.
My Japanese are sitting on Hawaii after shooting the U.S. off it & hoping to kill anything that comes to retake it.


The game loop of axis and allies is not to win dice offs though, it’s the strategic application of resources restricted by movement mechanics. You’re describing one micro (but frequent) aspect of gameplay and using it to define the whole game, which isn’t accurate.


Blah blah blah.
Your anti-40k description still perfectly matches exactly what I've been playing all day.
Move unit(s) x distance to objective. Roll dice hoping for A) target #, B) trade better than my opponent.
And it'll perfectly describe nearly every other wargame be it chit based, tiny plastic figures on set board, 15mm stuff,, 40k scale, etc.


Man, no it doesn’t. Open the axis and allies rule book and tell me how much real estate is devoted to explaining how fights happen vs resource management and movement.

The dice offs are the mechanic used to decide the outcome of strategic decision making, which is the core of the game.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 20:55:18


Post by: PenitentJake


This will likely be my last post on the subject- people get exasperated by me as much as I get exasperated by them- I'm not there yet, and hopefully none of you are either- getting out before it goes that far is an art, and hopefully this isn't a post too far. Neither of us is ever going to change the other's mind- I'm not even sure that's what I'm trying to do because I know it's futile. I read a lot of posts that feel like they over simplify, and I think I'm looking to fill in the blanks sometimes, or to tell the side of the story that a particular post isn't telling.

Either way, here goes- no offense or personal attacks intended:


 Sim-Life wrote:


40k's play variation comes entirely from in game bonuses to mitigate dice rolls and all factions follow the same style of rules (+/-1, rerolls). And no, people expect other games to differentiate their factions as well. Its just that 40k seems to approach balance as if the game were chess. If everyone is roughly the same, then it's balanced right?


Right. So the two forces where every unit is psychic (Ksons, GK) are roughly the same as the factions with no psykers (DE, Tau) right? The Custodes which are lucky to field 30 models are roughly the same as the factions that can build lists with hundreds of models for the same points value. The factions consisting entirely of giant machines are roughly the same as the factions that rely almost entirely upon infantry. The faction where virtually every unit has the capacity for resurrection is roughly the same as every other faction which can't? Ditto on Miracle dice.

Subfaction variation within a faction is less distinct, as it should be; one order of sisters should be more like another order than they are like a different faction, so certainly those variations do seem to be more in line with the minor variations you describe above, and fair enough.

 Sim-Life wrote:

The most technologically advanced civilization in the galaxy can only make a laser slightly better than the archaic technology used and mass produced by the Imperium. And only if it doesn't move, in which case it gets worse? I have to wonder if you've actually played any other games if you think they don't differentiate factions. Good luck trying to play Khador like they were Cygnar in Warmachine.


As mentioned above, their guns might not be much different than the guns other armies used, but almost every unit in the army has the capacity to resurrect, right? And again, you can build the list to augment that uniqueness and lean into it, but if you do it may limit TAC capacity- same way I CAN build a sisters list to absolutely maximize MD, but it comes at a cost.

As for playing other games, I have- I've listed them before. None of the games people typically talk about on Dakka. I came close to trying Warmachine- its range was large and diverse enough to interest me- almost no other game has that. If it doesn't have aliens and robots and preferably daemons too, I'm just not interested. People talk about what a great game Dust is- they're probably right (I love Andy Chambers too), but it doesn't make a lick of difference cuz the model range puts me to sleep. Ditto on Chain of Command (sorry Unit).

But to return to your point about Warmachine not working when you try to play one faction the way you try and play another, I don't think you'd be too successful if you try to play Custodes like Guard, or Ksons like Orks either. Do you? Honestly?


 Las wrote:
I keep bringing up Flames of War in these discussions because it’s an incredibly similar game to most of 40k’s legacy core rules mechanically. It has move, shoot, fight, and morale phases. In each of those phases every army regardless of faction or composition does those things.

However a panzergrenadier list plays extremely differently to a Soviet conscript list. Pzrgrens are about maneuverability, using supporting fire to pin enemy units while mechanized infantry embark and disembark to breakpoints across the battlefield to score objectives and dislodge the enemy.

Conscripts on the other hand, lumber forward or more likely, don’t move at all because they’re extremely easy to hit due to their poor quality as troops. So they either try and bluntly swarm you or dig in and try to outlast the enemy by having more bodies than they have bullets.

I as a pzrgren player would need to learn how to play the conscript list before being successful with it. Note that that entails learning when and how to commit units, what to do with reserves to bolster the core list’s weaknesses etc. The point is that while there is always a move, shoot, fight phase, I don’t always want to move (I’ll be easier to hit), I don’t always want to shoot (if I do, I can’t dig in and get an extra cover save), and I don’t always want to fight (defensive fire is deadly, different context for 40k but the point stands).

In 40k, to learn how to play another army the vast majority of my learning curve is going to be memorizing new abilities and overlapping rules. It will have almost nothing to do with learning how to interact with the tabletop battle space. I will still be moving forward, shooting, and charging if the fight is favourable.


My response to the first part of your post would be similar to my response to Sim above, but I kept you in here because of your last point. There's definitely something to that. Again, I still think it's a bit of an oversimplification, because there ARE big variations- you do have to learn to play differently if you're playing Knights, Hordes, Elites, etc... but the point about MOST of the variations coming from layered rules I think is pretty valid. Well played.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Plus, Crusade doesn't actually make your army play differently.

It's a Progression System - you will play Bloody Rose the same whether in 2k matched or in a Crusade. Just the crusade one accumulates experience to get better at doing exactly the same thing.

And sure individual units change (repentia can redeem themselves or whatever). But the army isn't necessarily more narrative for it - it still plays exactly the same way, still has moments that are narratively consistent and some that don't make any sense at all.

It isn't like Crusade is played fundamentally differently than 2k matched on the table in any given game, except that there's a gakload more rules to remember.

And GW, as a reminder, explicitly DESIGNED crusade to be that way, as it was sold as being able to play against 2k matched armies without much effort by either player to change things up.


Dude, agendas not conferring victory points ABSOLUTELY fundamentally changes the game. In matched, the entire army is pursuing a set of goals; you can certainly delegate which units you send to achieve which goals based on their abilities, but every goal is an army wide goal, and achieving these goals is how you win.

In Crusade, the army has A GOAL, and achieving it is how you win that battle. But in addition to that, individual units within the army have goals of their own; achieving these doesn't help you win the battle at all... But it might help you when the next one, or the one after that. If you can't see or won't acknowledge that profound, fundamental difference, I'm not sure we can have an honest discussion.

Now I get the unwritten elements of your point of view, because you've explained them before. In previous discussions, you've said that if Crusade provided a campaign structure in its core design, that would help to bring greater narrative connectivity between battles and really hammer home the idea of sacrificing a battle to win the war far more than the progression system alone- I don't even entirely disagree (as I've explained before). And I also understand the Chain of Command is one of your favourite games because it does a better job of this.

But ultimately I think GW's decision NOT to define a campaign structure that is THE Crusade campaign structure was wise, because some of us like Map-based, some of us like ladder, and some of us like tree. And there are still others that could be employed as well, because the rules as written leave us free to choose. I'm not trying to hammer my map based campaign idea into a tree campaign because rulez sed so.

I think that a controlling campaign system linked into the core rules would be too limiting, and I think that you almost need to make something that is specific to the background of the campaign you are portraying.

Apple fox wrote:


I was talking about the core rules, and how they need for lots of faction and rule bloat to get to where a good core rule system would be.
As well as ignoring that army with alternative defences need support within the core rules if they want it to really be a good system.
It’s a bloat issue, with 40k having lots of little issue that make the whole thing kinda awful rather than any one big issue.


Thanks for the clarification. And yeah, now that it's here, I can relate and agree- there is NOTHING in the core rules to differentiate one faction from another. I'm not sure why it's important that faction distinctions be in the core rules; I'm not even sure it makes sense in a game that's going to have faction codices anyway.

Ultimately, my point is that the differences exist, and that in previous versions of this game, those differences only existed for some lucky factions. To me, it doesn't make a difference whether they're in the core rules or a dex, especially since the dex is going to exist regardless of which book the distinctions go into.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I gave a chain of command example earlier (I think in this thread) where faction identity is as simple as

"This nation has fire teams in its squads, this nation does not".

That's it. No other rules or anything else.

But the core rules (section vs. team activation, movement, shock/morale, entrenchments) are deep enough to give this distinction meaning, with benefits and drawbacks to both types of organization.


And again, similar response to the one above- now that you've clarified it's important for you for the distinction to be a part of the core rules set, fair enough. Certainly, the rule interaction you describe above is elegant in its simplicity and it would make the faction play differently than others without as many rules as 40k has. You still couldn't pay me enough to play a game of Chain of Command because anything that's going to happen could happen right here in the 21st century, and not one of the models is something that I couldn't see in a history textbook. The game may well be vastly superior from a design standpoint- in fact, let me simplify it for you and say I agree it is superior from a design stand point.

It will still bore me to tears without aliens, robots, daemons, super-soldiers and nuns with guns, so I think I'll stick with what I've got.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/30 21:59:56


Post by: Las


@Penitant Jake

Appreciate the response my man. Agree to disagree.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/31 17:49:28


Post by: the_scotsman


Whats amazing is that a game with robots demons nuns with guns and super space soldiers somehow, incredibly, manages to be worse for creating cool compelling narratives than a game with normal humans with rifles and tanks vs normal humans with rifles and tanks.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/31 19:27:00


Post by: macluvin





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or whatever other system already has a 40k rule set moved into it...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/31 20:01:32


Post by: the_scotsman


Unfortunately the major rules alternative to 40k appears to also love the "supremedy bland core rules, attempt to make up for it with 900 layers of special rules" framework.




Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/31 21:28:39


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I'm trying to get ahold of the Chain of Command rules for warhammer. I have no idea if they're good but at least the activation and terrain systems make sense.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/10/31 21:39:10


Post by: macluvin


I’m not sure the main barrier will be access to the rules as much as gaining consent from a group of people to play an alternative rule set. If you can get them to agree to try 40k with one page rules or any already existing rule set that already ported 40k then you’ll be fine.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 14:48:50


Post by: PenitentJake


Given how much Unit loves Chain of Command, and some of the good stuff I've heard about it, I'd be willing to try it at least.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 15:09:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.


Not moving is a choice. Sprinting with weapons that aren't assault is a choice. Electing to do no damage to do more from a better position later is valid. You may sacrifice primary points depending on the mission, but if you can deny them then it can be worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I gave a chain of command example earlier (I think in this thread) where faction identity is as simple as

"This nation has fire teams in its squads, this nation does not".

That's it. No other rules or anything else.

But the core rules (section vs. team activation, movement, shock/morale, entrenchments) are deep enough to give this distinction meaning, with benefits and drawbacks to both types of organization.


I've been reading through the CoC rules. It's pretty neat, but it isn't the same kind of game. Terrain in terms of sighting and effect is pretty similar to 40K aside from move penalties, but then infantry movement is entirely random...

There is zero percent of me that wants to care about how many activations it takes for another crew member to take over for another crew killed. There's 11 tables depending on the vehicle type and number of hits to roll against.

And this table, too...



And this relevant gem...





Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 19:10:09


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Just to clarify, I had to move turn one both games. Unless I just passed all my activations and turtled, there was nowhere to fully hide my army beyond meager cover in the deployment zone.


Not moving is a choice. Sprinting with weapons that aren't assault is a choice. Electing to do no damage to do more from a better position later is valid. You may sacrifice primary points depending on the mission, but if you can deny them then it can be worth it.


I'm sure I've said this to you before but just because they're choices doesn't make them good or interesting or engaging.
One of the things I really love about most other games is that often at the start of my turn I will sit and look at the board state because I have a wealth of choices open to me and those choices lead to others and they aren't just "move to there, shoot X, if its not dead shoot with something else, repeat".

I mean we can be generous and say you have the decision to use one of the 5 or so strats that are worth using in the early game, so there's an extra decision, even though at end game you basically just automatically save CP to use the reroll strat.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 19:16:47


Post by: Daedalus81


Sure, I won't contest that. Sitting still or shuffling isn't going to be as sexy as fighting. You're still able to set up future moves though, which I think is a fundamental tactic even if it doesn't have the AA feel to it.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 19:26:37


Post by: Niiai


 Sim-Life wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Repentia and arcos don't have guns, seraphim are already where I want them to be, I guess the couple 5 woman squads of dominions shoot....


Okay, I feel like you're not getting the point.

So lets take a look at some factions.

The T'au faction identity is based on very strong, long range firepower based on incredibly manoeuvrable battlesuits. They're hard to pin down in melee but when you close the distance they're screwed.

Tyranids are (supposed to be) a horde army, with hundred of little bugs soaking up weapons fire and depleting the opponents ammo to allow the big bugs to wreck stuff unhindered. Key to this is that every single tyranid is a part of a whole and able to flawlessly adapt and change tactics at a moment notice.

Necrons are the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy. Terrifying, ancient, undying robots who's basic guns tear you apart on an atomic level, but they've been in hibernation and a majority haven't woken up yet and when they do they can be plagued by madness if they ever wake up at all.

All of this is reflected by the models of the army moving up, shooting and then sometimes charging.


I disagree that tyranids are suppose to be a horde army. If it is, it is false advetising. Tyranids in 8th and 9th edition are a gunline army. (If you want to justefy it from a fluff perspective after the chaos chasmn (the first time the hive mind actually got hurt) the kronos are focused on shooting, because they loose to much materials in a melee fight against daemons.)

Tyranids do not work as a horde army. Play them as shooty. False advetising.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 19:45:58


Post by: the_scotsman


 Niiai wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Repentia and arcos don't have guns, seraphim are already where I want them to be, I guess the couple 5 woman squads of dominions shoot....


Okay, I feel like you're not getting the point.

So lets take a look at some factions.

The T'au faction identity is based on very strong, long range firepower based on incredibly manoeuvrable battlesuits. They're hard to pin down in melee but when you close the distance they're screwed.

Tyranids are (supposed to be) a horde army, with hundred of little bugs soaking up weapons fire and depleting the opponents ammo to allow the big bugs to wreck stuff unhindered. Key to this is that every single tyranid is a part of a whole and able to flawlessly adapt and change tactics at a moment notice.

Necrons are the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy. Terrifying, ancient, undying robots who's basic guns tear you apart on an atomic level, but they've been in hibernation and a majority haven't woken up yet and when they do they can be plagued by madness if they ever wake up at all.

All of this is reflected by the models of the army moving up, shooting and then sometimes charging.


I disagree that tyranids are suppose to be a horde army. If it is, it is false advetising. Tyranids in 8th and 9th edition are a gunline army. (If you want to justefy it from a fluff perspective after the chaos chasmn (the first time the hive mind actually got hurt) the kronos are focused on shooting, because they loose to much materials in a melee fight against daemons.)

Tyranids do not work as a horde army. Play them as shooty. False advetising.


This is because Games Workshop has purposefully devalued every light infantry unit in the game in order to make them not automatically better than elite infantry choices.

if the narrative you want to tell with your...anything smaller than a Space Marine isn't 'boy oh boy, wasnt it exciting how the squad of Dire Avengers you spent 30 hours building and painting hid behind a wall and bravely waved a banner for 3 turns before something moved around the corner and zorped them out of existence' then there's no point in trying to tell it.

"But muh take too long for da horde player to move dere modellllzzzzzz" yes great fantastic here's the thing buddy most of us don't actually love having to buy an extra 500$ of figures to play the game. I'd be perfectly 100% fine with fielding the same number of genestealer cultists as you field space marines, and perfectly fine with your space marines getting to scythe them down en masse....as long as YOU'D be OK with them being basically a revolving door of continuously respawning little zerglets that get to grind you down by attrition.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 19:57:27


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Sure, I won't contest that. Sitting still or shuffling isn't going to be as sexy as fighting. You're still able to set up future moves though, which I think is a fundamental tactic even if it doesn't have the AA feel to it.


No one said anything about decisions not directly being combat related not being interesting. If this were true euro games as a genre wouldn't exist.

I was going to post a Warmachine comparison in my previous post but didn't because direct comparisons tend to derail threads but lets go with it.

First decision you need to make in Warmachine on your turn is focus allocation. This single decision has nothing to do with combat directly but encompasses many different decisions you'll have to make that will effect your turn. You need to decide what spells to upkeep, what you want your warjacks to do, how much focus they'll need to do it, what spells you want to cast, if you should use your feat etc. And this is before you even roll a die.

40k could probably benefit from having character auras etc cost CP to turn on during the Command Phase. Probably having to "buy" strats during the Command Phase for use during the turn would be good as well. It would make the game much more interesting if you had to buy your command rerolls before you even roll the dice.

Not that any of this is really relevant to the OP. Not sure how we ended up here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Niiai wrote:


I disagree that tyranids are suppose to be a horde army. If it is, it is false advetising. Tyranids in 8th and 9th edition are a gunline army. (If you want to justefy it from a fluff perspective after the chaos chasmn (the first time the hive mind actually got hurt) the kronos are focused on shooting, because they loose to much materials in a melee fight against daemons.)

Tyranids do not work as a horde army. Play them as shooty. False advetising.


Disagree all you want, that's what the fluff is. Given that my whole point was about how GW doesn't give any army a real identity related to its fluff I'm not sure what your point is.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/01 22:36:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The Tyranids are 100% a horde army. Any attempts to say otherwise is just silly.

Now, just because the rules of the game make playing said horde unrewarding/non-interactive/a complete waste of time, doesn't mean that Tyranids aren't a horde.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 00:14:50


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Tyranids are 100% a horde army. Any attempts to say otherwise is just silly.

Now, just because the rules of the game make playing said horde unrewarding/non-interactive/a complete waste of time, doesn't mean that Tyranids aren't a horde.

Dingdingding


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 12:16:40


Post by: The Newman


Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Tyranids are 100% a horde army. Any attempts to say otherwise is just silly.

Now, just because the rules of the game make playing said horde unrewarding/non-interactive/a complete waste of time, doesn't mean that Tyranids aren't a horde.

Dingdingding


The issue with 'Nids isn't if they're a horde army or not, it's if they're a melee army or not. The fluff can go either way for them on the one issue, but everything about 'Nids screams "I'ma come bite your face off!" while in practice they only work as a gun line.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 12:34:49


Post by: the_scotsman


The Newman wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Tyranids are 100% a horde army. Any attempts to say otherwise is just silly.

Now, just because the rules of the game make playing said horde unrewarding/non-interactive/a complete waste of time, doesn't mean that Tyranids aren't a horde.

Dingdingding


The issue with 'Nids isn't if they're a horde army or not, it's if they're a melee army or not. The fluff can go either way for them on the one issue, but everything about 'Nids screams "I'ma come bite your face off!" while in practice they only work as a gun line.


it's almost like if you base a whole bunch of armies fluff on how scary they are in a particular area, but then 100% of the fluff outside of their respective codex is them LOSING in that particular area in various escalatingly ludicrous scenarios, it becomes difficult for them to have any kind of in-game identity at all, and the only weapons that the game designers allow to be good are those that aren't shown in the various fluff pieces to be inferior by way of their basically 100% loss rate.

Gee, I wonder why we've got all these chaos/xenos factions with 'Super Duper Scary In Melee" as their core identity, yet all their melee weaponry tends to cap out just below 'the swords that bladeguard veterans carry' in terms of stats, even if it's a weapon carried by a 120+ point HQ unit or something.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 12:47:46


Post by: Sim-Life


In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 13:05:09


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


Nids can totally win a significant conflict, so long as their victory is pyrrhic.

That was the whole point of the exterminatus-Inquisitor who nuked planets in the face of the Tyranid advance - though in this case you'd have to have Bellysaurus Coal magic up a reality bomb to close the eye of terror mega-bio-phage-thing to cause the Hive Mind great pain with every planet taken, etc. etc.

I'm sure you could magic something up in the fluff. It's not like it's unprecedented in recent lore.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 14:30:23


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


Nids can totally win a significant conflict, so long as their victory is pyrrhic.

That was the whole point of the exterminatus-Inquisitor who nuked planets in the face of the Tyranid advance - though in this case you'd have to have Bellysaurus Coal magic up a reality bomb to close the eye of terror mega-bio-phage-thing to cause the Hive Mind great pain with every planet taken, etc. etc.

I'm sure you could magic something up in the fluff. It's not like it's unprecedented in recent lore.


Conspiracy hat on, our now very accurate rumour list seems to indicate nid book/models are right at the back of the bus which seems very odd. I've been wondering if nids are getting the crons treatment for 10th in the core box and having all the core plastics replaced, but much like crons this would necessitate a "big conflict/win" for the nids to have as the setting.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 14:37:03


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


Nids can totally win a significant conflict, so long as their victory is pyrrhic.

That was the whole point of the exterminatus-Inquisitor who nuked planets in the face of the Tyranid advance - though in this case you'd have to have Bellysaurus Coal magic up a reality bomb to close the eye of terror mega-bio-phage-thing to cause the Hive Mind great pain with every planet taken, etc. etc.

I'm sure you could magic something up in the fluff. It's not like it's unprecedented in recent lore.


Conspiracy hat on, our now very accurate rumour list seems to indicate nid book/models are right at the back of the bus which seems very odd. I've been wondering if nids are getting the crons treatment for 10th in the core box and having all the core plastics replaced, but much like crons this would necessitate a "big conflict/win" for the nids to have as the setting.


Eh, slight modification there -- the very accurate rumor list doesn't mention Nids *at all*. I'd agree that they're back of the bus, but I'm not assuming any new models until I have a reason to assume so (outside of what looks to be a kill team release since we have seen Nids rumor engine pics).


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 14:44:44


Post by: Apple fox


 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


Planets are important in the setting because they have story’s on them, a no name planet is only irrelevant if there is no story to tell there.
A galaxy is huge, so the Tyranids could eat up planets indefinitely and G wouldn’t run out, but that could set up a fun Meta Narative as they consume and get into conflicts as they push in.

Put mini story’s into white dwarf, little scenarios that can be used to draw upon for big events every 10 years or so. Use the storyline itself to flesh out the worlds of the imperium, the parts of the galaxy effected and the political climate in the area is between the different races fighting.
It can be done, and other games even do it. And would be a perfect thing for a white dwarf Artical every few months.

It also would take like 200 years for GW to run out of content, I sure tyranids players would get a kick out of there Faction identity being used in such a way.

You have splinter fleets and other infiltration themes to put them in other parts of the galaxy as well, so I don’t think it would really be that hard to do once they get a format down.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 15:48:07


Post by: Sim-Life


Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


A galaxy is huge, so the Tyranids could eat up planets indefinitely and G wouldn’t run out.


Which is exactly the problem with 40k. They just invent whatever, whenever so there's no stakes. Nothing is at risk because whenever an NPC faction like nids they pull out some gak like:
The Flubbrish spinter fleet enters the Muftymoo Sector and consume the Space Giraffe's homeworld. Nothing is heard from the Space Giraffes chapter again.


Yep. Big W for the nids there. All those very important things that weren't at all made up on the spot to make nids sound very scary are sure to have a big impact. Its not like they can just make up a bunch of sectors or space marine chapters to make things sound impressive without actually being impressive.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 16:03:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


They could always have a carnifex beat the crap out of an Avatar of Khaine, that seems to be the goto for making Space Marine Captains sound awesome.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 16:26:34


Post by: Sim-Life


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They could always have a carnifex beat the crap out of an Avatar of Khaine, that seems to be the goto for making Space Marine Captains sound awesome.


Did that not happen? There was fluff involving the Swarmlord that had him send a brood of carnifexes at something to kill it. I can't remember if it was the invasion of Ultramar or something else.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 16:33:16


Post by: Apple fox


 Sim-Life wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


A galaxy is huge, so the Tyranids could eat up planets indefinitely and G wouldn’t run out.


Which is exactly the problem with 40k. They just invent whatever, whenever so there's no stakes. Nothing is at risk because whenever an NPC faction like nids they pull out some gak like:
The Flubbrish spinter fleet enters the Muftymoo Sector and consume the Space Giraffe's homeworld. Nothing is heard from the Space Giraffes chapter again.


Yep. Big W for the nids there. All those very important things that weren't at all made up on the spot to make nids sound very scary are sure to have a big impact. Its not like they can just make up a bunch of sectors or space marine chapters to make things sound impressive without actually being impressive.


In that case, sectors can have a narative, planets can be retaken. Battles can be lost, leading to other planets be put into more difficult to defend positions.
Making the planets important in the narrative.
Stakes, the entire setting has no stakes other than GW running out of plastic to sell or a reason to sell it.
They make stuff up, and then create the story’s that make the planets, sectors and narative have value.
As planets fall, the sector gets more desperate and the narrative of the tyranids advance is pushed.

We as players know that it won’t come for many many years, realistically ever. But that’s the narrative the tyranids have, they can do something with it. Or let 40k be shallow and soulless.

If all you have is big super important super battles, you don’t have anything but a shallow and worthless setting.

Auto correct hates me tonight :,(


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 16:56:40


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They could always have a carnifex beat the crap out of an Avatar of Khaine, that seems to be the goto for making Space Marine Captains sound awesome.


Did that not happen? There was fluff involving the Swarmlord that had him send a brood of carnifexes at something to kill it. I can't remember if it was the invasion of Ultramar or something else.


shush youre not supposed to reveal the fact that the emperor told belisarius cawl to make the Super-Salamanders a special primaris chapter of space marines entirely composed of Avatars of Khaine, secret GW employee forum lurker #58!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 17:02:49


Post by: Gert


The Carnifexes going after an Avatar was during the Siege of Iyanden IIRC. The Avatar was awoken to destroy the Swarmlord, challenged it to single combat, then the Swarmlord threw like 6 Carnifexes at it because the Swarmlord isn't stupid.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 17:06:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Ah, lol.

Sorry, it's hard for me to remember the number of times an Avatar has gotten punk'd by X to prove how cool X was.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 17:16:53


Post by: Gert


It is the only time the Avatar getting wrecked actually makes sense from my memory.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 17:29:22


Post by: Sim-Life


Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


A galaxy is huge, so the Tyranids could eat up planets indefinitely and G wouldn’t run out.


Which is exactly the problem with 40k. They just invent whatever, whenever so there's no stakes. Nothing is at risk because whenever an NPC faction like nids they pull out some gak like:
The Flubbrish spinter fleet enters the Muftymoo Sector and consume the Space Giraffe's homeworld. Nothing is heard from the Space Giraffes chapter again.


Yep. Big W for the nids there. All those very important things that weren't at all made up on the spot to make nids sound very scary are sure to have a big impact. Its not like they can just make up a bunch of sectors or space marine chapters to make things sound impressive without actually being impressive.


In that case, sectors can have a narative, planets can be retaken. Battles can be lost, leading to other planets be put into more difficult to defend positions.
Making the planets important in the narrative.
Stakes, the entire setting has no stakes other than GW running out of plastic to sell or a reason to sell it.
They make stuff up, and then create the story’s that make the planets, sectors and narative have value.
As planets fall, the sector gets more desperate and the narrative of the tyranids advance is pushed.

We as players know that it won’t come for many many years, realistically ever. But that’s the narrative the tyranids have, they can do something with it. Or let 40k be shallow and soulless.

If all you have is big super important super battles, you don’t have anything but a shallow and worthless setting.

Auto correct hates me tonight :,(


Yes, they can do that but they don't. They just throw names no one has ever heard before at things and hope it sounds cool. I'll be honest I don't understand your point and it sounds like you're agreeing with me because GW acts as if all the battles ARE big important battles. Remember Vigilus? I don't. It took me 5 minutes of googling to remember what it was called. It amounted to nothing but was hyped up by GW as a major battle ground but when all was said and done everything returned to the status quo. I'm sure the same will happen once the Octarius supplements rum their course.

And again, why are we even talking about this? What does it have it have to do with the OP?


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 18:42:54


Post by: PenitentJake


I feel like it's up to us at a certain point to take the narrative threads we've been given and decide if we want to make anything of them in our game world.

For example, we've got some factions/ sub-factions that we know are stuck entirely in the Imperium Nihilus. That's cannon.

But if we want to, say limit the amount of Blood Angels that can join an Imperial Onslaught Army consisting of multiple detachments which happens to be fighting in the other half the Imperium, that's gotta be on us through mutual consent with our opponents, because you don't want to be the Blood Angel player who gets excluded from a campaign because of the rift.

If we suddenly decide that after the fall of Cadia, pure Cadian armies become a rarity- there's cannon to support that, but again, the decision to do it has to be on us.

The Ynarri haven't yet assaulted Slaanesh's realm looking to recover the final cronesword in the lore... But GW has set up the story if you want to fight the battle yourself.

I didn't see how the BSF storyline ended because there wasn't enough in the final expansion to compel me to buy it. But Taddius, Pious and Gottfrett all visited my Sisters on the way to the BSF and fought a few small battles with them. Now that the business at the BSF is wrapped up, I expect they'll be returning for a more permanent tour of duty. But again, it was all on me to set that up and make it happen.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 18:58:48


Post by: catbarf


 Sim-Life wrote:
Which is exactly the problem with 40k. They just invent whatever, whenever so there's no stakes. Nothing is at risk because whenever an NPC faction like nids they pull out some gak like:
The Flubbrish spinter fleet enters the Muftymoo Sector and consume the Space Giraffe's homeworld. Nothing is heard from the Space Giraffes chapter again.


Yep. Big W for the nids there. All those very important things that weren't at all made up on the spot to make nids sound very scary are sure to have a big impact. Its not like they can just make up a bunch of sectors or space marine chapters to make things sound impressive without actually being impressive.


If it were in the context of a supplement all about the Muftymoo Sector, or a full length novel about the Space Giraffes, and it ended with the twist that the Tyranids win and the Space Giraffes are wiped out, that might actually be kinda fun and cool.

The problem isn't that GW creates new planets/chapters/etc out of thin air for the sake of stories. That's why the setting is a giant sprawling galaxy in the first place, it's fine. The problem is only mentioning these victories in dry one-sentence off-hand references and expecting anyone to care.

Introduce the newly-invented locales and characters, set them up, characterize them, get us invested in their story, and then when the 'Nids win it has impact. It's not universe stakes, it's narrative stakes that matter.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 19:40:45


Post by: the_scotsman


PenitentJake wrote:
I feel like it's up to us at a certain point to take the narrative threads we've been given and decide if we want to make anything of them in our game world.

For example, we've got some factions/ sub-factions that we know are stuck entirely in the Imperium Nihilus. That's cannon.

But if we want to, say limit the amount of Blood Angels that can join an Imperial Onslaught Army consisting of multiple detachments which happens to be fighting in the other half the Imperium, that's gotta be on us through mutual consent with our opponents, because you don't want to be the Blood Angel player who gets excluded from a campaign because of the rift.

If we suddenly decide that after the fall of Cadia, pure Cadian armies become a rarity- there's cannon to support that, but again, the decision to do it has to be on us.

The Ynarri haven't yet assaulted Slaanesh's realm looking to recover the final cronesword in the lore... But GW has set up the story if you want to fight the battle yourself.

I didn't see how the BSF storyline ended because there wasn't enough in the final expansion to compel me to buy it. But Taddius, Pious and Gottfrett all visited my Sisters on the way to the BSF and fought a few small battles with them. Now that the business at the BSF is wrapped up, I expect they'll be returning for a more permanent tour of duty. But again, it was all on me to set that up and make it happen.


sure, you can. In fact, let's say that we wanted to do just that. Let's take a Ynnari list that includes the three signature ynnari characters and make up a quick narrative battle with them invading the realm of slaanesh. it's narrative, so I'm gonna use power levels.

Masque of Slaanesh 5
Shalaxi Hellbane 13
Keeper of Secrets 12
30x daemonettes 12
30x daemonettes 12
30x daemonettes 12
Hellflayer 4
10 seekers 10
10 seekers 10
5 fiends 10


vs

Visarch 5
10x wyches 6
10x incubi 8
5x hellions 4
Raider 6
Raider 6

Yncarne 15
Yvraine 6
5 rangers 3
10 Windriders 11
10 Windriders 11
10 Shining Spears 15
Vyper 3

OK. these seem like fairly fluffy, fairly light, not WAAC list setups I would assume. But here's the problem: let's say I, as a fluffy narrative player, think that a slaaneshi daemon crone world would probably be a fairly open, blasted landscape, devastated by the ravages of chaos in the eons since the fall of the eldar, I set up a few rocks, a couple shattered eldar spires, the one webway gate Yvraine's forces will be popping out of, maybe a few twisted plants and stuff for Dense Cover but it's not going to be an urban cityscape, I want a cool narrative battle on an open field where the eldar and daemons are clashing in a lightning strike with epic character battles to the backdrop of these large armies kind of going at each other.

The eldar player deploys pretty far back, clustered around the webway portal as that's where the Ynnari forces would be charging onto the battlefield from, and also tactically they know the slaaneshi forces are quite fast, so theyre not going to deploy right on up on the deployment line. The slaanesh daemons win the roll to go first, and basically they advance up the battlefield, try to make some long charges, but they fail.

the Eldar forces leap out of their transports - this is the exact epic clash of armies the players wanted! the wyches line up to square off against some daemonettes and yvraine and the Masque of Slaanesh line up for an epic character duel, the hellions move up to attack some seekers, the shining spears and Yncarne move towards a keeper of secrets and the Visarch and his Incubi face off against Shallaxi Hellbane.

Shooting from the 20 windriders kills 30 daemonettes. Shooting from the wyches, hellions, and vyper kills another 21 daemonettes. OK, fifty daemonettes down in one shooting phase, that's a little high, but now it's the charge phase, this is the exciting part!

The incubi use the 'hated enemy' stratagem to reroll wounds against Shallaxi Hellbane. But shallaxi causes -1 to hit AND -1 to wound, so they'll need to wound on a SIX, and they deal...oh, 20 damage on average. BUT WAIT, she ignores wounds on a 6, so she only takes... 16. Ok, Shallaxi is dead, that's the first activation, warlord killed I guess.

the slaanesh player won't be caught out like that again, no sir, they select their other keeper of secrets to seek vengeance against the shining spears! 6/10 die from the snapping claws and witstealer sword

10 wyches now fight 30 daemonettes - they rolled 2 combat drugs and got +1A +1S, so that's...oh, yep, 17 dead, we're down to 24 daemonettes total out of the 90 we started the turn with.

the seekers are selected now, and the ynnari player just picks the hellions up off the table, they know they're done.

Oh but now it's time for the epic character duel between Yvraine and the dreaded Masque of Slaanesh! How will it go??? The masque's unique defensive aura causes even the strongest duellists to falter, -1 to all hit rolls vs nearby daemonettes...but, oh, Yvraine's got SfD on now, so she's still hitting on 2s. And also +1A and +1S. She gets 4 wounds and the masque dies.

The Shining Spears attack, dealing their expected 7 damage, but the Yncarne actually gets lucky - not that lucky, but he gets 3 unsaved wounds instead of the expected 2. So that's a dead KoS (this is the first time I've projected damage that isn't the average rounded to the nearest 1)

the remaining daemonettes strike back, slaying the 10 wyches, and in the resulting morale phase both daemonette squads are under 1/2 strength so 16/90 daemonettes remain.

One single turn, 60/100 power level has been removed from the table, and this is I'll remind our "AA will fix everything" crowd, very close to Alternating Activation 40k - because the Slaanesh forces were always on fight first, so the combat phase was truly alternating. the daemons took LESS damage by being able to remove 6/10 spears and the hellions.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/02 20:29:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


But the_scotsman, you forgot that you're playing crusade!

You just have to spin a narrative yarn about how the assembled army of slaanesh daemons evaporated nine seconds after the Eldar came out of the webway gate and it's now fun and engaging gameplay!


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 14:25:27


Post by: PenitentJake


The scenario you describe is problematic, to be sure.

Here's how I'd handle it:

We know Slaanesh's realm is built in six concentric circles, and that each offers a specific vice to tempt invaders off the path that will carry them deeper into the realm. We also know that Slaanesh is likely to keep an artifact as valuable as the Cronesword at the center of the realm, though vanity might prevent the master of excess from hiding the prize within that central realm. Finally, we know that Slaanesh covets the Aedlari dead, and that this realm will be a grave to many, and a terror to any who invade.

So you have six realms to cross; each includes a Theatre of War designed to reflect the temptation offered by that particular realm. This likely manifests as a psychological malaise that interferes with the combat prowess of invaders, and/ or somewhat bolsters the defenders. Within each realm are remains of eldar heroes that serve as objectives. Eldar units that reach these objectives and perform an action to meditate upon them gain an immunity to the psychological oppression of the Theatre of War.

The Eldar player must win a game in the first ring in order to proceed to the second, and so on. A daemon victory holds the Eldar raiding force in place. I might also invent a scenario that allows the Daemon player to expel the raiders from the realm.

I'd Crusade it. I'd build an onslaught roster for the Eldar team, but games for the campaign would still start at 25PL + 5RP as standard. All Eldar Units for any battle must be chosen from the Onslaught Roster. Which ring of the realm each unit occupies is tracked, and only units that have advanced to a particular ring may fight within it. So if you start with 25PL; once they break through, you can decide whether your next battle is that same Patrol fighting in the next ring, or whether you try to move a different 25PL force inward from the outside ring to join the forces that broke through in the previous game.

If you want very little terrain because that's what you envision Slaanesh's realm to be, you make the psychological impact of Theatre of War interfere with ranged attacks. Units that manage to meditate with the remains of the dead become immune. It would also be a good idea to design one relic for each ring which can be found by the Eldar via a different action- so your eldar player has a choice: take the immunity to the psychological condition or go fishing for the artifact- or try to stay in place for two turns and do both.

As for advantages to the daemons- I think it would be helpful to create a Slaaneshi fortification or two and make sure that one is placed in every battle. As a limitation though, only forces under the thrall of Slaanesh may be used. I'd probably houserule in Slaangors and build a Slaanesh themed herdstone for one of the realms. I might also incentivize the Daemon forces holding units in reserve. There might be guest appearances by a small EC themed warband of CSM in particular realms as well.

I guess that my point is YOU are building this scenario, because GW hasn't written one that tells that story. If you don't want to use terrain to limit the ranged firepower of the invaders, there are other tools available to you. If you choose to use neither terrain, nor Theatres of War to make your custom narrative game interesting, that isn't really on GW, because you are the one designing the scenario/ campaign.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 14:32:09


Post by: Slipspace


PenitentJake wrote:

I guess that my point is YOU are building this scenario, because GW hasn't written one that tells that story. If you don't want to use terrain to limit the ranged firepower of the invaders, there are other tools available to you. If you choose to use neither terrain, nor Theatres of War to make your custom narrative game interesting, that isn't really on GW, because you are the one designing the scenario/ campaign.

I disagree with this point. A well-designed game offers the flexibility to run different types of games in different terrain set-ups without having to house rule anything. There will likely be a minimum level of terrain required but if you need to saturate the table with terrain to make it playable that's a design flaw, especially when it's not very specifically called out as a requirement in the core rules.

The scenario put forward doesn't even hinge completely on the lack of terrain. It also highlights how ridiculously lethal close combat can be as well. If your response to any criticism about the game is "just change the rules to suit" all you're doing is highlighting how bad the core rules are.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 16:04:01


Post by: PenitentJake


Slipspace wrote:

I disagree with this point.


As is your right, but some context might be helpful. Conversation meanders on Dakka, slipping off topic in places and picking it up in others.

So the post you quoted is part of one of those turns in the path. Sim-Life and Applefox started an interesting side conversation about fixed universe events, and setting vs. story concepts. The complaint was that GW hasn't actually cannonized story events that severely impact one faction, or a group of factions, because the status quo needs to be maintained in order to allow people to continue using models they purchased in games taking place in the "Now" of the timeline. Here are some selections from the tangent:

Spoiler:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
In fairness that's a problem with the scale of 40k's universe. Nids can't win any significant conflict because if they do then by the nature of their fluff they'll snowball and kill everything. At the same time nids eating Planet Noname XVI isn't exactly a big win because random planets get eaten/destroyed/exploded all the time in 40k.

Honestly I don't know why they didn't have them win the Devestation of Baal, it was the right time for fluff shake ups, the star system is garbage so they couldn't use it as a staging ground to snowball and its it not like Space Marines NEED their home planets for anything.


A galaxy is huge, so the Tyranids could eat up planets indefinitely and G wouldn’t run out.


Which is exactly the problem with 40k. They just invent whatever, whenever so there's no stakes. Nothing is at risk because whenever an NPC faction like nids they pull out some gak like:
The Flubbrish spinter fleet enters the Muftymoo Sector and consume the Space Giraffe's homeworld. Nothing is heard from the Space Giraffes chapter again.


Yep. Big W for the nids there. All those very important things that weren't at all made up on the spot to make nids sound very scary are sure to have a big impact. Its not like they can just make up a bunch of sectors or space marine chapters to make things sound impressive without actually being impressive.


In that case, sectors can have a narative, planets can be retaken. Battles can be lost, leading to other planets be put into more difficult to defend positions.
Making the planets important in the narrative.
Stakes, the entire setting has no stakes other than GW running out of plastic to sell or a reason to sell it.
They make stuff up, and then create the story’s that make the planets, sectors and narative have value.
As planets fall, the sector gets more desperate and the narrative of the tyranids advance is pushed.

We as players know that it won’t come for many many years, realistically ever. But that’s the narrative the tyranids have, they can do something with it. Or let 40k be shallow and soulless.

If all you have is big super important super battles, you don’t have anything but a shallow and worthless setting.

Auto correct hates me tonight :,(


Yes, they can do that but they don't. They just throw names no one has ever heard before at things and hope it sounds cool. I'll be honest I don't understand your point and it sounds like you're agreeing with me because GW acts as if all the battles ARE big important battles. Remember Vigilus? I don't. It took me 5 minutes of googling to remember what it was called. It amounted to nothing but was hyped up by GW as a major battle ground but when all was said and done everything returned to the status quo. I'm sure the same will happen once the Octarius supplements rum their course.

And again, why are we even talking about this? What does it have it have to do with the OP?


My response was that I understand why GW can't official disturb the status quo, but they create story hooks that allow us to do it on our own, with our own groups of like-minded players. But WE have to take responsibility for that, because if any of it became official, it would alienate large chunks of the playerbase. The recovery of the Cronesword from Slaanesh's realm was one example I posted.

Scotsman, who has a real hankering for narrative matches, and a real knack for coming up with fluffy ideas, picked up the Slaanesh ball and ran with it. Being a skillful poster, he also bent it back to the OP by pointing out that terrain could be an issue in the scenario, because parts of Slaanesh's realm ARE described as open meadows. I suggested Theatres of War as a non-Terrain based solution to lethality.

This is a suggestion I have made to Scotsman before. He described a battle on Fenris, and he and his opponent both agreed that Fenris was not thematically suited to the dense urban terrain that could otherwise have been used to mitigate lethality. I pointed out that snowstorms ARE thematically suited to Fenris, and could address lethality in lieu of terrain.

There we go. Context established.

Slipspace wrote:

A well-designed game offers the flexibility to run different types of games in different terrain set-ups without having to house rule anything.


I brought houserules into my post because we were in the context of special narrative scenarios to begin with- We were discussing a key battle which would move the Ynarri narrative thread forward from where GW left it after Blood of the Phoenix. I suggested that for me personally, one battle wouldn't accurately convey the magnitude of the story event, so I'd make a campaign out of it.

Theatres of War are not necessarily house rules. If you want to avoid houseruling- and there are many great reasons to do so- you can simply find a Theatre of War that suits your needs and use it as written. If you have Pariah, it is the best source for Theatres of War from the PA series. If you don't, White Dwarf is full of them. They are not houserules.

Slipspace wrote:

There will likely be a minimum level of terrain required


I think that this is Scotsman's specific point though- the narrative of some games does not fit with the minimum guidelines. And to be fair to everyone here, GW's terrain guidelines this edition could have been stronger. The book actually falls short of saying "Completely fill one quarter of the table with terrain, including a balance of all Keyworded terrain types, then distribute this terrain across the table as you see fit." This is a guideline that has been used in previous editions, but it tends to work.

The difficulty for Scotsman is that the height restrictions on Obscuring and Dense mean that terrain that is guaranteed to include those keywords isn't appropriate to every battlefield. Now I don't have access to my BRB ATM, so I'm not sure how it's worded- If it says all terrain 5" or taller is Obscuring, that doesn't prevent players from assigning Obscuring to terrain that is less than 5" tall should they choose to do so. If on the other hand, it says terrain MUST be 5" tall to confer obscuring, that's a different story, and it compounds Scotsman's trouble.

Slipspace wrote:

but if you need to saturate the table with terrain to make it playable that's a design flaw, especially when it's not very specifically called out as a requirement in the core rules.


As described above, I think the actual problem that we're addressing isn't that it's necessary to saturate the table with terrain, it's that some of the most useful terrain Keywords typically apply to pieces of terrain that don't fit the narrative needs of certain battles.

Slipspace wrote:

The scenario put forward doesn't even hinge completely on the lack of terrain. It also highlights how ridiculously lethal close combat can be as well. If your response to any criticism about the game is "just change the rules to suit" all you're doing is highlighting how bad the core rules are.


"Change the rules to suit what you are doing" isn't MY response to criticism- it's GW's design philosophy for 9th and to a lesser extent, 8th. It's why there are 3 ways to play. It's why there are four sizes of game. It's why there are typically more datasheets per faction than you will ever use in any one game. It's why there are dozens of published Theatres of War in White Dwarf and Campaign books. It's why Crusade doesn't proscribe a single campaign paradigm in the core Crusade rules, but instead provides different campaign paradigms in a variety of supplemental resources.

I understand that some people want a game that you can just open up a box and play, but for many of us, what makes 40k interesting is that it ISN"T that. Some of us really like world building/ campaign building/ scenario writing. If the game didn't give us opportunities and tools to do that, it would just be any other game. Smoother, more balanced, easier to play on the go... But more limited in possibilities.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 16:16:20


Post by: catbarf


PenitentJake wrote:
I understand that some people want a game that you can just open up a box and play, but for many of us, what makes 40k interesting is that it ISN"T that. Some of us really like world building/ campaign building/ scenario writing. If the game didn't give us opportunities and tools to do that, it would just be any other game. Smoother, more balanced, easier to play on the go... But more limited in possibilities.


I don't see how a reduction in the currently excessive level of lethality would limit your 'opportunities' or 'possibilities'.

Nor why a game requiring you to patch over its rules in order to make scenarios work is a positive. Good games are ones where you don't have to start inventing houserules in order to keep the game functional.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 16:31:32


Post by: the_scotsman


Slipspace wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

I guess that my point is YOU are building this scenario, because GW hasn't written one that tells that story. If you don't want to use terrain to limit the ranged firepower of the invaders, there are other tools available to you. If you choose to use neither terrain, nor Theatres of War to make your custom narrative game interesting, that isn't really on GW, because you are the one designing the scenario/ campaign.

I disagree with this point. A well-designed game offers the flexibility to run different types of games in different terrain set-ups without having to house rule anything. There will likely be a minimum level of terrain required but if you need to saturate the table with terrain to make it playable that's a design flaw, especially when it's not very specifically called out as a requirement in the core rules.

The scenario put forward doesn't even hinge completely on the lack of terrain. It also highlights how ridiculously lethal close combat can be as well. If your response to any criticism about the game is "just change the rules to suit" all you're doing is highlighting how bad the core rules are.


Yeah, let's say I decided on a game-wide rule that grants EVERY slaanesh unit light cover - whoops, that doesn't work, Light Cover doesn't even interact with daemons at all.

....OK, maybe I give them all the most cover protection that the core rules allow for, maybe I give every unit on the board Dense cover AND Light cover, always on all the time.

I um....so here's the thing...

...I was INCLUDING the masque of Slaanesh's '-1 to hit daemonettes' on ALL the shooting attacks the eldar units made against the daemonettes. I assumed PERFECT battlefield positioning, and NEGATIVE TO-HIT MODS ARE CAPPED, so even THAT doesn't alter the scenario, literally at all.

This is the problem. Right here. The core rules limit my freedom as a custom fluff-lovin' narrative-forgin' story teller so much by every unit statline being so hilariously lethal and every modifier having such a heavy cap at literally just -1 that you've essentially got two options

1) Strip away all the strategy layer crap. Just get rid of it. Army bonuses, doctrines, stratagems, traits, relics everything, just throw it out. This makes it a little bit easier to make a narrative that actually feels like a narrative. Pair with a good solid mission design, a much bigger than the minimum size board and generous terrain, and you've almost got the capability to tell some kind of interesting story where a fight between two characters might just go more than one single swing by one person

2) Basically completely change the core rules of the game in order to allow for a functional narrative game.

I recently did this with pretty good success with a Drukhari wych cult arena battle mission I did with my buddy. I altered the following:

-All drukhari units fight first (allowing the two players to have an alternating age of sigmar style melee combat phase, and then neutral units go after all drukhari units have gone)

-All 'sergeant' units and characters fight prior to any units fighting, and they roll to hit and wound each other simultaneously. Unsaved wounds done by one optionally cancel out the unsaved wounds caused by the other

-1000pts start on the battlefield battle round 1, battle round 2 each player gains a pre-made mercenary unit (incubi, scourges, harlequins, a solitaire, or mandrakes, all set to roughly equivalent points values) and battle round 3 remaining 500pts enters on the board

-Power from Pain uses the old 'pain token' system rather than going by battle round - so each unit friend or foe destroyed within 3" of a unit generates a Pain Token and gives them the rule equal to the # of tokens they have

-removed all subfactions, stratagems, relics, traits, and blade artists because feth that fiddly ass rule.

Like at a certain point, sure, I'm having a great time, and the game functions far better than any 9th ed game i've played recently, but at what point am I not even playing 9th ed anymore? How many boards I gotta replace before I can say It's My Boat, I Stole It From That Theseus Guy Fair And Square?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I understand that some people want a game that you can just open up a box and play, but for many of us, what makes 40k interesting is that it ISN"T that. Some of us really like world building/ campaign building/ scenario writing. If the game didn't give us opportunities and tools to do that, it would just be any other game. Smoother, more balanced, easier to play on the go... But more limited in possibilities.


I don't see how a reduction in the currently excessive level of lethality would limit your 'opportunities' or 'possibilities'.

Nor why a game requiring you to patch over its rules in order to make scenarios work is a positive. Good games are ones where you don't have to start inventing houserules in order to keep the game functional.


Yeah, again another quick little reminder - you can do this with Age of Sigmar. You can create as zany a scenario as you want, there are LOTS of rules...

...but if you just want to show a friend how to play, you can throw miniatues down on an empty table, 24" apart, and you get something out of it that at least resembles "a game" and not "a single turn of competitive manual tax filing where one player puts all their miniatures away a unit at a time."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote:
Slipspace wrote:



I think that this is Scotsman's specific point though- the narrative of some games does not fit with the minimum guidelines. And to be fair to everyone here, GW's terrain guidelines this edition could have been stronger. The book actually falls short of saying "Completely fill one quarter of the table with terrain, including a balance of all Keyworded terrain types, then distribute this terrain across the table as you see fit." This is a guideline that has been used in previous editions, but it tends to work.

The difficulty for Scotsman is that the height restrictions on Obscuring and Dense mean that terrain that is guaranteed to include those keywords isn't appropriate to every battlefield. Now I don't have access to my BRB ATM, so I'm not sure how it's worded- If it says all terrain 5" or taller is Obscuring, that doesn't prevent players from assigning Obscuring to terrain that is less than 5" tall should they choose to do so. If on the other hand, it says terrain MUST be 5" tall to confer obscuring, that's a different story, and it compounds Scotsman's trouble.


obscuring is a trait that appears on some types of terrain (e.g. Ruins, but not Sector Mechanicus terrain) which only kicks in IF the individual terrain piece is 5" tall. Ditto for Dense, but with 3". You can have a piece that is a Forest, but if it's 2.5" tall, it just...does nothing. It's got the trait that prevents you from climbing on top of it, and Dense but dense doesnt do anything.

RAW, even if you stacked up a triple-high zone mortalis setup, it wouldn't kick in as ZM individual pieces are only 3" tall.



Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 16:58:54


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

I disagree with this point.


I understand that some people want a game that you can just open up a box and play, but for many of us, what makes 40k interesting is that it ISN"T that. Some of us really like world building/ campaign building/ scenario writing. If the game didn't give us opportunities and tools to do that, it would just be any other game. Smoother, more balanced, easier to play on the go... But more limited in possibilities.


This is a bad take and I'm going to assume you miscommunicated your point.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 17:31:10


Post by: Unit1126PLL


PenitentJake wrote:
I understand that some people want a game that you can just open up a box and play, but for many of us, what makes 40k interesting is that it ISN"T that. Some of us really like world building/ campaign building/ scenario writing. If the game didn't give us opportunities and tools to do that, it would just be any other game. Smoother, more balanced, easier to play on the go... But more limited in possibilities.


Think of a game as a giant machine (it has mechanics after all).

Playing the game is running your armies through the machine and seeing what pops out the end.

In this metaphor, there are two ways a narrative designer can interact with the machine:
1) Pull levers on the existing machine to change bits and bobs of it.
2) Build entirely new parts of the machine (sometimes by cannibalizing from other parts!) from scratch.

It is superior game design to offer (1), as (2) is only a step or two removed from just rebuilding the entire machine (game) from scratch - and is actually harder than doing so, because repurposing existing mechanics is a greater hurdle than just scratching together your own from the ground up. There's no guarantee of balance, there's no guarantee the players will have fun (unless you're one of the players yourself, which poses a whole 'NOTHER set of problems...). Most importantly, there's no money in it - I'm paying GW over $100 for the gamut of their rules just to play my army, and probably up to $400 if I slavishly bought every campaign book that they will ever release this edition (Octarius 1 was $60 by itself).

If I am paying $400 for a machine, I don't expect to have to take it home and rebuild it to make it function. A well-designed $400 game will have all kinds of fun levers and stuff I can pull to adjust things WITHOUT making me rebuild them by cannibalizing other machine-parts and forcing them to fit into a new narrative context.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 17:51:18


Post by: Galas


I just like my models to survive and do more stuff. Doing stuff is fun. And I can feel like I'm killing stuff without having to kill half my opponent army.

In a 1vs1vs1 game of MESBG a week ago, one of my Corsair of Umbar survived 3 rounds of combat with his single attack agaisnt:
1-Aragorn Strider with Anduriel
2- Dunedain ranger
3- Dunedain Ranger

My opponents just laughed about it and we named him Jack Sparrow. He survived the rest of the game because my opponent just stopped trying to kill it after that humiliation.

In 9th that kind of stuff don't happen anymore. Units are so lethal but individually so irrelevant than when in those examples were 1-2 models survive they don't matter.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 18:03:14


Post by: Voss


PenitentJake wrote:
I feel like it's up to us at a certain point to take the narrative threads we've been given and decide if we want to make anything of them in our game world.

For example, we've got some factions/ sub-factions that we know are stuck entirely in the Imperium Nihilus. That's cannon.

But if we want to, say limit the amount of Blood Angels that can join an Imperial Onslaught Army consisting of multiple detachments which happens to be fighting in the other half the Imperium, that's gotta be on us through mutual consent with our opponents, because you don't want to be the Blood Angel player who gets excluded from a campaign because of the rift.

If we suddenly decide that after the fall of Cadia, pure Cadian armies become a rarity- there's cannon to support that, but again, the decision to do it has to be on us.

The Ynarri haven't yet assaulted Slaanesh's realm looking to recover the final cronesword in the lore... But GW has set up the story if you want to fight the battle yourself.

I didn't see how the BSF storyline ended because there wasn't enough in the final expansion to compel me to buy it. But Taddius, Pious and Gottfrett all visited my Sisters on the way to the BSF and fought a few small battles with them. Now that the business at the BSF is wrapped up, I expect they'll be returning for a more permanent tour of duty. But again, it was all on me to set that up and make it happen.


I don't think these serve as positive examples of the point you're trying to make.
Certainly 'don't exclude players because 'canon'' ​doesn't.
​ That just says canon is a pointless obstacle to play.

Whoever Tad, Pious and Gott are... um? If I was playing you, I can't figure out why I'd care how you 'set up' having them in your armies. If they're valid imperial allies, just take them, its fine.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 19:30:47


Post by: the_scotsman


 Galas wrote:
I just like my models to survive and do more stuff. Doing stuff is fun. And I can feel like I'm killing stuff without having to kill half my opponent army.

In a 1vs1vs1 game of MESBG a week ago, one of my Corsair of Umbar survived 3 rounds of combat with his single attack agaisnt:
1-Aragorn Strider with Anduriel
2- Dunedain ranger
3- Dunedain Ranger

My opponents just laughed about it and we named him Jack Sparrow. He survived the rest of the game because my opponent just stopped trying to kill it after that humiliation.

In 9th that kind of stuff don't happen anymore. Units are so lethal but individually so irrelevant than when in those examples were 1-2 models survive they don't matter.


Aw man, this reminds me of a game of 7e where I had a dark eldar/eldar allied list, and I had a single surviving Storm Guardian with a melta gun team up with a single surviving Kabalite with a blaster and they formed a buddy-cop duo in turns 4, 5 and 6 of the game. That just doesnt happen anymore.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 19:55:32


Post by: macluvin


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I just like my models to survive and do more stuff. Doing stuff is fun. And I can feel like I'm killing stuff without having to kill half my opponent army.

In a 1vs1vs1 game of MESBG a week ago, one of my Corsair of Umbar survived 3 rounds of combat with his single attack agaisnt:
1-Aragorn Strider with Anduriel
2- Dunedain ranger
3- Dunedain Ranger

My opponents just laughed about it and we named him Jack Sparrow. He survived the rest of the game because my opponent just stopped trying to kill it after that humiliation.

In 9th that kind of stuff don't happen anymore. Units are so lethal but individually so irrelevant than when in those examples were 1-2 models survive they don't matter.


Aw man, this reminds me of a game of 7e where I had a dark eldar/eldar allied list, and I had a single surviving Storm Guardian with a melta gun team up with a single surviving Kabalite with a blaster and they formed a buddy-cop duo in turns 4, 5 and 6 of the game. That just doesnt happen anymore.


This reminds me of a time in 7th when I deepstriked a squad of terminators that scattered right in the open of the kill zone of an entire army of tau and necrons and ate an entire round of shooting from both. They passed all their armor saves (like 30 of them) and a template weapon fired at them scattered on to a tau transport and blew it up.

I imagined a hail of bullets plinking off their armor with the shrill whistle of a mortar flying from the sky only to richochet off the terminator shoulder pad, and a cool explosion in the back ground. Followed by a grunted/hissed “Yes!” By the terminator aspiring champion... good game. I still lost XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It was over 120 shots that were fired at those termis...


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 20:42:35


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Galas wrote:
I just like my models to survive and do more stuff. Doing stuff is fun. And I can feel like I'm killing stuff without having to kill half my opponent army.

In a 1vs1vs1 game of MESBG a week ago, one of my Corsair of Umbar survived 3 rounds of combat with his single attack agaisnt:
1-Aragorn Strider with Anduriel
2- Dunedain ranger
3- Dunedain Ranger

My opponents just laughed about it and we named him Jack Sparrow. He survived the rest of the game because my opponent just stopped trying to kill it after that humiliation.

In 9th that kind of stuff don't happen anymore. Units are so lethal but individually so irrelevant than when in those examples were 1-2 models survive they don't matter.


Well, I had a Plague Champion survive against a blob of 10 Necron Warriors for 4 rounds of combat and that was before the new Codex so he had just one wound . He also managed to kill some of the damn robots, though as usual they were resurrected afterwards.


Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question @ 2021/11/03 21:11:15


Post by: Dysartes


Voss wrote:
Whoever Tad, Pious and Gott are... um? If I was playing you, I can't figure out why I'd care how you 'set up' having them in your armies. If they're valid imperial allies, just take them, its fine.

Pretty sure Jake is referring to the three Ministorum characters from Blackstone Fortress (and/or expansions).